It is not raw impartial data, not that that’s REALLY possible in constructing history, but certainly worthy of the attempt.

That had to be some kind of neo-nestorian stuff.

What eras are you talking about here? Fall of constantiple was 1483 officially thanks to Sultan whats-his-face, who introduced a new brand of Islam that didn’t exist before: a “back to basics” similar to Protestant “back to basics” that started happening a century or so later…

…So if you’re speaking of post 1483, I might buy your argument but as soon as I hear nestorian christian, I just had to shake my head ’cause that was 1000+ years prior to that 21 yr old Sultan.

==

It is not raw impartial data, not that that’s REALLY possible in constructing history, but certainly worthy of the attempt.

He has a stance. He works backwards to collect evidence enough to support his claims. Then he builds a case forward to support his stance.

So, this raises my skeptical flags immediately. I’ll talk to YOU about it, but not watch a documentary or a video showing proofs.

==

Scientific method does not work well with history. Scientists are notoriously bad historians.

And yes, I want your opinion and commentary. I want it filtered through a human brain who researched, saw this stuff, thought about it, came to conclusions.

THEN, if his impact on YOU seems reasonable enough, I might consider going more deeply into it.

==

I went to a school (Hampshire College, Amherst MA, never finished), that had a strong film dept. They taught people how to make documentaries.

I didn’t go to those classes but my friends did.

Do you know the easiest people to manipulate and convince? Intellectuals. Academics. That’s why I prefer to go through people and their interpretations first and THEN go back. Maybe then I can skip the documentary and go straight to the source data myself.

==

I also find psychology more fascinating and “people patterns” than I do things like evidence/certainty/proofs. This is my bias of interest.So, I can ALSO judge truth-values via way the person I’m talking to expresses him/herself, what “personality type” seems to be prevalent, and all of these are additional datapoints that I use in discerning truth-value.
==
 Past experience primarily. The way someone expresses themselves in words. The issues as they are utilized in rhetoric. Are they hot-button issues? What else do I know about the political stance of the person I’m talking do?In short, context of the argument. I don’t think anything can be isolated and studied outside of its environment, including human communication.
==
 It’s very easy to fool someone with truths. I look at the man’s website. His mission. What he stands for. His apparent goals.These things are important for me to determine if I even want to listen to him. Some experts aren’t worth listening to. Some are. For me, bias in historical accounts is very important to me to determine and of course all historical accounts have bias.But from a starting point of THE SECRET THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW…. that’s starting off on a very bad foot.So, I want to step back a little and talk to the people who want me to see this thing.
==
 
Doesn’t mean I won’t ever watch another one, but I have a ‘thing’ about documentaries attempting to “prove” something to me.
Get lost in their maze of logic and evidence and at the end, you’re looking at a single possibility with no other available options.But have you heard of the distinction between Accuracy and Precision?My bias is here: A high precision argument can be low accuracy. The more facts and evidence doesn’t necessarily bolster or necessitate a conclusion.Given a choice of two errors, I err on the side of “High accuracy, low precision”. It’s closer to the bullseye.But High precision and low accuracy means missing the bulleye completely.
==
  This is not to say I won’t listen to arguments, because I will. I know my history and I will defend it. I will also accept corrections to my view of history. But not lightly.
==
  Nothing. You’re free to believe something if you like. You’re trying to change my view of history. I have a strong knowledge of Byzantine history, the movements of peoples, their relationship with the Latin West.I was a member of the Eastern Orthodox church for 5 yrs in my 20s. Total convertitis. Not part of it now.But anyway, you had me in the beginning and I’m willing to listen to you, but not that guy who has a career out of convincing people of his opinion.You talk to me first. If you can’t put his words into your OWN words, then why would I expect him to convince me?
==
 I’ve read it several times. It’s a book. Islam is a culture and a people and have a history. Can’t construct Islam out of the Koran. It’s a supporting document for a people.
==
  My mother was married to an Egyptian Muslim in the early 1980s. She got to go to Egypt. for a month. She even kept his name (Bekheet).I never held any grudge against Islam nor have I had any reason to.
==
It’s a book of words. Poetry. So is the Bible.
What people DO WITH IT, is something different.
If they enact them into a LAW, instead of spiritual guidance, and then make it POLITICAL, _then_ we have something we can talk about.
==
 let’s say all source documents burn. Bibles. Korans. Internet is wrecked.But people remember stuff and continue living their lives.That’s how I view humanity
==
  The opportunity you’re EACH MISSING HERE, is that you *can* sell it to me. I’m willing to listen. To you guys.
==
 I was raised Methodist. Went through a bunch of interesting Christian things, including Quaker, Unitarian (semi Christian), Episcopal, along with some New Age, Buddhism, made good friends with an Imam and a Rabbi, all between the ages of 17-24. Jumped onto the Eastern Orthodox ship, spent a little time in a monastery in South Carolina (all from Tenn but in a Russian Orthodox monastery – cool ppl), had to come home to take care of my grandmother, went Mr. Science for 10 yrs and now I’m Agnostic.Most of the theology I studied was Christian. Islamic specifics weren’t that interesting to me although I looked into the Sufi for a little bit, and I did make comparisons of the worship styles within Islam and Eastern Orthodox because they are very similar in some ways, as the religions each grew up in the same part of the world.But why the Koran used the Bible? I dunno. Why did the books of the New Testament refer to the Jewish books? Why did Joseph Smith refer to the Bible when he wrote the Book of Mormon?Continuity. That’s all.
==
 The reason for inclusion in the USA is because it’s by default. Any arguments for exclusion have to be very strong to utilize a religious basis for exclusion when religious inclusion is a founding part of the separation of Church and State.So, inclusion is default. That’s all.
==
 Oh I don’t agree or disagree as of yet, Mike. I have an open mind. I just see more or less how things are the way they are at present.Maybe you can present a good case for justifying it. You started making one. I’m still listening. [just don’t point me to any documentaries]
==
If I was to go back to Christianndom, I would starting going back to the Orthodox. Methodist “didn’t have enough candles” growing up. Roman Catholic was an “almost” but they were too scatterbrained.I never officially left the Orthodox. I was chrismated approximately 20/21 years ago, around this time. I might even join a monastery if things fall apart in life because I know I’ll always have a home in one – any one of them.
==
  There’s an issue at present with that. In the early 7th century BC, there was still a united set of Churches. It wasn’t perfect; Even by that point, the Latin West was starting to veer off its own way, having its own problems.But the eastern churches didn’t kick them out, just corrected them when necessary.Constantiple was the main seat of the Church at that point – actually, it was the council of churches.So, if there *was* funding going in the 7th century, it’s not likely it would’ve gone straight through old Rome. They were in kind of a crappy financial place at that point in time. All the money was in the East by then and most of the power.
==
 Also, Rys was illerate at that point. It was the Greeks who brought language (and the church) to Rys, much later than the 7th century.
==
 Ok. That would’ve been post 1000 AD. The final split between East and West wasn’t REALLY firm until the council of florence in 1480 or whenever but they did start going their own way at the point of the Great Schism.So, what you’re describing would have had to have happened between approximately 1050-1480 AD, during the time of the Crusades and beyond to the death blown of Byzantium under Mehmet 2. (I finally remembered his name)
==
  I’ll agree about the ebb+fow and the Byzantine falling earlier — There was approximately 200 yrs of occupation before the final takeover and that really awful dude came in and decided to re-write Islam altogether… and even before that, there were troubles between Islam and Constantinope but the form of Islam at that point WAS the cultural Islam, complete with all of its complexities.The form of Islam introduced by Mehmet 2 was something brand new on the world scene.
==
 Here is how I view Islam:
There is Islam, which was a religious and cultural phenomenon that lasted from its beginnings up through Mehmet 2.
Then, when Mehmet 2 threw out the Christians altogether and converted the churches to mosques and decided to go “By The Book”…. THAT’S when a different Islam came on the world stage.Islam the 1st was organic. Mehmet brought in something different that did not have, in my mind, the cultural continuity of the organic Islam because of its strictness and absolutism.Islam was not an absolutist religion in quite the same way until Mehmet 2. What he did changed everything.
==
 I don’t see Mehmet as equivalent to the Justinian II however but that is a connection I really should investigate further so I can learn whether or not I am correct or biased.
==
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_missionary_activity proselytization techniques before the Ottoman empire was not through handing out books, although it was through setting up schools and education. But primarily it was through debates. Much like we’re having here.
==
 Oh their entry for the “Golden Age” is horrendously wrong. They’re crediting NESTORIANS for the knowledge in the Islamic golden age?Man, who wrote this crap. The ancient knowledge was never lost in the first place. It was taught and learned in the Byzantine empire.The reason why the Islamics had this knoweldge available is because their cultures intermixed and intertwined freely thanks to trade. Byzantium was very cosmopolitan as was much of the Islamic areas.It was only Europe that had turned to crap at this time.This sounds like BBC history. They’re always trying to wipe out the influence of Byzantium and credit someone else and they seem to want to keep alive the ridiculous notion of SOME KIND of “Dark ages” of lost knowledge.Such horseshit. BBC is really rewriting history.

==
I’m glad you watched it for me in a way. I trust your judgement even if I may or may not agree with your conclusions at times tongue emoticonI first want to get a feel for the “lay of the land”. When I see an extreme position, especially a THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING view, I proceed with caution. I used to get thrown to-and-fro whenever some blazing-new Quantum physics experiment would “change everything” only to find out that it didn’t change a thing.So, I’ve learned to be VERY wary of hyperbole.
==
  I’m not studied enough to know. I was always told that. I was always taught that Islam is a religion of violence yet outside of some radicals, I never saw evidence of it myself.As far as Chritianity goes, I don’t put the actions post Schism as being Christianity per se.This is my bias: There is the time of the Churches, then the Latin split. Then the splits from the splits.I do the same thing with Islam. I see there is Islam. Then there is the Ottoman empire who practiced something called Islam but it was reinvented – a different Islam.

I know it sounds like a weird way to view history, but I look for continuities of peoples and behaviors.

==
 Oh, I do have a secret plan. There’s no name for the ideology I am slowly converting the world to, one person at a time, but it is indeed my mission. Oh yes.
==
 Now, some evidence I accept with less reservation.
21 martyrs beheaded by ISIS on February 14, 2015, who have been inserted into the Coptic Synaxarium, (the book of Saints for the Coptic (oriental) Orthodox Church, are martyrs.
While I am agnostic (and wasn’t ‘in communion with’ the Copts when I -was- Orthodox), nevertheless, these things they take very cautiously and seriously.

These 21 people beheaded were victims of a radical group of people called ISIS and by other names as well, who claim to be holders of Islam but they are not.

Yet, these are people who were killed simply because they were Christian. So this, to me is a big deal, because 1000 years from now, the icon will STILL be copied and repainted by somebody and remembered.

==
 So, in my readings of history, historical continuity is a must. It’s not dusting off a book, reading it and interpreting it.

To me, those people that canonized these 21 ppl are making a stance that for them is for *all time*. No wiggle room. No questions. No doubts. It’s part of their faith. It’s not _mine_ but once you start to see history in 1000 year chunks the world looks a little different.

==

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


6 − = three

Leave a Reply