Pope Francis says atheists can be good

[Malthus]

Here's a recent book on early Islam - interesting if somewhat disjointed reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0307473651/ref=la_B000APEALK_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369331774&sr=1-2

[Barrister]

Here's a recent book on early Islam - interesting if somewhat disjointed reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0307473651/ref=la_B000APEALK_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369331774&sr=1-2

I didn't read that book, but did read another on the birth of Islam.

The problem is a distinct lack of sources for that time period.

[Malthus]

Here's a recent book on early Islam - interesting if somewhat disjointed reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0307473651/ref=la_B000APEALK_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369331774&sr=1-2

I didn't read that book, but did read another on the birth of Islam.

The problem is a distinct lack of sources for that time period.

Yup. According to this author, that's no accident - allegedly, most of the religion was more or less invented a century or so later; the original Muslims were nowhere near as distinct from Jews and Christians as they were later to become, making their ability to appeal to both Jews and Christian minorities like monophysites as a viable alternative to Byzantium a lot more explicable.

[Tamas]

Here's a recent book on early Islam - interesting if somewhat disjointed reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0307473651/ref=la_B000APEALK_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369331774&sr=1-2

hey, thanks!

[The Brain]

Here's a recent book on early Islam -

Wouldn't an old book be better?

[Martinus]

A thread about the Pope being cool gets derailed by Jews. Figures. 

[Grinning_Colossus]

Here's a recent book on early Islam - interesting if somewhat disjointed reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0307473651/ref=la_B000APEALK_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369331774&sr=1-2

This http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Believers-At-Origins-Islam/dp/0674064143 is another good one. It basically says that the early Muslims were a little hazy on whether they were a distinct religion or if Jews and Christians could also be Muslims.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I agree with garbon in part, it isn't really surprising that something very small and obscure 2,000 years ago was the source for some stuff that's global and important today. That's just sort of how history works, and we can think of a lot of stuff like that and then usually pick out a lot of other things that have fallen to the wayside just by quirks of history. If the Persians had successfully invaded Greece for example it's hard to say if guys like Aristotle and others of the great philosophers would be celebrated in the West today. The Persians themselves were a highly educated/learned people and maybe the Renaissance (if we would have ever had a dark ages in this timeline) would celebrate rediscovery in the West of ancient Persian thinkers, who knows.

I do think the old religions that were replaced by Christianity and Islam were not well set up to succeed. I think one of the key reasons both Christianity and Islam "worked" so well is they are naturally evangelizing, and create an strong impetus in the believer to care about converting others, it becomes a mission. The religions themselves are also fundamentally "stronger" precisely because they are basically codes for being "good men" while promising only reward in the afterlife. The pagan religions promised rewards and gifts from random Gods in exchange for rituals and sacrifices and that stuff is easy to lose faith in when it doesn't work a few times and the guys with crosses are kicking your ass.

It's actually interesting to see the development of American Protestantism, which in many ways undermines much of that. American Protestants regularly believe God takes frequent, direct personal action in their lives. They believe prayers are akin to spells that work miracles on demand and all kinds of things that really were not part of early Christianity or even Christianity aside from the weird vein of American Protestantism. Now, that's not to say Christians weren't stupid and superstitious before American Protestantism, but they tended instead to be easily convinced by deceptive monks and such that "miracles" were being worked and there was a framework for this concept of miracles. Further, periodically the higher up authorities in the Church would preach out against that sort of superstitious bullshit, so while it was happening it was never fully accepted doctrine. For many branches of American Protestantism it's basically widely understood and part of doctrine that prayers can work miracles and do pretty much constantly and that any random event in life is 100% ascribable to God's direct hand.

[Barrister]

I agree with garbon in part, it isn't really surprising that something very small and obscure 2,000 years ago was the source for some stuff that's global and important today. That's just sort of how history works, and we can think of a lot of stuff like that and then usually pick out a lot of other things that have fallen to the wayside just by quirks of history. If the Persians had successfully invaded Greece for example it's hard to say if guys like Aristotle and others of the great philosophers would be celebrated in the West today. The Persians themselves were a highly educated/learned people and maybe the Renaissance (if we would have ever had a dark ages in this timeline) would celebrate rediscovery in the West of ancient Persian thinkers, who knows.

I do think the old religions that were replaced by Christianity and Islam were not well set up to succeed. I think one of the key reasons both Christianity and Islam "worked" so well is they are naturally evangelizing, and create an strong impetus in the believer to care about converting others, it becomes a mission. The religions themselves are also fundamentally "stronger" precisely because they are basically codes for being "good men" while promising only reward in the afterlife. The pagan religions promised rewards and gifts from random Gods in exchange for rituals and sacrifices and that stuff is easy to lose faith in when it doesn't work a few times and the guys with crosses are kicking your ass.

It's actually interesting to see the development of American Protestantism, which in many ways undermines much of that. American Protestants regularly believe God takes frequent, direct personal action in their lives. They believe prayers are akin to spells that work miracles on demand and all kinds of things that really were not part of early Christianity or even Christianity aside from the weird vein of American Protestantism. Now, that's not to say Christians weren't stupid and superstitious before American Protestantism, but they tended instead to be easily convinced by deceptive monks and such that "miracles" were being worked and there was a framework for this concept of miracles. Further, periodically the higher up authorities in the Church would preach out against that sort of superstitious bullshit, so while it was happening it was never fully accepted doctrine. For many branches of American Protestantism it's basically widely understood and part of doctrine that prayers can work miracles and do pretty much constantly and that any random event in life is 100% ascribable to God's direct hand.

A Catholic is claiming that Protestantism is flawed because it believes in prayer and miracles?

[Caliga]

It's actually interesting to see the development of American Protestantism, which in many ways undermines much of that. American Protestants regularly believe God takes frequent, direct personal action in their lives. They believe prayers are akin to spells that work miracles on demand and all kinds of things that really were not part of early Christianity or even Christianity aside from the weird vein of American Protestantism. Now, that's not to say Christians weren't stupid and superstitious before American Protestantism, but they tended instead to be easily convinced by deceptive monks and such that "miracles" were being worked and there was a framework for this concept of miracles. Further, periodically the higher up authorities in the Church would preach out against that sort of superstitious bullshit, so while it was happening it was never fully accepted doctrine. For many branches of American Protestantism it's basically widely understood and part of doctrine that prayers can work miracles and do pretty much constantly and that any random event in life is 100% ascribable to God's direct hand.

I think you need to qualify this a bit further.  "American Protestantism" includes for example United Methodists, and I most certainly was not brought up to believe that prayers are akin to spells, etc.  I don't think that the UMC would absolutely deny anything that you're saying, but they certainly do not stress it.  It sounds like you're thinking of groups like the Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. and yes, they certainly do have members who strongly believe the things you are claiming above.  In my view mainline Protestants (Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians) aren't really that different than most Catholics in that they may go to church, but it's more of a social thing and there are many members of the congregation who in fact lead lives that don't revolve around magical thinking, as strange as that may sound to, for example, an atheist who grew up and is largely outside of the Protestant social circles (since by definition religion is based on some required degree of magical thinking).

[Malthus]

Here's a recent book on early Islam - interesting if somewhat disjointed reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Sword-Birth-Global-Empire/dp/0307473651/ref=la_B000APEALK_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369331774&sr=1-2

This http://www.amazon.com/Muhammad-Believers-At-Origins-Islam/dp/0674064143 is another good one. It basically says that the early Muslims were a little hazy on whether they were a distinct religion or if Jews and Christians could also be Muslims.

Yup, seems basically a similar account.

[Malthus]

I agree with garbon in part, it isn't really surprising that something very small and obscure 2,000 years ago was the source for some stuff that's global and important today. That's just sort of how history works, and we can think of a lot of stuff like that and then usually pick out a lot of other things that have fallen to the wayside just by quirks of history. If the Persians had successfully invaded Greece for example it's hard to say if guys like Aristotle and others of the great philosophers would be celebrated in the West today. The Persians themselves were a highly educated/learned people and maybe the Renaissance (if we would have ever had a dark ages in this timeline) would celebrate rediscovery in the West of ancient Persian thinkers, who knows.

To my mind it is very remarkable that the god of an obscure nation should inspire not one, not two, but three of the world's great religions. I know of no other example of something like that.

[Malthus]

A thread about the Pope being cool gets derailed by Jews. Figures. 

It's a plot. 

[Barrister]

I agree with garbon in part, it isn't really surprising that something very small and obscure 2,000 years ago was the source for some stuff that's global and important today. That's just sort of how history works, and we can think of a lot of stuff like that and then usually pick out a lot of other things that have fallen to the wayside just by quirks of history. If the Persians had successfully invaded Greece for example it's hard to say if guys like Aristotle and others of the great philosophers would be celebrated in the West today. The Persians themselves were a highly educated/learned people and maybe the Renaissance (if we would have ever had a dark ages in this timeline) would celebrate rediscovery in the West of ancient Persian thinkers, who knows.

To my mind it is very remarkable that the god of an obscure nation should inspire not one, not two, but three of the world's great religions. I know of no other example of something like that.

No offence, but does judaism really count as one of the world's great religions?  Seems like there are around 13-14 million.  Christianity, islam, buddhism and hindu have it well beat.  Instead Judaism is down there with sikhism, jainism and bahia.

Judaism's only real claim to fame is that it inspired the other two religions.

[Malthus]

I agree with garbon in part, it isn't really surprising that something very small and obscure 2,000 years ago was the source for some stuff that's global and important today. That's just sort of how history works, and we can think of a lot of stuff like that and then usually pick out a lot of other things that have fallen to the wayside just by quirks of history. If the Persians had successfully invaded Greece for example it's hard to say if guys like Aristotle and others of the great philosophers would be celebrated in the West today. The Persians themselves were a highly educated/learned people and maybe the Renaissance (if we would have ever had a dark ages in this timeline) would celebrate rediscovery in the West of ancient Persian thinkers, who knows.

To my mind it is very remarkable that the god of an obscure nation should inspire not one, not two, but three of the world's great religions. I know of no other example of something like that.

No offence, but does judaism really count as one of the world's great religions?  Seems like there are around 13-14 million.  Christianity, islam, buddhism and hindu have it well beat.  Instead Judaism is down there with sikhism, jainism and bahia.

Judaism's only real claim to fame is that it inspired the other two religions.

Shrug. It is always listed as such, when people bother to list the "world's great religions".

For example:

http://books.google.ca/books/about/The_World_s_Great_Religions.html?id=wEjIX4FldtkC

This concise volume offers an introduction to the eleven "living" religions of the world: Hinduism, Shintoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Confucianism, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Sikhism. Three of these (Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam) aspire to universality, and the others are confined to a special group of people or countries.

Another:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/discover-the-worlds-great-religions-844076.html

Another:

http://www.conted.ox.ac.uk/courses/details.php?id=L350-1

You wanna quibble, quibble to the world at large. You can start by pointing out to Oxford University their "error".