2 ms·

Islam was birthed with one of the largest conquests of history. [1] Christianity was birthed with persecution by the Jews and Romans. Christianity had its wha

Islam was birthed with one of the largest conquests of history. [1] Christianity was birthed with persecution by the Jews and Romans. Christianity had its whack at that too in later centuries, but the original source materials are different in treatment of believer/unbeliever. Buddhism is similar (persecution by Hindus). I'd argue this affected cultural appetite for tolerance, expression, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

aprilthird2021 3y ago
>the original source materials are different in treatment of believer/unbeliever Those materials are pretty similar in this treatment between Judaism and Islam, religions which also were born with massive conquest. The difference between the two religions' national capabilities has little to do with this then, we can conclude.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  I agree with the observation. But my point isn't whether a nation is stronger or weaker but rather the tolerance of the culture for ideas. (But on that subject...Judiasm had millennia of subjugation and dispersion -- that left a mark.)
  - aprilthird2021 3y ago
    Do the two religions have vastly different tolerance for ideas? If so, the origins and original source material don't seem to affect that then since these have very similar origins and source material. If they do have similar tolerance for ideas, then that must not have a lot to do with scientific output (the focus of the article)
  - catlover76 3y ago
    [dead]
Yoric 3y ago
Well, to be fair, Christianity became a thing only when it got the Roman Emperor, which happened also as part of a war. Until then, it was considered just another Jewish sect, impossible to distinguish from a dozen other Jewish sects or a dozen other non-Jewish mostly monotheistic sects. As far as I understand, Judaism as a single organized religion (rather than a federation of ±12 tribes each with their own belief) became a thing as a consequence of the conquests of Alexander the Great, because the Hebrews needed a written code and history to demonstrate that they had a king (even if that king was immortal and invisible), otherwise they would have been treated as a subjugated barbarian tribe and lost the right to their own laws and customs. So, I'm not sure that any conclusion can be drawn.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  1. Christianity was not a Jewish sect. It had Jewish and non-Jewish (to an extent that it caused a bit of an issue). 2. Constantine was centuries after the seminal events and sacred texts.
  - Yoric 3y ago
    1. From what I've read, nobody (outside of Jews and Christians) cared or realized that there was a difference between Jews and Christians. So I stand by my words of "considered". 2. Absolutely, but until Constantine, Christianity was just one sect, competing with plenty of other sects.

aprilthird2021 3y ago

>the original source materials are different in treatment of believer/unbeliever Those materials are pretty similar in this treatment between Judaism and Islam, religions which also were born with massive conquest. The difference between the two religions' national capabilities has little to do with this then, we can conclude.

paulddraper 3y ago
I agree with the observation. But my point isn't whether a nation is stronger or weaker but rather the tolerance of the culture for ideas. (But on that subject...Judiasm had millennia of subjugation and dispersion -- that left a mark.)
- aprilthird2021 3y ago
  Do the two religions have vastly different tolerance for ideas? If so, the origins and original source material don't seem to affect that then since these have very similar origins and source material. If they do have similar tolerance for ideas, then that must not have a lot to do with scientific output (the focus of the article)
- catlover76 3y ago
  [dead]

Yoric 3y ago

Well, to be fair, Christianity became a thing only when it got the Roman Emperor, which happened also as part of a war. Until then, it was considered just another Jewish sect, impossible to distinguish from a dozen other Jewish sects or a dozen other non-Jewish mostly monotheistic sects. As far as I understand, Judaism as a single organized religion (rather than a federation of ±12 tribes each with their own belief) became a thing as a consequence of the conquests of Alexander the Great, because the Hebrews needed a written code and history to demonstrate that they had a king (even if that king was immortal and invisible), otherwise they would have been treated as a subjugated barbarian tribe and lost the right to their own laws and customs. So, I'm not sure that any conclusion can be drawn.

paulddraper 3y ago
1. Christianity was not a Jewish sect. It had Jewish and non-Jewish (to an extent that it caused a bit of an issue). 2. Constantine was centuries after the seminal events and sacred texts.
- Yoric 3y ago
  1. From what I've read, nobody (outside of Jews and Christians) cared or realized that there was a difference between Jews and Christians. So I stand by my words of "considered". 2. Absolutely, but until Constantine, Christianity was just one sect, competing with plenty of other sects.