(July 29, 2014 at 1:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Historical "facts" are not immune to science. If you say that a nation lolligagged in the desert for years, for example....science could help you establish that. No ones asking anyone to reproduce history, you're being asked to present evidence that we would expect to see - if- your narrative of "history" were accurate.
-If- you want to keep using the word "probable"...you're going to have to do some math. Please, for the class - show your work-.
The rise of christianity was not unique, and you've already been given an example of a faith that has done "what christianity did" even better than christianity...even if we accept obvious christian propaganda as fact.
Fail....fail, and fail. Understand?
Oh, you mean your comment about Mormonism as a comparison to Christianity. You had to wait over 1800 years to find a comparison to my point that the early church did something unique regarding acceptance and growth (nations, races and cultures). Then you bring up an individual that used Christianity as a base to launch a religion with a rather disorganized theological framework.
Well, if this is a contest, I would have to give it to the early Christians. Their environment was much more hostile, there was more of them--making it more difficult to get the con just right, they were able to create a more structured religion based upon their myth than Joseph Smith did with his, they made it much more complicated by having their myth walk among the living, teaching, etc., they reached more people groups more quickly (and not in a controlled environment)--and did so without trains, steamships, printing presses, etc. although, the early church fathers seemed to miss the boat on when they did not build in polygamy--which would have served to increase their numbers exponentially rather than organically.
