So how come the inhabitants of Asia Minor were universally Christian in the past, and have become Islamic since the year 1000? Did their genetic moral code change?
Well they'd have a difficult time being islamic before islam existed, just like they'd have a tough time being "universally Christian" before 0AD. And that's not to mention the numerous wars and mass migrations sweeping through the area that can indeed have ensuing genetic changes.
The point isn't that it's preordained that they get the religion that fits them best on first try, it's that the one that truly resonates with their character is the one that sticks around. Italy wasn't always Christian either, but they didn't suddenly flock to Islam the second their evangelists arrived. In fact they had some pretty choice words for them.
Did I miss the entire world converting to the religion of Israel?
No need to be misanthropic, there's plenty of good people out there still even if the trend is downward from its peak. But also yes, the religion of Israel did spread around the world, being a diaspora torn from their home is one of their more defining historical myths actually.
Well they'd have a difficult time being islamic before islam existed, just like they'd have a tough time being "universally Christian" before 0AD. And that's not to mention the numerous wars and mass migrations sweeping through the area that can indeed have ensuing genetic changes.
It is my understanding that the genetic changes have been very limited. Much too limited to make a fundamental change in the fundamental character of the people. As it has pointed out, Turks look much more like Greeks than like Mongolians from the steppes.
Now, what's the likelihood that the fundamental character of people in Asia Minor changed from being benevolent to being violent? Also, what's the likelihood that the fundamental character of people just happens to coincide, with exceptions, with the reach of Islam's armies?
Italy wasn't always Christian either, but they didn't suddenly flock to Islam the second their evangelists arrived. In fact they had some pretty choice words for them.
Because the Islamic occupation of Italy was very fleeting. What seems to have more of an effect is how long the occupying armies stick around. It takes centuries for lands to become majority Muslim.
No need to be misanthropic, there's plenty of good people out there still even if the trend is downward from its peak. But also yes, the religion of Israel did spread around the world, being a diaspora torn from their home is one of their more defining historical myths actually.
I mean spread around the world among the people. Let's be real, most if not all people are thoroughly wicked and selfish, and even the supposedly good deeds that people do, they do for their own selfish reasons. The great strength of Christianity is that it recognizes this reality, what G.K. Chesterton called the only empirically verifiable religious doctrine.
Time is tight so only time for a partial response, sorry.
I wouldn't say that all of Italian islamic occupations were exactly fleeting, Sicily was at least partially under islamic rule for more or less two centuries in the 800s to 1000s. And yes, it turned out even at the end that the Muslim and Christian contemporaries in the area remained genetically distinct
Time is tight so only time for a partial response, sorry.
You're not obliged to respond at all.
And yes, it turned out even at the end that the Muslim and Christian contemporaries in the area remained genetically distinct
I'm not sure how you're getting at that. There was no genetic study in 1000. Regardless, of course there will be some difference: the Muslim population will be a mixture of invaders and native converts.
If you want a great example of character determining conversion, you should look to India. Apparently, untouchables were (for understandable reasons) most likely to convert to either Christianity or Islam, desperate to get out of their lowly status in Hinduism.
I mean I linked the study so you could see how, we've been doing genetic testing on ancient remains for a long time now I don't think this should be a shocking concept.
And yeah, if there was no genetic influence you would expect there should be some converts in the natives. But they found that even after 200 years of cohabitation there was a perfect correlation, all the Muslims had some distinct invader DNA, none of the Christians did.
Well they'd have a difficult time being islamic before islam existed, just like they'd have a tough time being "universally Christian" before 0AD. And that's not to mention the numerous wars and mass migrations sweeping through the area that can indeed have ensuing genetic changes.
The point isn't that it's preordained that they get the religion that fits them best on first try, it's that the one that truly resonates with their character is the one that sticks around. Italy wasn't always Christian either, but they didn't suddenly flock to Islam the second their evangelists arrived. In fact they had some pretty choice words for them.
No need to be misanthropic, there's plenty of good people out there still even if the trend is downward from its peak. But also yes, the religion of Israel did spread around the world, being a diaspora torn from their home is one of their more defining historical myths actually.
It is my understanding that the genetic changes have been very limited. Much too limited to make a fundamental change in the fundamental character of the people. As it has pointed out, Turks look much more like Greeks than like Mongolians from the steppes.
Now, what's the likelihood that the fundamental character of people in Asia Minor changed from being benevolent to being violent? Also, what's the likelihood that the fundamental character of people just happens to coincide, with exceptions, with the reach of Islam's armies?
Because the Islamic occupation of Italy was very fleeting. What seems to have more of an effect is how long the occupying armies stick around. It takes centuries for lands to become majority Muslim.
I mean spread around the world among the people. Let's be real, most if not all people are thoroughly wicked and selfish, and even the supposedly good deeds that people do, they do for their own selfish reasons. The great strength of Christianity is that it recognizes this reality, what G.K. Chesterton called the only empirically verifiable religious doctrine.
Time is tight so only time for a partial response, sorry.
I wouldn't say that all of Italian islamic occupations were exactly fleeting, Sicily was at least partially under islamic rule for more or less two centuries in the 800s to 1000s. And yes, it turned out even at the end that the Muslim and Christian contemporaries in the area remained genetically distinct
You're not obliged to respond at all.
I'm not sure how you're getting at that. There was no genetic study in 1000. Regardless, of course there will be some difference: the Muslim population will be a mixture of invaders and native converts.
If you want a great example of character determining conversion, you should look to India. Apparently, untouchables were (for understandable reasons) most likely to convert to either Christianity or Islam, desperate to get out of their lowly status in Hinduism.
I mean I linked the study so you could see how, we've been doing genetic testing on ancient remains for a long time now I don't think this should be a shocking concept.
And yeah, if there was no genetic influence you would expect there should be some converts in the natives. But they found that even after 200 years of cohabitation there was a perfect correlation, all the Muslims had some distinct invader DNA, none of the Christians did.