Rome didnt collapse due to Christianity it's time had come and it was extinguished in effect by an entirely natural process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Printable View
Rome didnt collapse due to Christianity it's time had come and it was extinguished in effect by an entirely natural process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Yellow peril? The Hun?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
And anyway, the enlightenment didn't truly "invent" everything it (or we) claims it did- a lot was actually imported, certainly a lot of agro/industrial improvements were brought to Europe from China and India. Also, European countries were not the most wealthy and powerful countries of the world during the enlightenment, China under the (early) Qing dynasty was in full swing of a political, cultural and military golden age. Voltaire, Mr Enlightenment, was thoroughly impressed by China and was often unfavourably comparing contemporary Europe to China.
Ludwig Holberg was from Bergen, not Norway.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
And anyway, I meant that Denmark had more thinkers than Norway did.
That post is strangely beautiful. Amazing, how it manages to be applicable on so many levels; how it manages to hit the nail on the head from so many different angles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Sycophant.
Actually, Christianity changed the nature of the Empire on a fundamental level. Instead of the bloodthirsty "Go against us, and you will be on a cross from here to Rome", they became far more 'nicer', preaching peace and other things. Which led to the destruction of the Empire, and the loss of technology, scienfitic advances and philosophical thought, which were recovered from the Muslims around 700 years later..Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Doing my best John McEnroe impersonation: You can not be serious!Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I also remember some talking head on a documentary saying the demise of the roman empire could be inversely tracked by the growing length of the gladius... His theory was that the longer the sword, the further the legionaries were fromt he action, the less their bravery and the greater the detachment from what was going on. Sounds like tripe to me but anyway.
Personaly, I think the downfall was precipitated by Atilla and the other mass migrations of people and prepared by the over-extension and the ever decreasing gains of a large empire.
I tihnk your latter observation is more likely part of the cause. The gladius never stopped the Legionaries fighting toe to toe with their enemy. I imagine that controlling a UAV is sufficiently far from the action to create detachment.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
~:smoking:
The length of a standard legio's sword was important not so much in terms of bravery -- Rory is quite correct that hand-to-hand combat with ANY weapon requires some degree of personal courage -- but in terms of discipline. Longer blades require looser formations and necessitate a) better education and training along with the encouragement/reward for independent action or b) less discipline. Over time, too many troops/commanders/funders chose the latter route.
Beskar:
You are simplifying things far too glibly. You imply that the Catholic Church specifically set out to eliminate knowledge as a coordianated element in their consolidation of power. The history of the early Church does not support this. Moreover, the Church has never been the monolithic force so gleefully referred to by so many. Were there elements of the Church that took such a stance? Probably so. Those elements were never more than part of the whole tapestry.
In addition, there are a host of reasons playing into the development of the "Dark Ages." Again, religion is at best only one component of understanding that epoch.
If you don't see how the bits can fit together like a history channel type documentary: try harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by alh_p
The Catholic Church resisting translation of the Bible into native languages to me indicates not so much an elimination of knowledge as the control of knowledge in the hands of the Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The Catholic Church either undermined or destroyed all perceived threats to their power and free dissemination of information is an important avenue as any other.
~:smoking:
None of which led directly to the Dark Ages, it's not like they wiped a USB drive or summit to cause it.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
To people still believing that nonsense Italian and French (and later British) anti-Church propaganda which contrasts a fictional religious "Dark Age" holding back precious science and philosophy with an equally fictional account of scientific "revolution" and 'enlightenment' that ended it...
PLEASE READ
http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Mo...ef=pd_sim_b_10
http://www.amazon.com/Beginnings-Wes...ref=pd_sim_b_5
For a good background, and then:
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Philosoph...=1O6QRM09L5RFF
For a good counter thesis to the religion opposing science and progress bunk.
Also try:
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Modern...=1O6QRM09L5RFF
For a nice little devaluation of the later eras in favor of earlier ones.
Finally, good anthologies which contain essays on many different areas on the topic.
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Religi...=1O6QRM09L5RFF
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Religi...=1O6QRM09L5RFF
If you can't buy the books, go to a library. If you can't read, start learning. :book:
Am I wrong in saying that that there have always been people perusing science in all ages and that religion has for the most part never been anti-science but anti-however/whatever threatens our power?Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
It's more this, at times the chruch has been the vangaurd of learning but mostly it seeks to quash what will disrupt its chokehold on the prole and that's usually knoweledgeQuote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Christian leaders have actively persecuted knowledge and science. Because it went against the church, because it came from the jews or muslims, because they saw enlightenment towards something other than god was a sin, etc etc.
To say that it is simply a "coincidence" that science had a massive revolution once christianity lost its grip on soceity is beyond delusional - its an outright lie.
....is this where I list a ton of books explaining how Communism saved the world from unchecked capitalism and fascism?
1. The primary resistance to the translation of the Bible into vernacular versions was doctrinal. The Catholic -- meaning universal -- church was supposed to be the same for all, the same mass in the same language throughout the Church as a means of bringing us together. Latin had been chosen as the nearest thing to a common language among all of the various early Christians (and as a means of asserting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the Patriarchs of Constantinople or Alexandria). Obviously the Church had relaxed its views on this matter, even prior to the results of the Second Vatican conference. However, it would not be difficult to put you in contact with US Catholics who are STILL annoyed at the V2's switch to the vernacular mass -- my Mom still prefers the Latin.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
2. The Church is a large, hierarchical organization of people -- and those people are no less flawed than any other. There have certainly been instances where Church officials have made decisions that were done to preserve the Church's power. It is probable (bordering on certainty) that some of those decisions were made on the basis of preserving personal power as opposed to preserving the Church's power to do good for the greater number. Some of those decisions, such as the famous "kill them all..." quotation, were obviously wrong.
However, the Church has never been quite so sweeping or programmatic in its efforts to "stymie" any perceived threats as you suggest. The Templars were crushed, but the Jesuits were not. Certain heresies were exterpiated with violence, such as the Albighesians, while other doctrinal variances -- Liberation Theology, the Latinists, the Charismatic movement, etc. -- have been addressed far more quietly. You're putting things too monolithically.
Although the church might not be as monolithic as I suggested, this appears to be not for want of trying.
Threats were dealt with, and generally either destroyed, subsumed or trivialised wherever possible.
Yes, this might not have been the initial intent so ideally the least number of men should be between man and God - rather like the bible suggests and perchance this was a reason not to have in local languages that might give pause for thought as to the need for an army of well paid individuals to have an easy life? The Quakers appear to manage perfectly well although fail to operate with as much earthly success as the Catholic church.
~:smoking:
Wow, this looks like "Radical Atheism 101 - Kindergarden Level". I'm absolutely no fan or religions (I actually loath them all), but you've written such a huge pile of clichés and other "it's common knowledge" BS in this topic it's quite mind-blowing. You sound like me when I was 15.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
its funny how everyone that doesnt agree with horetore is either a liar or a nutcase.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
What nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
To claim that Liverpool has a world-class team is an outright lie too. Yet I do not consider those who claim this to be liars or a nutcases, they are simply loserpoolfans.
Atheism 101? I fail to see what relvance it has with christianity today, what some people did centuries ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
The 14th century catholic church has absolutely nothing to do with the catholic church of the 21th century. All those associated with the former have been dead for centuries now.
u are hilarious.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Catholics main unique selling point is their direct linkage to Peter, the first Pope (as he himself said he was and no-one else had travelled to Rome to refute this). Can the church trim the bits that don't fit in with today whilst still holding onto this tenuous link?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
~:smoking:
Sure it can.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Just like you could call Wankerpool a crappy team because that's what they are today, whithout being affected by the throphies they won back in the days of horrible haircuts and facial hair. Yet they are still a continuation of the team that started playing in Liverpool over a hundred years ago.
I don't really see why acknowledging the horrible crimes committed by guys wearing the pointy hats way back yesterday should affect their link to the very beginnings of the church. They could just see it as a longer version of this: good times -> some rotten years -> good times again.
Christianity only began a true rise during the age of Constantine, and by that time the Roman Empire had been sliced, diced, carved, seperated and segregated to no good effect. The idea was to spread Christianity in order to reunify the Empire ideaologically and recreate the early Us (now Christian) and Them (now heathan) mentality that had dissapated with the ethnic widening of the Legions and Roman Citizenship.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
It wasn't about being nice.
Well, at least this topic has been lievely while I have been down.
They're not a footie team. Every Pope states he speaks on behalf of God. Did God have a bad patch then? Is he having a good one now? How do we know?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Football has very simple rules to measure teams against. The Pope effectively condems thousands if not millions to die due to refusal to budge on condoms for example. Is this a bad patch - and hence should be ignored, or is this the good times when the Church is speaking for God?
~:smoking:
No, every Holy Father does NOT make such a claim. Speaking "Ex Cathedra," pronouncing for the Faith and relying on the idea of Religious infalibilty, has been exceedingly rare. I would venture to say that they dearly hope, and take as an act of faith, that their pronouncements are moved by the Holy Spirit. The KNOW that those pronouncements are almost invariably the result of quite a bit of mediation, study, and prayer. You are being entirely too glib here.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk