Printable View
Here you go Rhy, get upset about this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...n-Radio-4.html
So, what do we think, is 16 hours out of one day after 400 years too much for one of the most important and influencial books ever written into English?
Or are the secularists just getting upset because someone is taking religion seriously (even in a mainly cultural context) once in a blue moon?
How would the church react to the BBC braodcasting a 16-hour special entitled Getting gay with other men: how AYONE can explore their homosexual sexfantasies outside the shackles of married life....?
Or hey, let the BBC mark(!) Marx' anniversary with a 16-hour reading of Das Kapital. Or celebrate the first Labour government with a 16-hour reading of Labour's party programme. Yeah, sounds like something christians and conservatives won't be upset about. It's just those hateful secularists and their evil ways!!
Is it a famous and world-changing book?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The sexual revolution has changed the world, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Communism changed the world, yes.
Social democracy has changed the world, yes.
Thankfully there are enough channels to ignore this. I quite enjoy Theology, but not merely reciting an almac.
~:smoking:
I don't care, as I won't be watching it.
Was I meant to get upset and cry? Where is my paddy?
The Bible is a book of enormous cultural and historical significance for Britain. The KJV was very influential in the development of British religous traditions and even the English language.
It does not seem excessive to devote a day to its fourth centennial. All (educated) Britons ought to have some basic understanding of the central elements of the book. :shrug:
The National Secular Society does excellent work in protecting the British from privileges granted to organised mass religion, and in lifting the UK above superstitions, witch hunts, and Middle Eastern death cults. But it should pick its battles better. (If it is at all interested in starting any serious fight over this, which I'm not so sure about)
Really? So what was Anselm complaining about to William II when he said he wanted the King to reform the practices of his court?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In a good way?Quote:
Communism changed the world, yes.
Really? I still have a Queen, you still have a King, Frag still have a Queen..... the Americans elect their Kings, but only from among their political elite....Quote:
Social democracy has changed the world, yes.
None of this address the point.
Like it or not (I assume "not" in your case) the "King James" Version of the Bible is in and of itself an incredibly influencial book, far apart from being a Bible translation, which has changed the English language anywhere it is spoken.
Do I even care....?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
No, but neither have christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Removing the monarchy hasn't been a cause for the social democrats. But the poorest of the poor now has access to health care, housing, clothes, doesn't die from starvation, etc etc. This is in a big part thanks to the policies of the social democratic governments of Europe. That is a change in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Like it or not, so is the homosexual liberation, the rise of communism and the social democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Are you telling me the church would be fine with a 16-hour special with marxist, gay or labour propaganda...?
Oh wait, we have recent presedent here: NRK, our version of the BBC, has shown a series called "Threesome" this fall, where three youngsters explore the sexual world. The result was something like 15000 angry letters from christians before they even knew what the show was about. All they knew was the name, how the presenters looked and that it was about sex. That was enough for thousands of "tolerant" christians all over the country to furiously harass NRK and demand the show cancelled. A show they had never seen and knew next to nothing about. And it's 8x30 minutes here, not 16 hours.
Yay, the tolerance of christians knows no limit!
I think the more reasonable secularists will be OK with this and appreciate the significance of the KJV. Some of the New Athiests will inevitably get upset, but they do that a lot. They are mostly middle-aged men with over-controlling wives, they need an outless for their rebelliousness.
I woudn't mind if the BBC did specials like this on either of those things. So long as you don't mean the modern day Labour's party programme, if I hear that all day as I speed down the motorway I might feel the urge to wrap myself around a tree. If you want to go back to the Independent Labour Party, that would be OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
.....And I don't give a crap about what special the state sends. Nor do I care, for example, that my state broadcaster sends church services on TV. But then again, we're reasonable people, Rhy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
But you can't say with a straight face that there won't be a lot of christians who'd riot over 16 hours of gay/communist/labour propaganda.
if it's the church of england then they probably sponsored it as part of their touchy-feely outreach and empathise agenda. they're pretty limp-wristed these days, no burning brands and hellfire damnnation left.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
A day all about the book would be very interesting. It's history, it's influences, the politics behind it's creation and interpretation. It's lasting legacy. Focussing on chapters, how it's been used, etc, etc - all that would be great.
But 16 hours of sola scriptura? Credit us with a bit more intelligence.
Yeah I put my hands up there. When it comes to getting upset over petty things, old women are to Christianity what men having a mid-life crisis are to secular humanism.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In all my time on the Org, I have NEVER heard someone make a more uninformed or ignorant statement in my entire life. If you truly believe that, then you do not know your history. Believe in it or not, love it or hate it, but there can be no doubt that the overall impact that Christianity has had on the world has been positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
What an all encompassing statement!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Who has no doubt? What is this based upon? Leaving aside the rather lazy methodology of pointing out the hundreds of events where Catholicism especially destroyed and subjugated, building models that can assess a present without Christianity would be very difficult to construct.
~:smoking:
Please, do show how a christian middle age with all its fundamentalism was better than a middle age dominated by the Greek or Roman culture would've been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Of course that relies on the entire premise of a there being such a 'middle age', which is a humanist (ie, Greco-Roman) concept that I reject. The very belief in a middle age argues for the superiority of the pagan Greek and Roman traditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Can we agree on this HoreTore? That the concept of individual human rights is essential to an enlightened way of life? The entire concept of human rights is a Christian one, and was not found in Greece or Rome, and was nowhere to be found anywhere in the East. The very idea that a human life has worth beyond what it earned and can defend by force of arms originated from Christian beliefs. People are brutal, evil, and selfish by nature, and will always strive to hurt those around them. Pagan religions only made this easier and justified it. Yes, people claiming to be Christians did horrible things, but without a basic belief that human beings are created in the image of God, are His children, and therefore have rights and worth given to them by an all-powerful being, the world would have turned out to be a far more barbaric, brutal place, and the resulting human misery would have made the so-called 'middle ages' pale by comparison.
Age of Enlightenment is superior.
What? Human rights is an exclusively christian concept? I don't accept that human rights have anything yo do with christianity at all. Jesus was born 1700 years before human rights were discussed, and he is somehow behind them....?
Funny too, that the increase in civil liberties and freedom directly corresponds with the decline of christianty.
I'll also point out that our legal system is built upon Roman law, not christian law. And our philosophy is built upon the Greek philosophers. Our system of government is from Athens, before disappearing during the christian fundamentalist states of the middle ages... Our economy? Not a christian product either, jesus wasn't so big on lending, better leave that to the juice, they're going to hell anyway.... Oh, and guess what alphabet I'm using? And what are our numbers called? "Jesusnumbers"? I think not. And I could go on....
Or the decline of Catholicism, and the rise of Protestantism?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Anyway, answers in bold below...
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No need to prove Christianity's sectarian infighting and bickering, we are already aware of that ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The fact that you see it as infighting shows that you don't really understand it.
You blame bad stuff on the catholics, a catholic might blame all the worlds evil on you protestants... Oh, and let's have a little game of "who is really a proper christian?" shall we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I hope every woman tunes in to hear them read Timothy 2:12.
Any yet the Catholics would be wrong. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I do not think Catholicism has been all bad for the world, they only are when it suits them. Right now an Inquisition wouldn't go down too well, so instead they promise the peace of this world and not the true peace offered by the gospel. They promise peace and unity and so the whole world flocks after the beast, even most of Protestantism. But it is the peace of this world and not the peace Jesus offered, who said himself "Think not that I am come to send upon the earth, I send not peace, but a sword" (Mat 10:35).
So I do not care how much bad stuff on earth is down to Catholicism, since that is not the peace I am interested in.
Eh, don't mind me, I'm feeling millenarian today...
So do I. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
What about Songs of Soloman? PVC says he uses it to make women weak at the knees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Kidd, Colin. The Forging of Races: Race and Scripture in the Protestant Atlantic World, 1600-2000. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Quote:
...theological imperatives drove the conventional mainstream of science and scholarship to search for mankind's underlying unities. The emphasis of racial investigation was not upon divisions between races, but on race as an accidental, epiphenomenal mask concealing the unitary Adamic origins of a single, extended human family. The deepest impact made by theology on the construction of race was thus, arguably, of a negative kind; quietly, subtly and indirectly, theological needs drew white Europeans into a benign state of denial, a refusal to accept that human racial differences were, literally, anything other than skin deep.
Christianity at the least served as a hindrance to those who sought to stereotype people based on outward appearance, and to exaggerate racial construction by assigning to those outward appearances negative views. That is one of the many books I have been reading while I am writing the paper for my senior seminar. I have to turn in the final paper by tomorrow morning, so I will not be able to argue this with you till finals are done. When finals are over however, I will be able to show you ample evidence of the overwhelmingly positive effect of Christianity on the world, that will be able to, I believe, convince even one as determined to believe otherwise as you.
Ha! That book is by Colin Kidd!!! He was my seminar tutor last year! Wow, I feel like I've met someone famous!
What is a paddy, and how does one go about having one?
I own a 1870s 'Gentleman's Dictionary'.
It says paddies are best hunted on horseback with hounds, in the open field. They taste somewhat like chicken. Served with any choice of potato dish.
Other than a slang term for an Irishman, a 'paddy' is a tantrum fit, where some one goes hysterical like a spoilt child.
Infact, here is an amusing video of a child having a paddy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nojWJ6-XmeQ
I'm going to hold you to this. While I'm not particularly biased against Christianity, you've made some flagrantly absurd claims and I really want to see you justify them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
That's like playing a game of "who's the prettiest Denny's waitress"...even if you win you have a lot of work to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
What, did Vuk post something?Quote:
flagrantly absurd claims
BY THE HEAVENS! SOMEONE WROTE A BOOK SAYING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT I'M SAYING! MY POSITION MUST BE WRONG THEN!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Seriously though, christianity served as a hindrance to stereotyping? What nonsense. No christian ever death with slavery, imperialism, etc etc... No wait, it was Christian Europe who subjugated the inferior primitives around the world, driven by power-hungry christian zeal...
I'm not sure it's a coincidence that christian Europe got Hitler, while hindu/buddhist/muslim India got Gandhi.
OH WAIT, BREAKING NEWS!
Turns out someone wrote a book saying Communism is superior: Marx, Engels(1848): Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei. So..... Since they wrote them in a book, their words are now truth.
Sorry, capitalists, looks like you're beaten :cry:
I have no desire to discuss the importance of religion with religous people. It's a debate where the odds of any common ground at all is zero.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Just like I seriously doubt that you'd agree that Communism has been a positive force, I won't agree that Christianity has been a positive force.
Oh rats. 234 years shot to ****. If only Smith had published AFTER M&E....Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
<<heads off to thrift store to look for Mao jacket>>
Whilst I am not a subscriber to the idea that Christianity was, on balance, a force for overall good, your assertion here above is significantly flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Slavery existed long before Christianity and subjugation of less developed peoples is arguably a defining characteristic of Mankind regardless of spiritual persuasion. In fact, the modern concept of abolishing slavery through law is rooted in Christian thought refined through the Enlightenment. There's a case for arguing that outlawing slavery is one of the few universal goods to emerge from Christian tradition.
And the above is even sillier. One might just as well argue that Europe also got St Francis of Assisi whilst the Indian sub-continent is hardly a garden of pacifist tranquility. Ever heard of thuggee, suttee and so on? Moreover, who shot Gandhi?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
You do your argument a disservice by making it so simplistic.
Religion is independent for how good or how bad a given culture is.
~:smoking:
I completely agree. I was responding to a "look what horrors the Romans did"-argument, by showing that christians have done the same....Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
....but I strongly disagree with this, as I cannot see how slavery would've outlived atheist liberalism, for example. Also, slavery isn't a feature of the far east cultures, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Because the Romans became 'Christian' after Constantine, and they integrated their pagan customs into the faith and invented new ones. As Gibbons noted, there were the 'Christian Ladies' (prostitutes) exposing themselves infront of the pagan family who were very sexually conserve and them being disgusted.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
“Gandhi.”. Ah, the man who wrote to his "friend" Hitler.
Hindu's have the Caste system which in essence achieves the same thingQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
China historically treated the pesants as slaves without the name.
~:smoking:
What is christian Europe's serfdom, if not another name for slavery?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Preaching to the converted! I don't think that there was any magic in Christianity. All religions have been perverted broardly for the same ends everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
~:smoking:
Rory was suggesting that, by whatever name you care to assign it, ALL major cultures prior to the era of the Enlightenment practiced some form of largely permanent social subjegation. Moreover, I tend to agree with the argument that most Eastern societies/religions could not have created the potential for an "Enlightenment" era. The philosophies of the other religions don't take the same "journey" (Though in other ways, of course the "journey" they encourage is equally fruitful).Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
By-the-by, to the extent that any religious label may be applied to modern-day Europe, the only one that fits is still "Christian."
So it's still just a coincidence that it happened when christianity lost its grup on society....?
The majority of those involved in the renessaince had brownish hair, perhaps that's the reason? If not, why should it be christianity?
I'd say that material wealth and scientific progress had a lot moree to do with it, and you can't pin either of those on any religion.
Yes, but to the extent that Europe created itself a European Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
European culture created its Christianity, even moreso than Christianity shaped Europe culture. This (Latin Christian) European religion is very different from the Jewish cults, the ancient Middle Eastern Christian religions, and even the Orthodox world. A bit similar to how one can find pretty outlandish mixtures of Christianity and animism/spiritism in Africa and the Caribbean.
(Curse the Romans for their dhimmitude! That beautiful civilisation, destroyed from within by a Middle Eastern death cult)
Actually, there is a consensus in scholarly opinion that the idea of race being determined by skin colour, straightness of hair, etc, and these traits corresponding to personality, worth, ability, etc. only gained ground as a result of the decline in the prominence of Christianity in Western Intellectual culture.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The renaissance was NOT the enlightenment. It is of course a different debate, but it is my opinion that in many ways the Renaissance was a step backward.Quote:
The majority of those involved in the renaissance had brownish hair, perhaps that's the reason? If not, why should it be Christianity?
You need only read the works of enlightenment scholars and 'scientists' to see the importance of religion on the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment in many ways was synthesis of philosophy and theology. Science was used to affirm theological beliefs and gain a deeper understanding of God and his creation, and Christianity was the guiding force of science.Quote:
I'd say that material wealth and scientific progress had a lot moree to do with it, and you can't pin either of those on any religion.
Love it or hate it baby, but your world is a Christian world.
I'd be interested to see articles on the first point you made there, Vuk. What time frame are we talking here?
Any scientist was also clever enough to realise what happened to those who didn't dress up discoveries in religious terms. Censure if you were lucky, something more... lasting if you weren't.
~:smoking:
Don't believe everything they teach you in Sunday school / provincial college / religious activist centres / madrassas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
And evolution is not 'just a theory' either. :smug:
You are right, a theory can be tested. Actually, I attend a state college, and my statement was made as a result of the research I did for my senior seminar. That point is argued by the foremost scholars in the field (Mechal Sobel, Colin Kidd, Betty Wood, etc). You should read the Colin Kidd book that I quoted from earlier. I think that you would find his argument very interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
If you want, I can PM you some really good books on the subject, but forgive me if I cannot quote exact passages from them, because I have returned them to the library. (as school is now out)Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
As said above, the Colin Kidd book is definately a good read if you want to learn more on the subject, as it is the only recent major historical work to deal directly with the relationship between race and scripture. His work is an intellectual work only though, and he does not discuss real work happenings (in fact, it seems at times a mix of both religious studies and history). There are also a lot of good books written about the concrete effects of the church on slavery by such authors as McKivigan, Charles Irons, Wood, Sobel, etc.
There is extensive scholarship backing up my point, and from my study of the major scholarship on the topic, I found no dissenting voices. If you know of any though, I would be interested in reading them.
No, it really was a genuine request for information. It is not an area of study that I had thought to investidate, so better to ask someone who knows than trawl google.
~:smoking:
Hah!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
The enlightenment did not occur in "the christian world". it did not occur in Christian Ethiopia, Russia or the Balkans. It happened in a few specific countries, mainly France, England, Italy and Germany(ish). And these countries were, coincidently, also the wealthiest and most powerful countries at the time. When people no longer have to spend 25 hours a day working to get enough food to live, they are able to think and such, thus causing the enlightenment.
My own country, Norway, is a very good example of this. We're a barbaric and primitive people, and we were bleed white as a danish colony, and during this time, we had no forward thinkers at all. But then we built a merchant marine... This created a shipping elite, and this created some degree of wealth in Norway from the 18th to 19th century. And lo and behold, we got a number of forward thinkers, like the eidsvoll council, who came up with one of the most liberal constitutions to date, Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson who, among a bunch other things, fought anti-semitism and state racism and Henrik Ibsen, who fought for womens liberation. Is it really necessary to say that the last two were not religious men, or is that implied? And before that, while we poor Norwegians were wallowing in ourreligionignorance, our much more wealthy Swedish and Danish neighbors had several established universities and a number of liberal thinkers...
But the bottom line remains the same; if christianity was the driving force behind our liberation, why did it take 1700 years for anything at all to happen, and why didn't anything happen in christian Ethiopia?
I'll tell you why: because christianity had nothing more to do with liberal advancement than brown hair did.
The connotations that religion has with political/social/scientific development varies a lot depending on a whole host of factors that determined its relations with each of them.
In Latin America, Catholicism has socialist connotations due to the influence of Jesuit liberation theology (hence why the USA tried to spread Protestanism in places like Brazil and Nicaragua, to encourage free market views). In Scotland, it has connotations of social democracy due to the working-class roots of Irish Catholic immigrants. In Spain, Italy or Croatia, it has connotations of fascism and the far-right. And all this from one of the most centralised and top-down religions in the world.
In the 18th century, deism was heavily associated with Irish Republicanism. Yet the early IRA had a largely Protestant leadership. And yet by the 20th century the mantle of Republicanism was held firmly in the hands of Catholicism. So obviously such political movements tend not to be a product of something inherent in these religions themselves.
I seriously doubt there was a concerted effort to transplant Protestanism to encourage "Free market" views that strikes me as fantasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Far more likely is that Protestanism ie the American version had become established and wealthy enough to spread out into the world.
Voting, property rights, education and remittances from America helped then jump a rung on the ladder, the big driver of the day is shame for surviving an Gorta Mór and shame for being poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Everyone who rose to prominance at that time was basically either a child of the famine or raised by famine survivors that caused deep deep anger.
Maybe not a "concerted effort," but it most definitely was one theme of that missionary work.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Linkie
Another Linkie
At least at the turn of the 20th, there were a number of Protestants who very clearly linked socio-economic success with Protestantism, and at least some acted on that belief.
Hm IMO one of the most liberal thinkers in Denmark in early 18th century was Ludvig Holberg (Norwegian) Pretty sure he got more out of visiting places south of Denmark than attending the University of Copenhagen.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
It took Struensee (German) to do all kinds of reforms later on, but that cost him his head as he was doing too much too fast, and knocking up the queen did not help either.
So I would not call Denmark a place with many liberal thinkers until much later.
I see and where did these forward thinkers learn to read and write the Open University was it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Funny enough, the advancement happened before Christianity during the periods like the Greeks and Romans... guess what happened next.
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: