Quote:It seems to me that before this era, Christianity preserved at least a core of cohesive, literate civilization

But was that their purpose?

Have you ever read A Canticle for Liebowitz? Fascinating little book.

Their purpose was to ensure the hegemony of church. But had there been no church, I suspect the west would end up an savagely infighting collection of decentralized illiterate iron age tribes that would stand much better chance of being overrun by the forces of Islam from the South or the East between 800 and 1200.

One might speculate that Islam would have been a considerably more liberal force after 1200 had there been no crusades, and Islamic civlization might have taken over the mantle of being the pioneers in the genuine scientific revolution, so the world would suffer no net loss in the long run, but that's speculation.

I have not read A Canticle. But it's on my to read list. Lately I've been lazy and waiting for audio editions of books to become available for listening in lieu of actually reading.

Quote:But as the tired, and in this case relevant saying goes "it takes religion to make a good person do evil things". There is no doubt in my mind that without religion the world would be a less violent and evil place. People use religion as a justification for their actions, if they didn't have the word of god as they see it telling them things they do are ok, they wouldn't. It's simple as that. Of course there would always be evil even without religion, but there would be a hell of a lot less.

You are not getting rid of the problem. The problem is human nature.

Quote:Xtianity set back knowledge in the west by suppressing thinking for 1500 years. It was not until the west began to throw off the dogma of you jesus freaks that we began to progress.

Think how different the world might have been were it not for the Dark Ages...if you can.

Is this idea in any peer reviewed journals? or credible books? I think not.
Was it pagan tribes who took down Rome?

(October 20, 2010 at 10:03 pm)Skipper Wrote: I wont claim to be a expert on Islam scripture, but there are certainly violent and sickening passages that I have read. But so many of you claim it's peaceful and not a violent religion, yet these passages exist and so many people, countries and communities (more than any other religion in recent history) have used Islam and by proxy Sharia to do evil and inhumane things in both the Islamic world and the Western world and despite what some moderates (not enough if you ask me) may say to justify and defend the quaran, there has to be a point where Islam has to be told it can play no part in the developing world and it either has to change it's ways MASSIVELY or fuck right off.

I have read the Quran but I didn't find any such violent things in it which you are talking about.

I'm not too knowledgeable about the religious scriptures either, but I have read commentaries from scholars who studied the Quran in its original language (Arabic). After hearing their views, I didn't find any of them support the idea that the Quran allows evil things such as killing a group of people just because of their beliefs (in any part of the world). You'll find a better explanation of the actual meanings at this link. And those are the soundest interpretations according to the scholars of Islam. I have not seen anyone be able to prove that those interpretations are not correct.

There are also people who distort their own religion, intentionally, to make it fit with their own personal desires or to justify their actions, and those are the ones who are very likely to be disbelievers. They only act as if they believe but actually they are not believers. For example, I doubt if the man who killed his two daughters because of honor killing was a believer. If he was a true believer, then I don't think he would've done such a thing. There is simply nothing in Islam that gives us a permission to take the lives of our own children.

(October 20, 2010 at 10:03 pm)Skipper Wrote: At it's core, like all religion, it is evil, false and controlling but more so it is incompatible with what free countries promote...equality, tolerance, secular governments, free thinking, free choice, progressive education and peace. Honestly, if this comes across as a hate for Islam, thats for a reason, I do hate that religion more so than others, simply because it conflicts more so with the world I wish to live in than the other religions do. The world would be a better place without any religion, Islam would be the best starting point for that.

To you it is evil but not to me.

Yes, religions hinders free thinking and free choice. And it doesn't play any role in the developing world. But, that is not the purpose of religion, because it is not concerned about worldy things such as improving the standards of living or helping to solve the economic problems of the world. The purpose of religion is to prepare our souls for the afterlife, not this life which we are living right now. And it limits our freedom at the expense of giving us greater freedom in the afterlife. That's why, allowing free choice in this life is not an important thing when it comes to religion.

Sol, Rome had been xtian for 150 years before it fell and in that time it gradually became little more than a facade of its former power. The reasons for its fall (militarily) had little to do with xtians but with decisions made by Constantine before he ever gave that bunch of shitheads any real power. The Eastern Roman Empire lasted for 1,000 years longer and did not fall to "pagan" tribes but to the Ottoman Turks.
Try studying some history instead of wasting your time reading that fucking bible.

(October 28, 2010 at 3:06 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(October 20, 2010 at 10:03 pm)Skipper Wrote: At it's core, like all religion, it is evil, false and controlling but more so it is incompatible with what free countries promote...equality, tolerance, secular governments, free thinking, free choice, progressive education and peace. Honestly, if this comes across as a hate for Islam, thats for a reason, I do hate that religion more so than others, simply because it conflicts more so with the world I wish to live in than the other religions do. The world would be a better place without any religion, Islam would be the best starting point for that.

To you it is evil but not to me.

Yes, religions hinders free thinking and free choice. And it doesn't play any role in the developing world. But, that is not the purpose of religion, because it is not concerned about worldy things such as improving the standards of living or helping to solve the economic problems of the world. The purpose of religion is to prepare our souls for the afterlife, not this life which we are living right now. And it limits our freedom at the expense of giving us greater freedom in the afterlife. That's why, allowing free choice in this life is not an important thing when it comes to religion.

But there is no proof of an after life!!! Can't you see that? While we can't prove there isn't an after life it dosen't mean there is, and it certainly dosen't mean it's 50/50 either. Religion, as you say plays no part in the developing world, it does not help with peoples living standards, it hinders free thinking and free choice and it limits freedom...all your words, so in essence it robs people of living this life to it's full potential in hope that there is maybe, possibly some sort of after life! Fuck religion, it's evil mate, it wastes lives, literally killing them and also by holding back peoples enjoyment of the one life we know for sure they have

An afterlife may seem unlikely (to some of you), but even this life is very unlikely to have occurred. So, it could be equally possible than an afterlife exists as well.

We cannot scientifically prove that an afterlife exists, however, because it does not fall under the jurisdiction of science. But the fact that the metaphysical question of life after death has been dealt with so confidently by all the messengers of God goes to prove that the source of their knowledge of life after death as proclaimed by them was always the same, i.e. divine revelation. And realizing that there is life after death is higher level of consciousness which some people are not able to attain.

You'll will see what happens after you die. Don't say I didn't warn ya.

When the disbelievers are brought back to life, they will ask God to give them another chance to let them live another life, but it's going to be too late for that and He's not going to listen to them anymore. In the Quran, it says: "Until, when death comes to one of them, he says: 'My Lord, send me back (to life); In order that I may work righteousness in the things I neglected.' But nay! It is but a word that he speaks; and before them is a barrier until the day when they are raised up" (Surah 23:99-100).

(October 28, 2010 at 12:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Sol, Rome had been xtian for 150 years before it fell and in that time it gradually became little more than a facade of its former power. The reasons for its fall (militarily) had little to do with xtians but with decisions made by Constantine before he ever gave that bunch of shitheads any real power. The Eastern Roman Empire lasted for 1,000 years longer and did not fall to "pagan" tribes but to the Ottoman Turks.
Try studying some history instead of wasting your time reading that fucking bible.

As someone who's spent most of their life enveloped in ancient history and who thinks the Romans were beyond reproach, I don't think that the Roman Empire ever truely fell. It still stands today, except we know it as the catholic church. It's my opinion the Romans came to realise that they could never achieve military victories over their countless opponents- scores of hostile tribes in europe, africa and beyond mesopotamia, so instead of waging an eternal bloody war to bring the world under their control the Romans adopted christianity and spread it throughout the unconquered territories in order to pacify the savages and bring them under their control without having the expense of wasting men and equipment trying to defeat bandit tribes. It's not like any general was going to spend thousands of denarii on a military campaign to defeat these tribes when the tribes didnt have anything worth taking to make the effort worthwhile. Fast forward five hundred years and you've got the monarchs of europe begging the pope in Rome for favours, and the armies of europe waging war on the muslims under the orders of Rome.

(October 24, 2010 at 7:17 am)solja247 Wrote:

Quote:Is this idea in any peer reviewed journals? or credible books? I think not.

And that doesnt mean a fucking thing.

---

[quote='Rayaan' pid='102148' dateline='1288294150']
You'll will see what happens after you die. Don't say I didn't warn ya.

That's utterly ridiculous.

(October 28, 2010 at 3:29 pm)Rayaan Wrote: When the disbelievers are brought back to life, they will ask God to give them another chance to let them live another life, but it's going to be too late for that and He's not going to listen to them anymore. In the Quran, it says: "Until, when death comes to one of them, he says: 'My Lord, send me back (to life); In order that I may work righteousness in the things I neglected.' But nay! It is but a word that he speaks; and before them is a barrier until the day when they are raised up" (Surah 23:99-100).

If that ever happened to me and i ended up in your afterlife Rayaan, the first thing i'd do would be to break Gods jaw, just on general principle. He's a giant douchebag if he does exist. And if that makes me a devil, then chain me up next to Prometheus and all the others who were friends to man.

Quote:So to put it simply; the Romans eventually realised that there was no point waging war on barbarians when it was so easy to delude them into passivity under christianity.

Nah. Gives xtians too much credit for things. The church found a way to survive without their Roman patrons and by the end one had become indistinguishable from the other. Mainly they did this by conning the barbarians.

Constantine's biggest error was political. Noting that the army was the single biggest de-stabilizing force ( and he would have known since he used his army to rebel against the sitting emperor ) he downgraded the legions into a force called the limitanei, basically border guards, without the discipline and training of the legions. In order to forestall revolts by disaffected generals, as he had been, he created a mobile reserve army (the comitatenses) which was under his personal command. The system quickly broke down as even with Roman roads the army could not meet every threat in time and the limitanei were ill-equipped and ill-trained for prolonged resistance. It became necessary to make detachments and this re-created the problem of jealous generals under a new name.

The major error, which Constantine tried to undo but eventually failed, was the division of the empire into East and West under Diocletian. In short, the West did not have the economic resources of the East and with them separated there was no more of the East subsidizing the west.
"The sinew of war is infinite money," to quote M. Tullius Cicero.

(October 28, 2010 at 3:46 pm)Cerrone Wrote: If that ever happened to me and i ended up in your afterlife Rayaan, the first thing i'd do would be to break Gods jaw, just on general principle.

Break His jaws? You can't even touch Him.