(August 29, 2016 at 6:07 pm)paulpablo Wrote: This might be some historical event I'm unaware of, but I've never heard of this point in history when there weren't enough Christians to oppress other people anymore because they were too busy fighting each other.

I'm sure, you respond by "I was just saying and never claimed to know", but the operative word here is, you haven't heard of this point in history. Which is why I advised to read a book at some point.

Which goes for the medieval muslim world also. You might start with where jews have been better off, as in not being the scapegoats for every setback, and actually could rise to higher office. Was it the christian or the muslim world?

(August 29, 2016 at 6:11 pm)paulpablo Wrote: By me pretending to be in the know and then wiggling out you mean....

You say sarcastic stuff to me making it look as if I claimed I said things which I didn't, then I say "But Abaris, I didn't say that at any point"

Then you say "Oh look at slimy Paulpablo wiggling out of it again."

Yes, you never ask a question, you are just saying. Yes, you never make a claim, you are just saying. And if everyone else perceives it as a question or a claim, you were just saying. That's totally not wiggling out. That's totally how it is.

(August 29, 2016 at 6:07 pm)paulpablo Wrote: You were saying that the History of Christianity was holding back scientific achievement until these game of thrones type events happened killing enough of them off leaving not enough of them to hold the thumb screws.

-because that's how history played out.  

Quote:It seems like an illogical evaluation of what happened.
Reason 1) It isn't unique to Christianity to have internal wars with different sects within the religion. Christianity is no different from Islam in terms of it being a fact that both religions are fractured.  Yet game of thrones style internal fighting has never stopped Islam from having a firm grip of theological power over certain countries.  At least relative to Christianity.

No one said that it was unique to christianity.  Next.

Quote:Reason 2) It seems over simplified anyway to say the Christians were preventing scientific advancement until they killed each other off to the point where there were no longer enough of them to hold power.

Everything about christianity is simple...but that doesn;t change the fact that they -did- hold scientific advancment back until they no longer possessed the ability to do so, having engaged in a deleterious sectarian conflict with themselves.  

Quote:There's always been a fairly high population of Christians in the world so surely saying there wasn't enough of them to hold power after they were at battle with each other would be incorrect.

The number of christians involved is irrelevant, they were unable to suppress each others various seditious elements (read: science) because they no longer cooperated -with- each other to do so.  

Quote:This might be some historical event I'm unaware of, but I've never heard of this point in history when there weren't enough Christians to oppress other people anymore because they were too busy fighting each other.

You'd have to have missed something awfully big in western history not to have noticed the protestant schism and it's attendant effects.

(August 29, 2016 at 6:13 pm)abaris Wrote:

(August 29, 2016 at 6:07 pm)paulpablo Wrote: This might be some historical event I'm unaware of, but I've never heard of this point in history when there weren't enough Christians to oppress other people anymore because they were too busy fighting each other.

I'm sure, you respond by "I was just saying and never claimed to know", but the operative word here is, you haven't heard of this point in history. Which is why I advised to read a book at some point.

Which goes for the medieval muslim world also. You might start with where jews have been better off, as in not being the scapegoats for every setback, and actually could rise to higher office. Was it the christian or the muslim world?

Do you know how to have a conversation?

I'm talking to you about one thing then you're saying "You might want to look up if the Jews had it better in the Christian or the Muslim world, in ancient times"

Why would I look that up?  Did I say the Jews had it better with the Christians?  Did I mention the Jews?  Did I say the Christians were at the forefront of equality in medieval times?

Ok I'll play along with this game.

Did you know that there's an island next to the maldives made entirely of landfill?

You might want to look that up.

It has absolutely fuck all to do with anything we've been talking about but you might want to look it up.

Business as usual. You don't even notice what all your claims entail - oh, I'm sorry - they aren't claims. You were just saying. You left out what I said before, about you saying - just saying - you haven't heard of any of the same things in the christian world. To which I replied that this is the operative word. You haven't heard. Might look up the early schisms, might look at the cathars, might look at Calvinism, might look at Protestanism, which resulted in a small scuffle that lasted for about 30 years and left Europe in ruins.

So, you were saying? Just saying?

(August 29, 2016 at 6:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 29, 2016 at 6:07 pm)paulpablo Wrote: You were saying that the History of Christianity was holding back scientific achievement until these game of thrones type events happened killing enough of them off leaving not enough of them to hold the thumb screws.

-because that's how history played out.  

Quote:It seems like an illogical evaluation of what happened.
Reason 1) It isn't unique to Christianity to have internal wars with different sects within the religion. Christianity is no different from Islam in terms of it being a fact that both religions are fractured.  Yet game of thrones style internal fighting has never stopped Islam from having a firm grip of theological power over certain countries.  At least relative to Christianity.

No one said that it was unique to christianity.  Next.

Quote:Reason 2) It seems over simplified anyway to say the Christians were preventing scientific advancement until they killed each other off to the point where there were no longer enough of them to hold power.

Everything about christianity is simple...but that doesn;t change the fact that they -did- hold scientific advancment back until they no longer possessed the ability to do so, having engaged in a deleterious sectarian conflict with themselves.  

Quote:There's always been a fairly high population of Christians in the world so surely saying there wasn't enough of them to hold power after they were at battle with each other would be incorrect.

The number of christians involved is irrelevant, they were unable to suppress each others various seditious elements (read: science) because they no longer cooperated -with- each other to do so.  

Quote:This might be some historical event I'm unaware of, but I've never heard of this point in history when there weren't enough Christians to oppress other people anymore because they were too busy fighting each other.

You'd have to have missed something awfully big in western history not to have noticed the protestant schism and it's attendant effects.

I'm aware that king Henry split with the catholic church to form the church of England, but I'm unaware of any specific progression because of that.

From what I know it was still basically a church in control of the country.

As I say I can't elaborate on what I don't know but to put the separation of church and state down to battling sects within a religion seems oversimplified to me.

Just from some slight reading up on the topic the founding of America seems to have some part in this.  

I wouldn't say that was a result of there being a lack of co operation between Christians but because there was a geographical location people could flee to in order to escape religious persecution and they based the news laws of the land on a fear of a lack of freedom of religion which they just escaped from.

And that's just one other layer to the many that I'm sure there are of how the church became separate from the state.

(August 29, 2016 at 6:25 pm)abaris Wrote: Business as usual. You don't even notice what all your claims entail - oh, I'm sorry - they aren't claims. You were just saying. You left out what I said before, about you saying - just saying - you haven't heard of any of the same things in the christian world. To which I replied that this is the operative word. You haven't heard. Might look up the early schisms, might look at the cathars, might look at Calvinism, might look at Protestanism, which resulted in a small scuffle that lasted for about 30 years and left Europe in ruins.

So, you were saying? Just saying?

Yeh I've heard of battles between different sects of Christianity.

I'm saying I think it's an oversimplification to say that this is the reason of a separation between Church and state.

I've read fairly in depth about some of the events and battles between different sects of Christianity, and at no point did I get the impression that all these battles were the one reason that a separation between Church and state exists.

You could say it was partly due to these battles some progression was made, people fled religious persecution and wanted to avoid it in future.

But just to say, Countries with a history of Christianity have more of a separation between Church and state because of some game of thrones battles is over simplified.

Similar battles happen within other religions and don't directly result in a separation between church and state.

(August 29, 2016 at 6:38 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I'm aware that king Henry split with the catholic church to form the church of England, but I'm unaware of any specific progression because of that.

From what I know it was still basically a church in control of the country.

It was a king in control of a church.  A subjugation of the religious hegemony present until that point to a political will.  In any case, this didn't just happen in Britain, you realize?  

Quote:As I say I can't elaborate on what I don't know but to put the separation of church and state down to battling sects within a religion seems oversimplified to me.

I see we're talking secularism now, instead of scientific advancement.  Doesn't really matter....as this infighting paved the ground for that as well.  There could -be- no secularizing effect so long as a unified church maintained control of europe.

Quote:Just from some slight reading up on the topic the founding of America seems to have some part in this.  

As an american..I'd love to take the credit...but like so many ideas our founding fathers had...it was borrowed. 

Quote:I wouldn't say that was a result of there being a lack of co operation between Christians but because there was a geographical location people could flee to in order to escape religious persecution and they based the news laws of the land on a fear of a lack of freedom of religion which they just escaped from.

In europe, prior to the reformation..there -was- no geographic location one could flee to in order to escape the one true church...except, perhaps (and amusingly) moorish spain.  That we based our new laws on any sort of religious freedom is a bit of a whitewashing. We happily proceeded to persecute people for their religious differences, real or imagined. We just didn't like being -the persecuted-.

Quote:And that's just one other layer to the many that I'm sure there are of how the church became separate from the state.

Complicated, sure, but not so complicated that one cannot point to definitive moments in history that lead to it. The christian schism of the 16th century (which extended well into and influenced the events of the next two centuries) made the possibility for people to break away from ancient hegomony a reality, both politically and scientifically. That "islam is bad too, mmkay" doesn't detract from, lessen, or make any refutation of that simple fact. There neither was nor is anything objectively "better" about christianity relative to islam. Christianity did not build this world you inherited...it's fall did. As such, I..personally, see no reason to defend it (competently or incompetently) against it's current competitors for what was nothing other than centuries of obstruction, oppression, and base ignorance.

(August 29, 2016 at 6:47 pm)paulpablo Wrote: But just to say, Countries with a history of Christianity have more of a separation between Church and state because of some game of thrones battles is over simplified.

I didn't say that. But you know how it is with history. It's more than meets the eye at first glance. First, the muslim realms were much more liberal towards excercising other religions than Christianity in the Middle Ages and all through the Ottoman empire. Which is, by the way, the second reason why this seperation didn't happen. Most of the regions were first colonised by the Ottoman empire and later on by the French and the British. Religion was a means of finding some kind of identification, as opposed to Europe. Which, again, only happened, starting with the end of the 30 years war, and reallly took off in the late 18th century. Only among the elites, to be clear. Something these countries didn't get the opportunity to have.

Apart from the Ottoman empire, the ruling power for many centuries. Which was the first truly secular Islamic state, by the way. According to the constitution Attatürk enforced.

(August 29, 2016 at 6:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 29, 2016 at 6:38 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I'm aware that king Henry split with the catholic church to form the church of England, but I'm unaware of any specific progression because of that.

From what I know it was still basically a church in control of the country.

It was a king in control of a church.  A subjugation of the religious hegemony present until that point to a political will.  In any case, this didn't just happen in Britain, you realize?  

Quote:As I say I can't elaborate on what I don't know but to put the separation of church and state down to battling sects within a religion seems oversimplified to me.

I see we're talking secularism now, instead of scientific advancement.  Doesn't really matter....as this infighting paved the ground for that as well.  There could -be- no secularizing effect so long as a unified church maintained control of europe.

Quote:Just from some slight reading up on the topic the founding of America seems to have some part in this.  

As an american..I'd love to take the credit...but like so many ideas our founding fathers had...it was borrowed. 

Quote:I wouldn't say that was a result of there being a lack of co operation between Christians but because there was a geographical location people could flee to in order to escape religious persecution and they based the news laws of the land on a fear of a lack of freedom of religion which they just escaped from.

In europe, prior to the reformation..there -was- no geographic location one could flee to in order to escape the one true church.  

Quote:And that's just one other layer to the many that I'm sure there are of how the church became separate from the state.

Complicated, sure, but not so complicated that one cannot point to definitive moments in history that lead to it.  The christian schism of the 16th century (which extended well into and influenced the events of the next two centuries) made it possible for people to break away from anceint hegomies, both politically and scientifically.  That "islam is bad too, mmkay" doesn't detract from, lessen, or make any refutation of that simple fact.

I agree that these battles must have had a significant impact on secularism and scientific advancement.

I'm not saying Islam is bad too, I didn't even say Islam is bad in the message I was putting across.

Let me try and put my point across this way.

You have 2 religions.  Those religions both have game of thrones style in fighting.

I'm not saying look how bad either of those religions are, I'm just saying they both have this common factor of infighting.

Now in one case this infighting has resulted in what you'd call progress, as you pointed out these battles have been definitive points in history that have led to secularism, increased scientific progress.

But game of thrones style battles that have occurred in Islam haven't resulted in as much of a significant affect in terms of secularism and scientific advancement.

This leads me to believe there's another factor, it's not just a case of they had some battles between each other therefore enlightenment happened.

I'm not saying I can list the other factors I don't even know what they would be.  I think the colonizing of America and having a place to flee may have had some part to play in over all secularism and scientific advancement in Christian culture, America is pretty scientifically advanced and powerful despite how popular it is to make fun of America.