What if christianity never existed ?

[Arkilogue]

The classical world was pagan Ark...........christianity wasn't a thing until post-classical history.  Muslims didn't cause or contribute to the fall of Rome, islam did not yet exist.  

WTF are you talking about...where do you get your information......?

https://www.amazon.com/Mohammed-Charlema...amp;sr=8-1

During the 1920s Belgian historian Henri Pirenne came to an astonishing conclusion: the ancient classical civilization, which Rome had established throughout Europe and the Mediterranean world, was not destroyed by the Barbarians who invaded the western provinces in the fifth century, it was destroyed by the Arabs, whose conquest of the Middle East and North Africa terminated Roman civilization in those regions and cut off Europe from any further trading and cultural contact with the East. According to Pirenne, it was only in the mid-seventh century that the characteristic features of classical life disappeared from Europe, after which time the continent began to develop its own distinctive and somewhat primitive medieval culture.



...........................................................In Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited historian Emmet Scott reviews the evidence put forward by Hodges and Whitehouse, as well as the more recent findings of archaeology, and comes to a rather different conclusion. For him, the evidence shows that classical civilization was not dead in Europe at the start of the seventh century, but was actually experiencing something of a revival


For Scott, archaeology demonstrated that the Arabs did indeed blockade the Mediterranean through piracy and slave-raiding, precisely as Pirenne had claimed, and he argues that the disappearance of papyrus from Europe was an infallible proof of this. Whatever classical learning survived after this time, says Scott, was due almost entirely to the efforts of Christian monks.

[abaris]

As usual, jesus freaks see what they want to see.

But remember, the meaning of history wasn't the same back then. Hearsay and oral accounts were considered reliable sources. One of the major gripes I have with Bart Ehrman, by the way. He falls into this trap quite often. Not recognizing that the meaning of history itself is totally different than it was some 2000 years ago.

[abaris]

During the 1920s Belgian historian Henri Pirenne came to an astonishing conclusion

And that's where I stop reading. You realize that history has moved on between the 1920ies and today? Quite a bit, actually. And I don't even bother to look up the author or his affiliations/agendas, since it's inconsequential. Most things written in the 20ies could jut as well come in two ply, inh order to make it easier findng a proper use for it.

[The Grand Nudger]

https://www.amazon.com/Mohammed-Charlema...amp;sr=8-1

Excellent, thank you.

Pirenne's thesis has not convinced most historians of the period, but they generally agree it has stimulated debate on the Early Middle Ages, and has provided a provocative example of how periodization would work.[8][9] Later archaeology has largely disproved the Pirenne thesis, by showing that Mediterranean trade was not disrupted by the rise of Islam in the way envisaged by Pirenne.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Pirenne

As to your comments about monks....to say that classical learning "survived" them, or through them..is a gross misrepresentation of what they did to classical works. They were ret-conners and book burners. They rewrote and christianized classical works to such an extent that we no longer trust their accounts or revisions or copies to be an accurate representation of the originals. OFC, in the 1920's we still accepted the christianized version of history, we were, ourselves, enamoured with the idea of being a part of classical civilization, so long as it had been whitewashed of anything we found culturally objectionable. So long as it's greatest moment was -our- moment....brought low by the hated turks and mohamedan, whom we had since defeated and subjugated.

[Arkilogue]

https://www.amazon.com/Mohammed-Charlema...amp;sr=8-1

Excellent, thank you.

Pirenne's thesis has not convinced most historians of the period, but they generally agree it has stimulated debate on the Early Middle Ages, and has provided a provocative example of how periodization would work.[8][9] Later archaeology has largely disproved the Pirenne thesis, by showing that Mediterranean trade was not disrupted by the rise of Islam in the way envisaged by Pirenne.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Pirenne

And thank you!

[Minimalist]

As usual, jesus freaks see what they want to see.

But remember, the meaning of history wasn't the same back then. Hearsay and oral accounts were considered reliable sources. One of the major gripes I have with Bart Ehrman, by the way. He falls into this trap quite often. Not recognizing that the meaning of history itself is totally different than it was some 2000 years ago.

Writers like Livy were using "history" as a contrasting commentary on the decline of morality in their own times.  Gospels writers were mere propagandists for a new bullshit religion.  And yes, sometimes Ehrman gives them way too much credit..... when he is not trashing them for being error-ridden, heavily-edited, pieces of shit.  He is a complex writer.

[abaris]

Writers like Livy were using "history" as a contrasting commentary on the decline of morality in their own times.  Gospels writers were mere propagandists for a new bullshit religion.

But both are meant to present an ideal. Not to give an accurate report. That was never the intent.

[Minimalist]

Livy has a tendency to follow one source and then, at the end of the discussion, cast doubt on it.  So presumably he knew that the past as preserved in Roman sources was lost.

I don't know what the gospel writers thought.  Obviously they were superstitious twits who thought dead men could come back to life and fly up into the sky.  What does that say about them?

[abaris]

I don't know what the gospel writers thought.  Obviously they were superstitious twits who thought dead men could come back to life and fly up into the sky.  What does that say about them?

But they didn't write in a void either. They are very well inside the tradition of their time and region. And certainly not the only writers of their time relying on mythology.

Personally I see no big difference between gods taking part in the war of Troy or Zeus screwing everything that moves and their tales.

[paulpablo]

Hello guys and girls

I want to ask your opinion on the following question: ,,What if christianity never existed?" please give arguments for your opinion.

I believe that even if islam and other religions existed, i think that humanity would be much more advanced in science and in other areas.The scientific discoveries and new ideas would't been surppressed, the term ,,The Dark ages" would never have existed.I don't want to offend christian folk ,but your religion in the past done some bad stuff, and it isn't your fault, but please be open minded, and try to answer this question sincerely.

Everyone have a nice day

The big question is then, what's there instead of Christianity?

You can't say that new ideas and scientific discoveries wouldn't have been suppressed because you don't know what is taking the place of Christianity.

I'd say your proposal of what would happen is VERY unlikely.

What are the chances that people would suddenly think "Ok well there's no Christianity around so let's follow reason and evidence, treat women as equals to men, and all sexualities equal."

Thing's could have been better, or worse.

Countries which have a history of being heavily Christian don't seem to be held back much in terms of science, separation of church and state, equality and things like this.
This is relative to other religions like say Islam.

Not to say that one belief is superior to the other, but Christianity has a separate history to Islam.  For whatever reason, there's probably many multifaceted reasons, the countries that used to be burning witches and killing people who came up with new ideas in the name of Christianity are now the most progressive countries in the world. ( My argument for this would be to reference all the countries in the world where gay marriage is legal, the best countries for sexual equality, countries with the best standard of living, scientific advancement and so on.)
And the countries that used to be Islamic and advanced in science are now not so advanced in science and not so relatively progressive.