Muslim Jesus: Great Prophet?

[Confused Ape]

I always wondered why books & records were scarce at that period, even in the 13th century, where almost all civilizations had libraries & numerous books (the arabs, the christians of Constantinople, the chinese, the japanese, even some far away civilizations like the mayans).

In the days before printing books and manuscripts had to be copied by hand so it was a very time consuming business. A culture had to be stable enough to support people who could spend all their time copying books and manuscripts. If there was a period like the Dark Ages where things were very unsettled due to wars and disease there wouldn't be much copying going on.

Even in cultures where there were libraries, most people wouldn't have had the means to travel to a library or the leisure to spend in reading books and manuscripts. I think it's very unlikely that everyone in these cultures could read and write anyway.

When medieval England was fairly stable, literacy tended to be confined to the the clergy, monks and nuns and men who kept everyday records. There wasn't much point in peasants learning to read and write because they couldn't have afforded a book.

This kind of thing isn't unique because, in Ancient Egypt, literacy was a profession.

http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/writing/ex...cribe.html

Not everyone learned to read and write in ancient Egypt. Only one group of people called scribes was allowed to have this knowledge.

About the books, I did reach a conclusion that the royal court & the church monopolized any kind of knowledge, which explains the contradictions of the amazing cathedrals which are built with a very sophisticated technology and arts, while peasants live in grass huts.

This was due to the medieval feudal system.

http://library.thinkquest.org/10949/fief/hifeudal.html

, it's true to some aspect, but I hold a great respect to the romans, they had a very good civilizations, but ruined it with blood & savagery will. But through out history, I think they were one of the closest to modern humanity. Or so I was told :p the truth can always differ.

I think it depends on how one defines 'modern humanity'. India is inhabited by modern humanity and so are the remote valleys of Papua New Guinea. I think that the Romans were close to modern Western culture in some ways but very different when it comes to existing non-Western cultures.

I really want to know what moves humans into that behavior, it seems like a constant since the time of the romans. Even if it's decreasing, but it's still there, kinda.

I think it's due to a number of things. One rabid fanaticism which can be for a religious belief or an ideology. Pol Pot and the Kymer Rouge in Cambodia created an ideology based on Marxist/Leninist/Maoist communism

http://hmd.org.uk/genocides/cambodia/khm...e-ideology

The Khmer Rouge’s interpretation of Marxist/Leninist/Maoist communism allowed them to believe that they could create a classless society, simply by eliminating all social classes except for the ‘old people’ – poor peasants who work the land.

Khmer Rouge ideology stated that the only acceptable lifestyle was that of poor agricultural workers.

This ideology led to genocide and the targets included people who followed a religion.

http://hmd.org.uk/genocides/cambodia/the-genocide

Lawyers, doctors, teachers, engineers, scientists and qualified professionals in any field were murdered, along with their extended families. Victims of the Khmer Rouge could be shot for knowing a foreign language, wearing glasses, laughing, crying or expressing love for another person.

Minority groups were victims of the Khmer Rouge. Ethnic Chinese, Vietnamese and Thai people became targets of the racism encouraged by Pol Pot. Cambodians believed to have Chinese, Vietnamese or Thai ancestry were not safe from attack. Religious believers were sought out and half the Cham Muslim population was murdered alongside 8000 Christians. Buddhism was eliminated from the country and by 1977 there were barely any functioning Buddhist monasteries left in Cambodia.

Anyway, back to the idea of the Dark Ages being some kind of punishment from God because people rejected Jesus's teachings. One of my favourite poets is Rudyard Kipling who seems to have been a theist who didn't follow any organised religion. 'Natural Theology' is about humans attributing all their misfortunes to God when their misfortunes are their own fault. Disease is included.-

http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/ki...ology.html

Medi/Eval

My privy and well drain into each other
After the custom of Christendie. . . .
Fevers and fluxes are wasting my mother.
Why has the Lord afflicted me?
The Saints are helpless for all I offer--
So are the clergy I used to fee.
Henceforward I keep my cash in my coffer,
Because the Lord has afflicted me.

God had nothing to do with diseases caused and spread by lack of sanitation and hygiene. Kipling ends the poem with a theist's viewpoint.

Conclusion

This was none of the good Lord's pleasure,
For the Spirit He breathed in Man is free;
But what comes after is measure for measure,
And not a God that afflicteth thee.
As was the sowing so the reaping
Is now and evermore shall be.
Thou art delivered to thine own keeping.
Only Thyself hath afflicted thee!

As an atheist I just go one further and think that no deity is required to inflict misfortunes on humans - we can manage that perfectly well by ourselves.