What if christianity never existed ?

[The Grand Nudger]

Then she'd be your uncle.  

[RobertE]

Then she'd be your uncle.  

I beg to differ since "she", would be a "he." Back at ya Ryth...

Though you are half-right with the "Uncle", tag.

[The Grand Nudger]

I believe they prefer the term "shim".

(just kidding, don;t tar me you fuckers)

[bennyboy]

I believe they prefer the term "shim".

(just kidding, don;t tar me you fuckers)

Ohhhhhhh, shit!  You done did it, now!

*popcorn*

[Pat Mustard]

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

You do know that the invasion/destruction of the classical world and beginning of the dark ages was by Islam right?

---

If christianity didn't exist, some other bs would take it's place. As there is ignorance, religion will exist in one form or another.

If Christianity didn't exist, there wouldn't have been a classical world to destroy.

No it wasn't islam that killed off the classical world, considering that classical Europe's demise was two centuries prior to islam's founding. What you claimed is equivalent to me claiming tbat Socrates was executed because christianity demanded it.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Pirenne's theory is dependant on his assertion that the rise of islam killed Mediterranian trade. Archaeology has shown that supposition to be wrong, trade continued at similar levels to that under Rome. Therefore his theory fell apart and was abandoned.

Idiot.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

I didn't know who Edward Scott was either so I googled him. I found no wikipedia page, no university bio not even a personal website. But, interestingly enough, I found he is featured a lot in the far-right, islamophobic website gates of Vienna (which has an occasional nazi bent) and he has written for goV's Anglo-American sister New English Review (cunningly named to leech respect from the New Englan Review of Books). What odds his book boils down to "muslims are teh evulz", taking no actual accounts of Piernne's original thesis or subsequent historical work?

[abaris]

I didn't know who Edward Scott was either so I googled him. I found no wikipedia page, no university bio not even a personal website. But, interestingly enough, I found he is featured a lot in the far-right, islamophobic website gates of Vienna (which has an occasional nazi bent) and he has written for goV's Anglo-American sister New English Review (cunningly named to leech respect from the New Englan Review of Books). What odds his book boils down to "muslims are teh evulz", taking no actual accounts of Piernne's original thesis or subsequent historical work?

I admit to be curious. So I looked him up also. Guy didn't even manage to get support for his theories back then, 90 years ago. And, as I said, he would be laughed out of court now that history needs a lot more proof than some guy having prejudices.

Gates of Vienna, by the way, referrs to the second siege by Ottomans in 1683. It's the plae to go for neo nazis, Islamophobists and crackpots alike. If you want to have some fun, go look up their contributors and their credentials if you want to call it that.

[Pat Mustard]

I didn't know who Edward Scott was either so I googled him. I found no wikipedia page, no university bio not even a personal website. But, interestingly enough, I found he is featured a lot in the far-right, islamophobic website gates of Vienna (which has an occasional nazi bent) and he has written for goV's Anglo-American sister New English Review (cunningly named to leech respect from the New Englan Review of Books). What odds his book boils down to "muslims are teh evulz", taking no actual accounts of Piernne's original thesis or subsequent historical work?

I admit to be curious. So I looked him up also. Guy didn't even manage to get support for his theories back then, 90 years ago. And, as I said, he would be laughed out of court now that history needs a lot more proof than some guy having prejudices.

Gates of Vienna, by the way, referrs to the second siege by Ottomans in 1683. It's the plae to go for neo nazis, Islamophobists and crackpots alike. If you want to have some fun, go look up their contributors and their credentials if you want to call it that.

I've visited Gates of Vienna in the past, can never stay there longer than five minutes. Given it's contributors, and that Scott is a fan of theirs, I'm more than happy that I'm right in dismissing him out of hand.

[Pat Mustard]

If Christianity never existed, we'd all be pagans.  We'd put pine trees in our houses to scare away demons in the middle of Winter, we'd have egg and rabbit fertility symbols sometime in Spring, and we'd be railing against dangerous ideas like evolution.


Oh. . . wait. . .

BTW Bennyboy, that was a shit thing to do setting up Stimbo like that, gaslighting the situation when you KNEW he'd suffered loss.

Reported.