Did Christianity destroy Greek and Roman civilization and create the Dark Ages?
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/dark-age.htm
I personally think it did.
In the Roman Empire prior Christianity there was a general freedom of religion and ideas.
That all changed after the Roman Empire became Christian, as Christians resolved to force Christianity on everyone.
Civilization or at least Europe went backwards as the intolerance of Christianity destroyed the architecure, the literature and much of the knowledge of Ancient Rome and Greece.
Did Christianity destroy Greek and Roman civilization?
Moderator: Moderators
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #21
That's funny, belief in Christianity didn't restrict these guys:Imaginos wrote:Science and Technology prospered in the Roman Empire as the Pagan religions had no agenda of restricting knowledge or forcing people to follow a specific faith.Tex wrote:Tex: Are you serious?? Wake up and smell the coffee. If people were so happy with the Roman rule....They would have killed the Apostles before they could have said "boo".Its hardly surprising that early Christians were hated with good reason.
They were completely intolerant to other beliefs and wanted to destroy values deeply held by the classical world like freedom of religious faith, freedom of speech and freedom of knowledge.
"freedom of speech" in Roman times.....Now you have to tell me where you heard that one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... in_science
Alfred North Whitehead and Robert Oppenheimer both said Christianity was the reason science arose in the West, and not elsewhere.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
Post #22
Christianity was used in a very destructive way by many people though, and that is part of its influence on the world.East of Eden wrote:
If I were a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point. Jesus harmed nobody, and when confronted with disbelievers merely sadly walked away. He specifically warned against such purges in the parable of the wheat and the tares. You don't judge a philosophy by it's misuse.
Hence we ended up with things like the Inquisition and the Crusades.
And those things are supported by verses in the Bible, so Christianity is at least part of the cause of them.
Last edited by Imaginos on Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post #23
Your comment is pretty ironic considering at a glance that list includes Giordano Bruno and Michael Servetus who were both burnt at the stake, as well as Galileo who was also imprisoned by the church.East of Eden wrote:
That's funny, belief in Christianity didn't restrict these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... in_science
Alfred North Whitehead and Robert Oppenheimer both said Christianity was the reason science arose in the West, and not elsewhere.
If I went through the list I'd probably find others who were persecuted.
Anyone who thinks Christianity helped scientific progress is just deluding themselves.
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #24
As Whitehead said, Galileo died peacefully on his bed with a mild reprimand, you can argue the other two were killed for theological, not scientific reasons.Imaginos wrote:Your comment is pretty ironic considering at a glance that list includes Giordano Bruno and Michael Servetus who were both burnt at the stake, as well as Galileo who was also imprisoned by the church.East of Eden wrote:
That's funny, belief in Christianity didn't restrict these guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... in_science
Alfred North Whitehead and Robert Oppenheimer both said Christianity was the reason science arose in the West, and not elsewhere.
Like Oppenheimer and Whitehead? Maybe you think it was a coincidence science arose on the Christian West?If I went through the list I'd probably find others who were persecuted.
Anyone who thinks Christianity helped scientific progress is just deluding themselves.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #25
Where did Jesus say to do those things? Do Stalin's actions invalidate atheism?Imaginos wrote:Christianity was used in a very destructive way by many people though, and that is part of its influence on the world.East of Eden wrote:
If I were a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point. Jesus harmed nobody, and when confronted with disbelievers merely sadly walked away. He specifically warned against such purges in the parable of the wheat and the tares. You don't judge a philosophy by it's misuse.
Hence we ended up with things like the Inquisition and the Crusades.
And those things are supported by verses in the Bible, so Christianity is at least part of the cause of them.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
Post #26
Unit 731 all in the name of an emperor. Pel Pot, Stalin, Hitler all used idealogical ideas to support theirr actions.Imaginos wrote:Christianity was used in a very destructive way by many people though, and that is part of its influence on the world.East of Eden wrote:
If I were a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point. Jesus harmed nobody, and when confronted with disbelievers merely sadly walked away. He specifically warned against such purges in the parable of the wheat and the tares. You don't judge a philosophy by it's misuse.
Hence we ended up with things like the Inquisition and the Crusades.
And those things are supported by verses in the Bible, so Christianity is at least part of the cause of them.
The dark ages were created by governments not religion. In fact the very few people could read and write unless they were attached to the christian church. Monks were the best educated and copied the books we still have today.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #27
Stalin used the ideology of The State, Pol Pot used the ideology of Theravada Buddhism and Hitler thought he was dong the work of Jesus. Of course, they all were quite insane. The hard thing about it is that they got other people to go along with them.Rkrause wrote:Unit 731 all in the name of an emperor. Pel Pot, Stalin, Hitler all used idealogical ideas to support theirr actions.Imaginos wrote:Christianity was used in a very destructive way by many people though, and that is part of its influence on the world.East of Eden wrote:
If I were a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point. Jesus harmed nobody, and when confronted with disbelievers merely sadly walked away. He specifically warned against such purges in the parable of the wheat and the tares. You don't judge a philosophy by it's misuse.
Hence we ended up with things like the Inquisition and the Crusades.
And those things are supported by verses in the Bible, so Christianity is at least part of the cause of them.
The dark ages were created by governments not religion. In fact the very few people could read and write unless they were attached to the christian church. Monks were the best educated and copied the books we still have today.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
Post #28
Thats a whole new topic....Why do people follow insane people?Goat wrote:Stalin used the ideology of The State, Pol Pot used the ideology of Theravada Buddhism and Hitler thought he was dong the work of Jesus. Of course, they all were quite insane. The hard thing about it is that they got other people to go along with them.Rkrause wrote:Unit 731 all in the name of an emperor. Pel Pot, Stalin, Hitler all used idealogical ideas to support theirr actions.Imaginos wrote:Christianity was used in a very destructive way by many people though, and that is part of its influence on the world.East of Eden wrote:
If I were a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point. Jesus harmed nobody, and when confronted with disbelievers merely sadly walked away. He specifically warned against such purges in the parable of the wheat and the tares. You don't judge a philosophy by it's misuse.
Hence we ended up with things like the Inquisition and the Crusades.
And those things are supported by verses in the Bible, so Christianity is at least part of the cause of them.
The dark ages were created by governments not religion. In fact the very few people could read and write unless they were attached to the christian church. Monks were the best educated and copied the books we still have today.
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #29
Goat wrote:Rkrause wrote:Unit 731 all in the name of an emperor. Pel Pot, Stalin, Hitler all used idealogical ideas to support theirr actions.Imaginos wrote:Christianity was used in a very destructive way by many people though, and that is part of its influence on the world.East of Eden wrote:
If I were a member of the bronze-age theocracy of Israel you might have a point. Jesus harmed nobody, and when confronted with disbelievers merely sadly walked away. He specifically warned against such purges in the parable of the wheat and the tares. You don't judge a philosophy by it's misuse.
Hence we ended up with things like the Inquisition and the Crusades.
And those things are supported by verses in the Bible, so Christianity is at least part of the cause of them.
The dark ages were created by governments not religion. In fact the very few people could read and write unless they were attached to the christian church. Monks were the best educated and copied the books we still have today.So those two weren't really atheists?Stalin used the ideology of The State, Pol Pot used the ideology of Theravada Buddhism
He said that early on, while duping his way to power. His end game was to go after Christians too.and Hitler thought he was dong the work of Jesus.
Funny, if Hitler was doing Jesus' work, why didn't the martyred Dietrich Bonhoffer figure out they were on the same side?
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #30
Good question.. Hitler was the 'voice of authority'.. and people were scared. If people talked against the government, they just 'disappeared' .. I think Stalin was a similar situation.. I don't know enough about Pol Pot. .. but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella