Burning the Koran

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by HOZ

No I have brutally laid down the facts and some people really have a tough time looking the facts in the eye. That would be your side.

Are Nobel Prizes good enough?

Because if so, then your chest thumping rants should end rather quickly.

[Day Tripper]

Muslims should be supporting this endeavor. You've gotta buy 'em to burn 'em.

[HeartsOfFire]

HeartsofFire =

Incidentally, it's a free country and they're allowed to whatever they want in said free country, so long as they play by the rules. If they don't play by the rules, then they should pay the consequences.

All in all, if their book burning results in their church catching fire due to errant sparks or what have you, I will surely die from laughter at the irony.

[LIP MAN]

I suppose I am one of those people you speak of. Yes they have the right to burn the books...but honestly it's just more and more divisive to a country with a large history of racial tension. Although religion is the main backdrop to this mess, most Muslims in America are a visible minority.

Sorry to sidetrack a little...I find it funny that nobody ever made a big stink about a church being built near the Oklahoma City building even though Mcveigh was a fundamental extremist Christian. On a side note, here is what is near the "hallowed ground" of ground zero:

http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

[SeeBass]

Dont forget the golden arches are at ground zero in Nagasaki.

[868904]

hopefully some crazy muslim well suicide bomb the event and the world will be free of some fanatical religious nuts....

if there is a god, this is what should happen...

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Well, here's calgaryb... er... Boehner on the topic:

"To Pastor Jones and those who want to build the [so-called Ground Zero] Mosque," Boehner said (drawing an equivalence between Koran burning and the Cordoba House Project in lower Manhattan) "Just because you have a right to do something in America, does not mean it's the right thing to do. We're a nation of religious freedom -- we're also a nation of tolerance. I think in the name of tolerance, people ought to really think about the kind of actions they're taking."

[SeeBass]

I guess I could just attack Christianity as per Hoz:

Ever hear of the Dark Ages? That's the time when christianity ruled the world.


And from the time of the fall of Rome, until the Renaissance - when people began to again value intellectual thought, not one significant discovery was made. Can you name one signficant scientist or scientific discovery from the 6th century? The 7th? 8th, 9th, 10th?

Now, how many can you name from the 20th?

In the Dark Ages, irrationalism replaced rationalism. In Rome, it was believed by many that the brain was the seat of intellect, and that the heart was just a muscle. In Greece, and later in Rome, it was held that the world was round... in fact, Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the world. People knew 1800 years ago how large the world was... but 1000 years later, they had NO IDEA. The heliocentric system was first uncovered in Greece.

But in the dark ages, irrationalism ruled, knowledge was shunned, and ignorace took over... people thought the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, they believed that the heart was the center of the intellect.... where did this ignorance come from? The bible.

And even worse, diseases that were easily cured by ROMANS were uncurable for people living centuries AFTER the fall of Rome.

The Greeks and Romans invented the clinical method of science and medicine! They held that diseases were natural and curable.

Then came christianity, that shunned knowledge, actively worked against the disease model of medicine, and replaced it with demonology... now, a disease was a demon... Medical science actually went backwards, we actually LOST knowledge!

Think that isn't important?

Well, because of that, the lifespan of mankind actualy shrunk during that time. That's right, 1000 years after the fall of Rome, people were dying at an earlier age than they were prior to the fall of Rome. That's right, as time passed, things actually got worse.

If you don't think that's significant, you tell me what you think the life span will be 1000 years from now. Do you think it will shrink?



How many centuries are we behind? 300-400?

Maybe more.... just look at Greece from 500 BCE to Roman times around 200-300 AD.... look at the growth in thought....

Here's just one sobering thought. Rome, the capital city of the Roman empire, was the world's first city to approach a population of around 1 million - around 100 AD.

They were able to achieve this through technology - fine roads the could be traversed by heavy populations.... well structured buildings built to last.... (go to Rome today and take a look a some) and fresh, clean water... enough not only for drinking, but for public bathing!

The Roman aquaducts were a marvel - Roman civil engineers found a way to bring fresh clean water to a million people....

When was the next time a western city had a population of one million? When's the next time a city met this level of technological achievement?

London.

In the 19th century.

Thanks christianity. Thanks a heap. Thanks for diverting our minds to 'faith' thanks to diverting our works to building cathedrals, rather than cities.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I guess I could just attack Christianity as per Hoz:

Ever hear of the Dark Ages? That's the time when christianity ruled the world.
.
.
.
Thanks christianity. Thanks a heap. Thanks for diverting our minds to 'faith' thanks to diverting our works to building cathedrals, rather than cities.

You are very wrong. I say this as a fairly committed athiest, but also as a historian-turned-lawyer. Whatever advances the Greeks and the Romans made were preserved by Church scholars. The problem wasn't that the Romans turned to Christianity. The problem was that the (Western) Roman civilization/empire was overrun by savages, such as the Goths, Franks, Alars, Huns, Saxons, Suevi, etc, etc. Whatever works of Greek and Roman philosophers, authors, and scientists survived were preserved by Christian monks because until well into the Middle Ages they were literally the only literate people. Now, did the Church also give us the Inquisition, persecute Galileo, Copernicus et al? Certainly, but the fact that any sort of "base" was preserved to build on was thanks to the Church.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

You are very wrong. I say this as a fairly committed athiest, but also as a historian-turned-lawyer.

My God, you're pure evil.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Shazam

My God, you're pure evil.

Yes, especially when you factor in my Leninist youth...

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

You are very wrong. I say this as a fairly committed athiest, but also as a historian-turned-lawyer. Whatever advances the Greeks and the Romans made were preserved by Church scholars. The problem wasn't that the Romans turned to Christianity. The problem was that the (Western) Roman civilization/empire was overrun by savages, such as the Goths, Franks, Alars, Huns, Saxons, Suevi, etc, etc. Whatever works of Greek and Roman philosophers, authors, and scientists survived were preserved by Christian monks because until well into the Middle Ages they were literally the only literate people. Now, did the Church also give us the Inquisition, persecute Galileo, Copernicus et al? Certainly, but the fact that any sort of "base" was preserved to build on was thanks to the Church.

Fair points but were not many of these savages Christian lead or not?

There is also evidence of research being destroyed by the church too. There is debatable evidence that the Great Library of Alexandria was burned by Christians as it was a Pagan symbol. A monk had destroyed the scrolls that had the works of Archimedes (The palimpset).

I guess it is a matter of pros vs cons and did the good outweigh the bad.

I appreciate your opinion and enjoy this type of discussion.

[troutman]

How The Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland's Heroic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe is a non-fiction historical book written by Thomas Cahill.

Cahill argues a case for the Irish people's critical role in preserving Western Civilization from utter destruction by the Huns and the Germanictribes (Visigoths, Franks, Angles, Saxons, Ostrogoths, etc.). The book retells the story from the collapse of the Roman Empire and the pivotal role played by members of the clergy at the time. A particular focus is placed upon Saint Patrick and retells his early struggles through slavery; basically retelling portions of The Confession of Saint Patrick. Early parts of the book examine Ireland before Patrick and the role of Saint Augustine of Hippo. Particular focus is placed upon Saint Columba and the monks he trained and the monasteries he set up in the Hiberno-Scottish mission. In a sense, these holy men salvaged everything possible from the destruction of the Roman Empire.

[afc wimbledon]

Personally I am amazed that the trailor park pastor can find the time to get off his sister long enough to recognise what a book looks like.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Fair points but were not many of these savages Christian lead or not?

There is also evidence of research being destroyed by the church too. There is debatable evidence that the Great Library of Alexandria was burned by Christians as it was a Pagan symbol. A monk had destroyed the scrolls that had the works of Archimedes (The palimpset).

I guess it is a matter of pros vs cons and did the good outweigh the bad.

I appreciate your opinion and enjoy this type of discussion.

The savages adopted Christianity after they came into contact with the Romans. The kings of the various tribes found that Christianity was very useful as a means of control of their subjects and in perpetuating hereditary rule (king as the representative of god, etc...).
Often old manuscripts were destroyed or almost destroyed because latter writers needed something to write on, and simply wrote over top of the previous writing. It wasn't malicious - it was merely accidental. I am sure there were cases of wanton destruction, but all I am saying is that whatever did survive was mostly due to Church scholars. The Church was often the only avenue open to "smart" kids, and churchmen often rose to very prominent positions as advisers to monarchs because they were the smartest people in the land. Think back to Three Musketeers and the "bad guy" Cardinal Richelieu, the king's "prime minister". Louis the XIV's (the Sun King) foremost adviser was Cardinal ....... damn, what's his name... Mazzini? These weren't "spiritual" advisers - they directed economic policy, foreign policy, etc.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

The savages adopted Christianity after they came into contact with the Romans. The kings of the various tribes found that Christianity was very useful as a means of control of their subjects and in perpetuating hereditary rule (king as the representative of god, etc...).
Often old manuscripts were destroyed or almost destroyed because latter writers needed something to write on, and simply wrote over top of the previous writing. It wasn't malicious - it was merely accidental. I am sure there were cases of wanton destruction, but all I am saying is that whatever did survive was mostly due to Church scholars. The Church was often the only avenue open to "smart" kids, and churchmen often rose to very prominent positions as advisers to monarchs because they were the smartest people in the land. Think back to Three Musketeers and the "bad guy" Cardinal Richelieu, the king's "prime minister". Louis the XIV's (the Sun King) foremost adviser was Cardinal ....... damn, what's his name... Mazzini? These weren't "spiritual" advisers - they directed economic policy, foreign policy, etc.

Yes that was what I meant too thank you.
I guess I should state that the Romans didn't fall directly from christianity but that christianity became a leading part of the power of europe and failed to advance humanity effectively with their leadership.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Yes that was what I meant too thank you.
I guess I should state that the Romans didn't fall directly from christianity but that christianity became a leading part of the power of europe and failed to advance humanity effectively with their leadership.

But is that the fault of Christianity per se? When "Christians" was synonimous with "citizens of the Roman Empire" science/philosophy/arts flourished - you could argue that the only difference between 5th century Romans and us is technology. After the eruption of the "barbarians" from the Eurasian Plain into Western Europe, Roman civilization and state were overthrown, and "Christians" became synonimous with "illiterate savages". Is it the fault of Christianity that these people didn't turn into Romans or is it merely that the Church did what it could in the face of the onslaught to preserve civilization? I would argue that the Church was a positive force from the perspective of "civilization" until the latter Middle Ages...

[Mad Mel]

Why don't Christians ever learn that burning stuff doesn't really help their case?

[Reggie Dunlop]

I don't think Petraeus really has any business telling American civilians how they may politically express themselves, whether it's burning a book (which BTW is a dumbass thing to do), drawing a political cartoon or producing a television show -- all of which can result in protests in Islamic countries. US troops are in danger simply because of who they are. There doesn't need to be an "incident" to set off a terrorist.

[CaramonLS]

HOZ, serious question, is English your first language?