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...
I think we have hit a chicken or egg question.
I feel that as the defacto leader of the savages they sucked you say otherwise.
It is pretty hard to have a true perspective on history when it is recorded by only one side.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper added his voice to the global outcry against a U.S. church's plan to burn 200 copies of the Qur'an on Saturday the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Quote:
"I don't speak very often about my own religion but let me be very clear: My God and my Christ is a tolerant God, and that's what we want to see in this world," he said.
"I unequivocally condemn it," he said. "We all enjoy freedom of religion and that freedom of religion comes from a tolerant spirit."
No suprise there.
Last edited by Rhetts_the_Best; 09-08-2010 at 08:54 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Rhetts_the_Best For This Useful Post:
Manhattan has a Mosque already NEAR the site. It has been part of Manhattan for 3 decades. So why the new Mosque with a guy that says the USA is at fault for the terrorist attack? Hmmmmmm
First off, Masjid Manhattan is Sunni. Park51 is headed up by a Sufi imam.
It's like telling the Catholics they can't build a Knights of Columbus hall because there's already a Pentecostal church in the neighborhood.
And last time I checked Feisal Abdul Rauf is free to have an opinion (even if I don't agree with it). There's certainly no shortage of professed Christians who also believe the USA's misfortunes are of their own making.
Last edited by Reggie Dunlop; 09-08-2010 at 09:17 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Reggie Dunlop For This Useful Post:
Man, I love how it's always some redneck in the middle of nowhere acting tough and riling up the extremists, but you just know it will be the New Yorkers who will have to face the threat of a retaliatory attack.
Thanks for nothing, ahole.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Table 5 For This Useful Post:
Man, I love how it's always some redneck in the middle of nowhere acting tough and riling up the extremists, but you just know it will be the New Yorkers who will have to face the threat of a retaliatory attack.
Thanks for nothing, ahole.
Sorry, I think I'm confused. Are you referring to HOZ or Pastor Terry Jones?
Its still amazingly sad how few there are, consider:
1.6 Billion Muslims, 9 Nobel winners.
13 Million Jews, 163 Nobel winners.
The world of Islam is a large black hole in so many regards, its really quite sad and there are forces within these nations trying valiantly to push them out of this hole.
Its still amazingly sad how few there are, consider:
1.6 Billion Muslims, 9 Nobel winners.
13 Million Jews, 163 Nobel winners.
The world of Islam is a large black hole in so many regards, its really quite sad and there are forces within these nations trying valiantly to push them out of this hole.
I'm not sure I understand how ethnicity or religion proves or disapproves anything in this instance. Are Muslims a homogenous group? Are Jews? Are Americans? Russians? Etc.
Its worth noting that the primarily Islamic countries are not as prosperous (economically speaking) as the west in comparison. Maybe they just dont have the resources available to contribute anything that hasn't already been done before.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MacGr3gor For This Useful Post:
Well, as much as I get down on liberals on the whole, we are really seeing the moral superiority of secularism over religious dogma over this Quran burning fiasco.
I feel that as the defacto leader of the savages they sucked you say otherwise.
It is pretty hard to have a true perspective on history when it is recorded by only one side.
I don't think we do. It's not like the savages were united - there were a number of tribes, each with its own king. The Church provided an overall unifying force, but it was by no means the "leader".
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.
All that, and no mention that the spread of Christianity in the first place was also a Roman creation?
The advances in medicine, science, etc. during the height of the Roman Empire are results of the social and political climate at the time. The Romans sunk plenty of money into worship (check out the Pantheon); that's not a Christian invention. The difference is that the Romans had heaps and heaps of money and could afford the research into city building, medicine, etc. We're talking about one of the greatest empires in human history, it's unfair to compare it to anything in the west for the next several hundred years, and closed-minded to suggest that Christianity is somehow to blame. If Constantine had made some sort of Greco-Roman polytheistic paganism the imperial faith and crushed Christianity completely, it still would have sucked to live in western europe in the dark ages.
Christianity may have stifled scientific research contrary to it's doctrine, but I'm pretty sure it didn't have anything against clean water. Societies were just too poor to build and advance these technologies.
Also, if Christianity was the all-powerful, thought-stifling influence you believe it to be, how did the Carolingian Renaissance happen? Why was the Roman Empire more advanced in the 4th century than the Umayyad Caliphate 300 years later?
I'm not sure I understand how ethnicity or religion proves or disapproves anything in this instance. Are Muslims a homogenous group? Are Jews? Are Americans? Russians? Etc.
I hear this a lot when discussing these matters, it usually brings out the racism or intolerance card.
Its just the truth, the way Islam went from a beacon of science, literature, the arts and now is in a dark ages of sorts.
I don't think we do. It's not like the savages were united - there were a number of tribes, each with its own king. The Church provided an overall unifying force, but it was by no means the "leader".
I'm suprised that you dont consider both the church and Kings as the the leadership in Europe at that time. They prospered off the power and leadership of each other.
The Kings would be confirmed by god (church) and the King in return would support often by force the biblical law. The word of the church was considered the law I would consider that leadership.
If Henry VIII had to literally throw out an entire religion just so he could get a divorce that shows me some serious power.
I'm suprised that you dont consider both the church and Kings as the the leadership in Europe at that time. They prospered off the power and leadership of each other.
The Kings would be confirmed by god (church) and the King in return would support often by force the biblical law. The word of the church was considered the law I would consider that leadership.
If Henry VIII had to literally throw out an entire religion just so he could get a divorce that shows me some serious power.
Oh, it had a lot of power - I'm just saying that when you have a bunch of tribes/countries, it's hard to pull them in one direction... In the end, what I am saying is that the Church did not hold back the march of civilization. What held it back is that the civilized Romans were replaced by barbarians - that's not the Church's fault.
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...
