How Christianity saved civilization

[Gungnir]

And to Hammurabi, while his laws may have been nice -- I don't see what they have to do with the Allthing, Common Law, Germanic Juries, or the Juris Corpus Civilis.

 

[Shogun]

And to Hammurabi, while his laws may have been nice -- I don't see what they have to do with the Allthing, Common Law, Germanic Juries, or the Juris Corpus Civilis.

of course you don't. Just like you don't see why a cross section of global civilizations unravel your claim that christianity allows us to wear shoes today.

 

[editec]

Shogun, is that what you think Gungir is really saying?

 

[Shogun]

They do when they are datable by pigment and surrounding artifacts.

according to whose testing method? do we ASSUME that surrounding artifacts were used by the same people who made the cave drawings? Do these things become vacuum sealed locations once the paint dried? I mean, clearly Stonehenge was used by a single culture during a 20 year timeframe, eh?


You're right it does not; however (as I have said for the last few posts) this Woolly Rhino does show a possible origin from which the tale of the mythological creature called the Unicorn, could have been based.

thats called a theory, dude. It's also a theory that there is a wandering dinosaur deep in the African jungles. It's also a theory that bigfoot, nessie, and the chupacabra are possibly neanderthal, a dinosaur and a blood sucking varmint. Thankfully, humans have never had a steak of imagination to work over their lively schema regarding shit that they can't otherwise explain, eh? I mean, if some ignorant ancient people thought a rhino was a unicorn then, clearly, unicorns exist.




(one extinct large fur covered grazing quadriped with a large horn located on the central foward upper part of its skull) x (9,000 years of the Telephone Game) just could very well be from where the myth of the Unicorn comes.


MYTH being the key word in your sentence.


I postulated that Ratites, Varanidaes, and Phorusrhacidaes could be the origin from which the myth of Dragons spread.

Again, MYTH being the key word you cannot leave out of your reply.


You claimed that I was equating a Woolly Rhino to a Unicorn with this statement:

And then attempted to reinforce that by stating the fact that if a dinosaur is called a dragon it is still a dinosaur and can never be a dragon.

You did equate a rhino with a unicorn just like you equated dinos with dragons. Is this backpeddling good for your shins, dude? Regardless of what it is CALLED, neither remain evidence of MYTHICAL beasts living on our planet.


So I corrected your implication that I am equating a myth with a reality, when I am saying the reality is the base from which the myth grew.

yea.. NOW you rely on the word MYTH like a shield from your previous assumptions. You know, kinda like NOW you have to narrow the tread topic to WESTERN civ despite the thread title.... The reality is not based on how the myth grew since THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A UNICORN OR DRAGON.



Then, Monkey, to show how stupid you are, I turned your game around on you:

HA!

yea, ply that luke-warm birdlike shit elsewhere, dude. BIRDLIKE doesn't belay the REPTILIAN nature of dinos. Sure, I see the similarities between feathers and scales too.. BUT, that doesn't mean a fucking flying dino validates the legend of the ROC. REGARDLESS of the myths believed by humanity.



Just as you don't think that Dinosaurs are mere Lizzards (akin to calling an Arachnid an Insect), I do not think a Woolly Rhino is a Unicorn.

Yet, dinos WERE reptiles just like lizards are. Can you tell me how equestrian a fucking rhino is?



Monkey, if you do not like my answers; you should stop making snide and stupid quips.


It's not that I don't like your answers, dude.. Indeed, they provide a good 15 minutes of entertainment each morning this week. Perhaps you should stop backpeddling and pretending that myths validate cryptozoology while deflecting away from the fact of a cross section of global civilizations...

I mean, since we all know how much of a civilization preserver Cortez was and all.


Start a thread on an alternative history where the Druidic civilization remained independent and I will speculate with you. But the Druidic civilization didn't remain independent and they didn't factor into the time frame we are discussing; so stop posting about them.


Eat me. Remind me what the title of THIS thread is again? how christianity saved WHAT? Indeed, this is where I enjoy watching you run, screaming, from the silliness of your own posts. Indeed, they didn't become a factor because they were busy being dominated by the Roman culture much in the same way CHRISTIANS were out dominating the hell out of other CIVILIZATIONS. Thus, your premise that christianity SAVED civ is about as farcical as the length you will go to backpeddle yourself a narrower arguement. I'll KEEP posting about them, and the Chinese, and any other damn civilization I want to since these are the historic facts you desperately wish to avoid while pretending that the jebus cult is why we have an alphabet and wear shoes.



If this thread were about the importance of Taoist teachings on Chinese Civilization, I would harp on you just as vigorously as I am now if you had opined about a civilization other than China.


How Christianity saved civilization

dont cry on my should because you dropped your load prematuerley and now find yourself having to clean up the mess of your original statements, dude. THIS THREAD didnt' specify western civ. But, thats besides the point. You assume that Civ would have died off had it not been for christianity in the west and Im going to still laugh as such a goofy fucking premise. The FACT remains that congregated humanity becomes an interactive CIVILIZATION regardless of the dogma involved. This is why you don't want to acknowledge the cross section of cultures that prove this beyond trying to gladhand the particular dogma that happens to flavor the culture that you identify with. Bringing up rhino unicorns and birdlike reptiles wont change this FACT.


If it is the one most followed by the most powerful populations, yes it does.

And, yet, here we are living in a world where CHINA, again, makes your goofy statement balk. Why doesn't CHINA count in your equation, dude?

So, let me extend your logic here.. So, because ROME was such a vast, powerful culture that dominated the shit out of other civs (like the west) then THEIR pantheon is also similarly to thank for the preservation of CIV, eh? Ole Zeus was THE MAN, right? This is why you don't like my Hammurabi reference, isnt it? By attributing significant social events to the cultural dogma of the time, like you do with midieval europe, you also assume that Hammurabi, whose coded laws are DIRECTLY where we patterned our legal system after, is saving civilization due to his religious beliefs. Such an idea is RETARDED, eh? yet, I get the feeling that you'd agree if you identified with the dogma of Hammurabi.


Where have you learned this from?
A) Evolution is a combination of factors that result in a general trend of natural selection of the fittest. Thus evolution will not assume because it is incapable of assuming.
B) There is no epitome in evolution.


a combination of factors that include an environment that doesn't dictate which stronger specie will survive. The Tyranosaurus was a pretty fit beast, eh? Yet, here we are with none left roaming the planet. Fitness of a specie is not the one midigating factor in evolution. Indeed, where did you learn YOUR science from?



This is not what I stated. You would cry or laugh (or defecate yourself) at my perfect civilization.


oh im sure I would. Likewise, im sure you would piss on yourself right before tying a noose were you thrust into MY best case scenerio. Uh, whats your point, again?


Good thing I didn't say that one either.

indeed, "christianity saved civilization" is so ambiguous!



In Civilization (WESTERN CIVILIZATION):
what percipitated the Carolingian Renaissance;
in Dark Age Western Europe, where was education recieved;
in pre Italian Renaissance Western Europe, where were most scholars to be found;
in pre Italian Renaissance Western Europe, who was the cause of great building projects works of art;
in pre Italian Renaissance Western Europe, who created the monarchy system for which the barbarians competed, and in the doing so settled from tribal into state-level society?

You ASSUME that all of this is the only path for which a civilization can take in order to survive. Again, I hate to keep bitchslapping you with a cross section of global cultures but the FACT remains that there are plenty of other examples that don't fit the mold you are trying to force Civilization into. Indeed, it is precisely BECAUSE of the very scarcity of education reserved for the christian church that makes your argument a total joke. I mean, we NEEDED a fucking monarchy for humanity to interact with itself, didn't we? Thank god masses of north American natives all refined to a society of state-level tribes don't count.. If only they wore shoes!



Not who could have done it, but who did do it.

Many people in many places. Tell me, genius, how did christianity save the JEWS? Their civilization predates your pony by thousands of years. Why, and we even have some still roaming around today! So, how thankful should they be for being "saved" by western europes black death dogma?


How could the Church have done anything for the Chinese, Hindus, Mayans, or Persians when it was (at that time) located in Western Europe? I don't want to talk about them because I am not talking about them. If I were talking about them I would talk about only them and nothing irrelevant. Which is what was being done until you became a screaming, flailing, scatting monkey!

Of COURSE you don't want to talk about them. Gosh, SHOCKER. Thankfully, THEY don't count as a CIVILIZATION... or something.

Indeed, what could the church have done? destroyed their culture like every other example of christian involvement with non-christians comes to mind.


So if you so desire to talk about Chinese Civilization open a thread on it and I will regail you with stories abound of the Ming Dynasty. If you want to talk about what could have happened if there was no Church and the Chinese took over the world, open a speculative thread and I will cospeculate with you.

Indeed, it's not speculation to call shennanigans on your opinon that civilization would simply not be were it not for christianty. If you want to fall back on the whole "b-b-but I didn't mean everyone when I said civ - just europe" then so be it. It remains laughable that christianity "saved" anything given it's history of death, illiteracy and squalor.



Monkey, you must be brain addled again.

The light which was Rome extinguished, der Tag, Gotterdamerung, the End of Days. The only people left in a symbolence of order were religious philosophers and they had to hornswaggle a continent full of Barbarians. Remember, their ranks were soon filled with Barbarians too. If you are condemning them for not immediately becoming a nationalized health care state (with an epidemic preparedness plan) along with a tax payer funded public school system -- you're rediculous.


yea, IM the rediculous one for seeing that medieval europe was far, FAR from the saving grace of civilization.. Indeed, lecture me on ethnocentrism some more after having to narrow your argument despite the thread title. BARBARIANS STILL HAD A CIVILIZATION TOO. They did not wander the fields grazing like animals. Again, this is why you refuse to acknowledge teh druid CIVILIZATION before being ransacked by Rome. Did it fit your Shoe wearing standard? probably not. But, then here you are making excuses for the fucking inquisistion, black death and crusades, NOT TO MENTION every other cultural interaction where christains were busy destroying CIVIZATIONS rather than "preserving" them. Spare me your goofy double standard.



William Tyndale
Old English Bible Translations
King James Version
English Translations of the Bible


Indeed, now how many of those versions were complete and reflective of what we know as the bible today.. instead of scribed notes from the guy translating the latin and hebrew? Further, how widespread were these editions READ? Does this even REMOTELY reflect the civil interaction that was going on REGARDLESS between humans depite the dogma? Of course not.. But, please, continue trying to pat your faith on it's back.



Monkey, you asserted that "it was christians that destroyed ROME's superiority in the world!"
I asked you, Monkey, to "Show proof that such {Christianity} was more detrimental" than a list of reasons.
You replied by copying a block of text from Wikipedia. I will note that you did not include the [citation needed] superscript that was attached to the end of the block of text you coppied. If you do not believe doing such to be intellectually dishonest, that is your own name to live with. However since you are a liar I doubt you care Monkey.



AGAIN, I'll go ahead and take block text reference from a man who had a wee bit closer scope of reference than some internet bozo looking to crown his faith with one more bullshit accolade. Trust me, dude.. hoping that a "citation needed" line discounts the premise of Gibbon's conclusions is both laughable and transparent. Please, do continue to throw stones at intellectual dishonesty though.

Indeed, I sure am a liar that a historian named Gibbon blamed christians for the downfall of rome. for REAL.




The text which you copied neither attributes to Gibbon the belief that the failure of Rome was explicitly the fault of Christians nor attributes to Gibbon the belief that Christianity in the Roman Empire was any more detrimental than the things which I cited. Since nothing else in that entire article attributed to Gibbon the belief that Christianity in the Roman Empire was any more detrimental than the things which I cited nor attributed to Gibbon the belief that the failure of Rome was explicitly the fault of Christians -- your appeal to authority was denied.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

ok dude.. YOU go ahead and believe that i'm lying to you.

"That public virtue which among the ancients was denominated patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members. Such a sentiment, which had rendered the legions of the republic almost invincible, could make but a very feeble impression on the mercenary servants of a despotic prince; and it became necessary to supply that defect by other motives, of a different, but not less forcible nature; honour and religion." Chapter 1

Best of Gibbon's DECLINE & FALL

The rise of a city, which swelled into an Empire, may deserve, as a singular prodigy, the reflection of a philosophic mind. But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians.

Gibbon: General Observations


As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear, without surprise or scandal, that the introduction, or at least the abuse, of Christianity had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of the military spirit were buried in the cloister; a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes, who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and the more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody, and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country.


Gibbon: General Observations




To this you replied that you were quoting Gibbon's words. Since you were quoting an uncited summary of Gibbon's writings, you were not quoting Gibbon's words. Thus you are a liar.

fine, bitch. Read above. Gibbons very own words. I hope this little charade buys you a couple hours of internet reputation or something. NOW, TELL me how Gibbons is not directly faulting christianity with the fall of rome.





Nor did anything in that uncited passage, coppied block of text, or entire article attribute to Gibbon that Christianity was the primary reason for Rome's fall.

HA!

indeed..

and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine

SURE is ambiguous!


So infamous that you can not come up with an actual quote or cited review to give substance to your words? You denied it to yourself Monkey.


Did you hope I WOULDNT dig up the man's actual words? Scroll up homey.




I didn't think a screaming, flailing, scatting, addled, lying Monkey such as yourself could be impressed with anything beyond the ability to smear feces on a wall.


OR, in this case, curbstomp your silly little retarded notion that christianity is the SAVIOUR of CIVILIZATION, eh?



poor guy.. calling me names really does make your opinion relevant!

not that I mind.. since, clearly, i've been running laps around you for pages now.



Yes, an actual scholar so near reach of primary sources that the actual scholar couldn't be bothered to cite his work.

Again, if THIS weak shit is what you hope will keep you from having to avoid Gibbons then you must really be red in the face right about now, eh?





As has already been demonstrated;
you have confused me with another poster, see above;
you can not cite your claims against me(Where is that proof of me claiming there is no evolution? Where is that proof of me being set against scientific research);
you spew profanity and idiocy on a normal course of posting.
Thus you are addled, cowardly, and a liar. In both cases I have edited my post 7 minutes after submitting them, you took over 15.5 hours to reply to the first edited post and almost 17.367 hours to reply to the second edited post. If in that time, you can not be bothered to actually read what post you are replying to, you should not even bother replying.



Hey, make ANOTHER excuse for ANOTHER stupid assertion of yours, dude. It's cool. I think we've seen enough to follow your pattern here. Feel free to edit whatever you find necessary though. Clearly, i post according to your itinerary!




I'm sorry what? {cricket} {cricket} {cricket} Stop lying or start taking brain suppliments.



BIG WORDS from a guy hoping I won't reply until the following morning, dude. Plenty of editing and redaction time, right? Hey, I probably wont reply for another 24 hours so make sure you sweep up your posts as necessary! Hey, that window might even be enough time to read a chapter or two of Gibbons!



Actually, I don't like calling you Monkey.

sure you do. It's a reflex to having your ass handed to you. It amounts to a kid huffing and puffing as he stalks off to his room where an authority figure told his to go as punishment.



As to your picture about Cortez

You obviously fell asleep in some class to think that the men of the West came to the Americas as anything but VICTORIOUS CONQUERORS!



Apparently, you need to replace your Sarcasm battery. My point, that you seemed to miss, spoke of Cortez's preservation of civilization depsite having destroyed one. You know, being a christian from western europe one might have figured that his presence would be like mana from heaven instead of a cultural black death.


TENEZ!

 

[editec]

NOW, TELL me how Gibbons is not directly faulting christianity with the fall of rome.

Directly faulting?

Bit of an overstatement, don't you think?

 

[Shogun]

what is Constantine's claim to fame in the hierarchy of Roman rulers again?

 

[tipper]

From wikipedia:





Since the Irish that saved civilization were Christian, I took license with my thread title. But it's still perfectly accurate.

Thank you for being a voice for Christians. It's about time one of us spoke out.

 

[Shogun]

....and stoned someone like the good ole days?

 

[editec]

what is Constantine's claim to fame in the hierarchy of Roman rulers again?

Which proves what, exactly?

 

[Shogun]

...exactly my point about the role christianity played in the downfall of rome as described by Gibbons. Say, how can christianity save civilization if it couldn't save one of the earliest examples of human civilization?

 

[AllieBaba]

Civilization is doomed, but our souls aren't.

 

[Gungnir]

thats called a theory, dude.

Of course it is.

It's also a theory that there is a wandering dinosaur deep in the African jungles. It's also a theory that bigfoot, nessie, and the chupacabra are possibly neanderthal, a dinosaur and a blood sucking varmint.

That is supposition and speculation.

Thankfully, humans have never had a steak of imagination to work over their lively schema regarding shit that they can't otherwise explain, eh? I mean, if some ignorant ancient people thought a rhino was a unicorn then, clearly, unicorns exist.

Wrong conclusions; clearly those Rhinos existed and the "streak of imagination" worked over the years to create the Unicorn story.

MYTH[/B] being the key word in your sentence.

Post #107

"No Monkey, what this means is that the fables of Unicorns and Dragons possibly originated in now extinct species whose descriptions were gradually altered through the millenia of retellings"

post #100

"European rhinos died out so only folktales and cave paintings would have been left. Over the millenia it is quite possible tales about Rhinos became Unicorns. Or are you too stupid to see that?"



Myth being the very key word.

Regardless of what it is CALLED, neither remain evidence of MYTHICAL beasts living on our planet.

Good thing I never said there was.

kinda like NOW you have to narrow the tread topic to WESTERN civ

Which is what you would do if you had any reading comprehension.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A UNICORN OR DRAGON.

Never disagreed. Why are you in all caps?

that doesn't mean a fucking flying dino validates the legend of the ROC. REGARDLESS of the myths believed by humanity.

If the Roc myth was from South East Asia or the Pacific Islands I would say it likely had a basis in reality, just like the Unicorn.

Yet, dinos WERE reptiles just like lizards are.

Not if they were luke-warm blooded.

Can you tell me how equestrian a fucking rhino is?

After several thousand years of retelling and invention, I'd be surprised if a Rhino remained an herbivore in stories. To your question, very. Both are quadrupedal odd-toed ungulates; similar in grazing, digestion and structure.

Evolution sure as hell doesn't assume that current specie variations are the epitome of potential

Where have you learned this from?

A) Evolution is a combination of factors that result in a general trend of natural selection of the fittest. Thus evolution will not assume because it is incapable of assuming.

B) There is no epitome in evolution.

a combination of factors that include an environment that doesn't dictate which stronger specie will survive. The Tyranosaurus was a pretty fit beast, eh? Yet, here we are with none left roaming the planet. Fitness of a specie is not the one midigating factor in evolution. Indeed, where did you learn YOUR science from?

As I said, there is no epitome. Fitness is not a measure of epitome but a measure of how successful a species is within an environment. The large dinosaurs ceased to be fit when the world charred after the Chicxulub Impact.

according to whose testing method? do we ASSUME that surrounding artifacts were used by the same people who made the cave drawings? Do these things become vacuum sealed locations once the paint dried? I mean, clearly Stonehenge was used by a single culture during a 20 year timeframe, eh?

These locations are testable just as trash pits and multilevel sites are. Since the paintings are the questioned subject we can analyze their materials, and scale them against known pigments and existing sources. Use recovered artifacts and the local fossil record to verify your findings.

Perhaps you should stop backpeddling and pretending that myths validate cryptozoology while deflecting away from the fact of a cross section of global civilizations...

If you have a backpeddling claim cite it. Before soon, I suspect you might be blaming my two edited posts for your Checkbook being off balance.



Monkey, remember, you brought up Unicorns first. I showed there is more to this world than your simple analysis.

I mean, since we all know how much of a civilization preserver Cortez was and all.

He did all right by my people. That metric is all that matters in this thread.

Eat me.

I'll bring the fava beans and Chianti.

Remind me what the title of THIS thread is again? how christianity saved WHAT? Indeed, this is where I enjoy watching you run, screaming, from the silliness of your own posts. Indeed, they didn't become a factor because they were busy being dominated by the Roman culture much in the same way CHRISTIANS were out dominating the hell out of other CIVILIZATIONS. Thus, your premise that christianity SAVED civ is about as farcical as the length you will go to backpeddle yourself a narrower arguement. I'll KEEP posting about them, and the Chinese, and any other damn civilization I want to since these are the historic facts

Mayan Civilization, Aztec Civilization, Incan Civilization, Chinese Civilization, Hindu Civilization, Ethiopian Civilization, Western Civilization. Civilizations. Obviously the non-plural form used in the thread title, along with the quite specific quoted text in the OP restrict this discussion to a single civilization which was quite specifically and exactly addressed in the quoted text as "Western Civilization".



No one disparages those others as not having their own civilization which thrived independently of others but they are just not the subject of discussion in this thread.

you desperately wish to avoid while pretending that the jebus cult is why we have an alphabet and wear shoes.

Where do you come up with the shoe fetish?

dont cry on my should because you dropped your load prematuerley and now find yourself having to clean up the mess of your original statements, dude. THIS THREAD didnt' specify western civ.

By specifying key participants and institutions of Western Civilization, and by quoting an article that specified Western Civilization the discussion is restricted to Western Civilization.

But, thats besides the point. You assume that Civ would have died off had it not been for christianity in the west

I think that our current civilization would not have come to pass. I also doubt that the technological and philosophical progress of Western Europe would have been as rapid.

The FACT remains that congregated humanity becomes an interactive CIVILIZATION regardless of the dogma involved.

Agreed, but it is stupid and silly to say that one is the exact same as the other. This being what you are doing you are stupid and silly. Monkey.

And, yet, here we are living in a world where CHINA, again, makes your goofy statement balk. Why doesn't CHINA count in your equation, dude?

Because they stopped using their Civilization.

So, let me extend your logic here.. So, because ROME was such a vast, powerful culture that dominated the shit out of other civs (like the west) then THEIR pantheon is also similarly to thank for the preservation of CIV, eh? Ole Zeus was THE MAN, right?

My logic here regards the institution of the Church. Not the Pantheon as already discussed. Taking a quote from Mr. Gibbon though:

The public virtue which among the ancients was denominated patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members. Such a sentiment, which had rendered the legions of the republic almost invincible, could make but a very feeble impression on the mercenary servants of a despotic prince; and it became necessary to supply that defect by other motives, of a different, but not less forcible nature; honour and religion. The peasant, or mechanic, imbibed the useful prejudice that he was advanced to the more dignified profession of arms, in which his rank and reputation wold depend on his own valour; and that, although the prowess of a private soldier must often escape the notice of fame, his own behaviour might sometimes confer glory or disgrace on the company the legion, or even the army, to whose honours he was associated. On his first entrance into the service, an oath was administered to him, with every circumstance of solemnity. He promised never to desert his standard, to submit his own will to the commands of his leaders, and to sacrifice his loife for the safety of the Emperor and the empire. The attachment of the Roman troops to their standards was inspired by the united influence of religion and of honour. The golden eagle, which glittered in the front of the legion, was the object of their fondest devotion; nor was it esteemed less impious than it was ignominious, to abandon that sacred ensign in the hour of danger.

So yes, the religion made of the Legionnaire's duty, honor, and valor in solitude and in cohesion proved a very real boon to the Roman people.

This is why you don't like my Hammurabi reference, isnt it? By attributing significant social events to the cultural dogma of the time, like you do with midieval europe, you also assume that Hammurabi, whose coded laws are DIRECTLY where we patterned our legal system after, is saving civilization due to his religious beliefs. Such an idea is RETARDED, eh? yet, I get the feeling that you'd agree if you identified with the dogma of Hammurabi.

Attend;

And to Hammurabi, while his laws may have been nice -- I don't see what they have to do with the Allthing, Common Law, Germanic Juries, or the Juris Corpus Civilis.

In Civilization (WESTERN CIVILIZATION):

what percipitated the Carolingian Renaissance;

in Dark Age Western Europe, where was education recieved;

in pre Italian Renaissance Western Europe, where were most scholars to be found;

in pre Italian Renaissance Western Europe, who was the cause of great building projects works of art;

in pre Italian Renaissance Western Europe, who created the monarchy system for which the barbarians competed, and in the doing so settled from tribal into state-level society?

You ASSUME that all of this is the only path for which a civilization can take in order to survive. Again, I hate to keep bitchslapping you with a cross section of global cultures but the FACT remains that there are plenty of other examples that don't fit the mold you are trying to force Civilization into.

Not at all, I just want you to answer those questions as they are the subject at hand. If you want to talk about another civilization go open a thread about that particular civilization and I will discuss it with you.

Indeed, it is precisely BECAUSE of the very scarcity of education reserved for the christian church that makes your argument a total joke.

This is what was left when Barbarians came through and when they settled down they took it for their own uses. As said previously this culminated in the surpassing of the Church in the Italian Renaissance. Back to the Scriptorium, those monastic institutions faded as people began opening their own bookshops. I'm not saying the Church was the best, just that it was the actual conduit of preservation.

Not who could have done it, but who did do it.

Many people in many places.

Sure, but who actually did this for our current Civilization, Western Civilization.

Tell me, genius, how did christianity save the JEWS? Their civilization predates your pony by thousands of years.

Just what do the Khazar-Idumeans have to do with Western Civilization?

Why, and we even have some still roaming around today! So, how thankful should they be for being "saved" by western europes black death dogma?

Ask George Soros and Michael Chertoff.

Indeed, what could the church have done? destroyed their culture like every other example of christian involvement with non-christians comes to mind.

Sounds good to me.

Indeed, it's not speculation to call shennanigans on your opinon that civilization would simply not be were it not for christianty. If you want to fall back on the whole "b-b-but I didn't mean everyone when I said civ - just europe" then so be it. It remains laughable that christianity "saved" anything given it's history of death, illiteracy and squalor.

Until you provide some thing that actually was a conduit for skill set preservation for our current Civilization (that's Western Civilization to you Monkey) which rivaled the Church, you're just looking for a reason to bash the Church.

BARBARIANS STILL HAD A CIVILIZATION TOO. They did not wander the fields grazing like animals.

The razzia culture worked out so well for the Bedouin didn't it?

Again, this is why you refuse to acknowledge teh druid CIVILIZATION before being ransacked by Rome.

The Celts weren't Barbarians; heathens, yes. It doesn't really matter how glorious a civilization they had when it ceased to exist.

Did it fit your Shoe wearing standard?[/quote
]
Monkey, you have an odd shoe fetish.

But, then here you are making excuses for the fucking inquisistion, black death and crusades, NOT TO MENTION every other cultural interaction where christains were busy destroying CIVIZATIONS rather than "preserving" them. Spare me your goofy double standard.

When it comes to whatever promotes my civilization or my people over another for our benefit--there is only one standard, only one metric. Meet Darwin.

Indeed, now how many of those versions were complete and reflective of what we know as the bible today.. instead of scribed notes from the guy translating the latin and hebrew? Further, how widespread were these editions READ? Does this even REMOTELY reflect the civil interaction that was going on REGARDLESS between humans depite the dogma? Of course not.. But, please, continue trying to pat your faith on it's back.

Wrong conclusion. This shows that the Barbarians had settled and were taking the skillset from the Church. You would have realized the connection had you comprehended the Scriptorium article.

AGAIN, I'll go ahead and take block text reference from a man who had a wee bit closer scope of reference than some internet bozo looking to crown his faith with one more bullshit accolade. Trust me, dude.. hoping that a "citation needed" line discounts the premise of Gibbon's conclusions is both laughable and transparent.

I'm just hoping you can actually back up what you say.

Please, do continue to throw stones at intellectual dishonesty though.

I prefer the Rack personally. Nothing like a good stretch.

ok dude.. YOU go ahead and believe that i'm lying to you.

That was already proved to my satisfaction. This is now about you actually getting text to back up the level of condemnation which you claim a man actually stated.





So now you bring on the quotes, at least you have begun to do something right.

"That public virtue which among the ancients was denominated patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members. Such a sentiment, which had rendered the legions of the republic almost invincible, could make but a very feeble impression on the mercenary servants of a despotic prince; and it became necessary to supply that defect by other motives, of a different, but not less forcible nature; honour and religion." Chapter 1



Best of Gibbon's DECLINE & FALL

Well see my full quote above. In this instance Gibbon was referring to the situation that as the Roman soldier ceased to be at the least an enfranchised citizen who served for public virtue but any commoner and mercenary, the Empire had to foster some sense of service and this was created by a religion of valor and honor.

The rise of a city, which swelled into an Empire, may deserve, as a singular prodigy, the reflection of a philosophic mind. But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians.



Gibbon: General Observations

And all of those preceding Emperors who relaxed the "military government" or those legions which "oppressed the freedom of the Republic"?

As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear, without surprise or scandal, that the introduction, or at least the abuse, of Christianity had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of the military spirit were buried in the cloister; a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes, who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and the more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody, and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country.





Gibbon: General Observations

And how does "some influence on the decline and fall" equate to a belief that the failure of Rome was explicitly the fault of Christians.?

To this you replied that you were quoting Gibbon's words. Since you were quoting an uncited summary of Gibbon's writings, you were not quoting Gibbon's words. Thus you are a liar.

fine, bitch. Read above. Gibbons very own words. I hope this little charade buys you a couple hours of internet reputation or something. NOW, TELL me how Gibbons is not directly faulting christianity with the fall of rome.

Still you can't get something to support yourself with. Gibbon certainly includes it as a list of faults but never lists it as any more damaging than the already existing conditions. In fact, I am still waiting for you to show proof that Christianity in Rome was more detrimental than:

Octavian not codifying rules of succession for the Emperorhood;

the appointment of Commodus as Emperor;

the coming to power of the Severan Dynasty;

Caracalla's giving citizenship to all freemen in the Empire;

the continual Barbarian migration into Europe;

the increased centralization of power to the Emperorhood;

the tetrarchy;

the use of slave labor over the steam engine;

increasing use of foreign mercenaries and granting of lands to them;

increasing trouble with Asiatic upstarts and powers.

Nor did anything in that uncited passage, coppied block of text, or entire article attribute to Gibbon that Christianity was the primary reason for Rome's fall.

HA!



indeed..



and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine



SURE is ambiguous!

To bad the passage refers to the military discipline. Rome had another 130 years to blunder on, in that amount of time the United State of America became the master of this Hemisphere and nearly the other. And that includes destroying half of the country in a terrible civil war.

Did you hope I WOULDNT dig up the man's actual words? Scroll up homey.

I hoped that you could actually back up your claims. Sadly, you can't. Oh, and scroll up Monkey, I spanked your ass on your first quote.

not that I mind.. since, clearly, i've been running laps around you for pages now.

There are people in the Special Olympics that run laps better than you.

Again, if THIS weak shit is what you hope will keep you from having to avoid Gibbons then you must really be red in the face right about now, eh?

Speaking of weak shit, Monkey, I just smacked down your appeal to authority again.

Hey, make ANOTHER excuse for ANOTHER stupid assertion of yours, dude. It's cool. I think we've seen enough to follow your pattern here. Feel free to edit whatever you find necessary though. Clearly, i post according to your itinerary!

If you can't bother to read what you're posting to don't reply. But on the issue, since it takes you several post after my two edited post to invent some accusation, I think we've seen enough to follow your pattern here. Especially since you have several outstanding uncited claims. Oh and I smacked you down repeatedly on issues from the Fall of the Roman Empire, to your weirdo shoe fetish, to evolution, to unicorns, to grammar. So Monkey, sit down and start thinking about how to get your clenched fist out of the coconut because I''ve got the fava beans simmering on the stove.

BIG WORDS from a guy hoping I won't reply until the following morning, dude. Plenty of editing and redaction time, right?

Since each edit was seven minutes after the post and for mechanical errors with tags, you don't have a leg to stand on or a tail to hang from Monkey.

Hey, I probably wont reply for another 24 hours so make sure you sweep up your posts as necessary! Hey, that window might even be enough time to read a chapter or two of Gibbons!

Should it worry you? If I edit a post after you've posted call bullshit, but since I haven't you don't have a thing to worry about. If I change my opinion as you say, then surely that is a boon to you. But I just as much expect to be blamed for admitting to shooting down a UFO at Roswell and screwing up your Checkbook when it comes to a poster as dishonest and brain addled as yourself, Monkey.

Apparently, you need to replace your Sarcasm battery.

I wasn't being sarcastic.

My point, that you seemed to miss, spoke of Cortez's preservation of civilization depsite having destroyed one. You know, being a christian from western europe one might have figured that his presence would be like mana from heaven instead of a cultural black death.

Who of my people should care what he wrought on a bunch of human sacrificing cannibals? He did alright in advancing our people and OUR civilization.





Monkey, once again, you have failed.

 

[editec]

...exactly my point about the role christianity played in the downfall of rome as described by Gibbons. Say, how can christianity save civilization if it couldn't save one of the earliest examples of human civilization?

I am not arging that Christianity SAVED civilization.

I have repeatedly said the statement is ridiculous, and something only someone with a passing familiarity with history would think even makes sense.

I am merely suggesting that the statement that Chritianity caused the downfall of Rome is also a preposterous assertion, and that too is a statement that only someone with a passing familiarity with history of the Roman Empire would think makes sense.

And no I am NOT impressed if one takes a single sentence out of Gibbons' tome and misconstrues his meaning from that sentence to imply that he was saying Christianity caused the downfall of Rome, either.

Gibbons' intentions were not to say that Rome fell because of Constintine or of Christianity, either.

Rome was on its way down long before Constitine was even born.

 

[Shogun]

I suggest you go back and remember exactly WHY Gibbons's Fall of Rome theory was controversial then. If his decipher of christianity's role was merely a footnote it wouldn't have become THE factor that his writings are remembered for. You might as well suggest that natural selection was only a tiny, insignificant aspect of Darwin's theory of evolution.