How Christianity saved civilization

[editec]

Show proof that such 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.

I see somebody's obviously been leafing though their Gibbons.

Hey I know!

Why don't start a thread where we can debate what really cased the fall of the Roman empire.

That debate could last longer than the empire itself lasted, and we'd still never arrive at a conclusive answer other than hubris.

Original Sin --ya' don't need to be a Christian to understand the concept.

We're bad monkeys, folks.

 

[Gungnir]

I have 3 volumes of 6.

Why don't start a thread where we can debate what really cased the fall of the Roman empire.

That debate could last longer than the empire itself lasted, and we'd still never arrive at a conclusive answer other than hubris.

editec, in regard to Celto-centrism; surely you will agree that Scotland has provided a great deal of quality material to our world?
Scottish Inventors

 

[manifold]

I have to say I'm pretty happy with myself for having started this thread. If there was an emoticon for patting oneself on the back, I'd post it here.

Nice work fellas!

 

[Shogun]

Comparing those pathetic dust-ups to the wholesale slaughter that Rome typically did, is of course, an enormous mistake of scale.
But if your point is that Christendom was not the same enlightened society of people that you and I are members of, you'll get no debate from me on that point.
Again, the issue upon which we disagree is mostly one of scale and comparison.
do not identify with Jesus OR Zeus, FYI.
I suggest that Christendom was less savage than Rome because I know something about just how savage Rome was, and know that Christendom simply didn't have the ability to be SO savage.
But hey, let's not let reality stand in the way of your great rant, shall we?
For really real dude, I am treating you with respect, and I'd appreciate the same from you.
In some ways, Rome was far more enlightened than Christendom to be sure.
IF you define enlightenment as advanced engineering, I suppose.
I wasn't aware that Rome had universal suffrage or a bicameral house. Neither was I aware that Rome had a bill of rights, or a supreme court either.
I think that I probably have forgotten more about the real (and really complex and often changing) history of the Roman government than you will ever know, dude.
If you had actually read my posts you would realize that that is exactly what I have been saying since post one.
Christianity didn't SAVE the post Roman civilization, it WAS the post-Roman civilization. Perhaps the distinction is too fine for you to grasp, but I can assure you the distinction is vast.
It sure as hell wasn't. I quite agree.
In fact, much of it was seriously tragically flawed in ways that I am sure both you are I both would agree is thoroughly repugnant.
Something I noted that Christendom was flawed in my previous posts, but apparently you missed that in your zeal to put words into my mouth so you could give me your lecture which is essentially entirely fact free.
Now you're just being silly and having a tussle with some straw man of your imagination.
Let's ignore the fact that you obviously are basing your opinions about what the root cause of the fall of IMPERIAL Rome based on your own prejudices and your obvious (and ignorance-based) hard-on about events in history that you barely know anything about.
ut in your defense, what your argument lacks in substance you more than make up for with bluster.

Bluster, eh? for a guy who seems to have forgotten about the ROMAN SENATE and Republican governments you sure are one to talk, buddy. Your logical flaw is that your OPINION that rome was more savage means jack shit. Rome did to the british isles EXACTLY what christian europe did in the new world. There is no "less savage" anything about it.

The rest of your post is self righteous tripe. Indeed, ignoring the inquisition and 9 fucking crusades sure does make ME the ignorant one!

 

[Shogun]

Show proof that such 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.


Gibbon's theory

Gibbon offers an explanation for why the Roman Empire fell, a task made difficult by a lack of comprehensive written sources, though he was not the only historian to tackle the subject.[3] Most of his ideas are directly taken from what few relevant records were available: those of the Roman moralists of the 4th and 5th centuries,

According to Gibbon, the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions because of a loss of civic virtue among its citizens.[4] They had become weak, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire. Romans, he believed, had become effeminate, unwilling to live a tougher, "manly" military lifestyle. In addition, Gibbon argued that Christianity created a belief that a better life existed after death, which fostered an indifference to the present among Roman citizens, thus sapping their desire to sacrifice for the Empire. He also believed its comparative pacifism tended to hamper the traditional Roman martial spirit. Lastly, like other Enlightenment thinkers, Gibbon held in contempt the Middle Ages as a priest-ridden, superstitious, dark age. It was not until his own age of reason and rational thought, it was believed, that human history could resume its progress.

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


yea.. i think i'll go ahead and take Gibbons word for it rather than some dickface on the net who really, REALLY wants to pretend that medieval europe , and the lordly christian church, is why we wear shoes and have an alphabet.





Monkey, irrelevant to the discussion.

Sure it is. I'm shooting you examples of various CIVILIZATIONS that managed to flourish *GASP* despite the western theology du jour. Amazing, isn't it?


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?

yea it's quite possible that regardless of some ignorant confusion by early man A RHINO IS STILL NOT A FUCKING HORSE WITH A HORN ON ITS FACE. Hey, so does that mean if some naturalist in the 1400s dug up some dinosaur bones and calls it a DRAGON then, in fact, dinosaurs ARE dragons?




Say Monkey, what of the Pantheon? Have any more comments?

what of it? Have you ever seen me post the rediculous assertion that it was greek or roman belief in gods that SAVED civilization? hell no. It's an opinion that is STUPID AS HELL.


This is not 100% so, in your own words:

Oh yes.. if at least ONE POPE can read then CLEARLY civilization is SAVED!





Monkey, that is irrelevant; this is about ONE particular civilization that was a direct descendant of western christendom.


It's not irrelevant because there are many, MANY civilizations that came and went regardless of christianity. YOU may want to avoid that point because it undermines your goofy fucking opinion about the jebus cult but, hey, nice to know that CIVILIZATION just would not exist were it not for some dark age euro theology!




Monkey, read carefully; provide citations from what I have typed for the things you accused me of.


How about we both share a laugh that you seemed to have forgotten what civilization Thomas Jefferson patterned OUR system of government after?

 

[Shogun]

Republicanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


enjoy

 

[Gungnir]

How about we both share a laugh that you seemed to have forgotten what civilization Thomas Jefferson patterned OUR system of government after?

Monkey, you have spouted another assertion without evidence. You have failed to provide citations of my words for things you accuse me of after three notifications. You are a coward and a liar.

yea it's quite possible that regardless of some ignorant confusion by early man A RHINO IS STILL NOT A FUCKING HORSE WITH A HORN ON ITS FACE. Hey, so does that mean if some naturalist in the 1400s dug up some dinosaur bones and calls it a DRAGON then, in fact, dinosaurs ARE dragons?

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. But since you call luke-warm blooded, almost bird critters "Monsterous Lizzards" does that make them Lizzards? Shove your shit back up your ass Monkey.

what of it? Have you ever seen me post the rediculous assertion that it was greek or roman belief in gods that SAVED civilization? hell no. It's an opinion that is STUPID AS HELL.

Monkey, you might not want to throw all of your shit because that seems to be what you have for brains.

This is about the Church, the institution, not the belief in dieties.

Did the muslims NOT have a civilization going on? Gosh.. those pesky fucking arabs and their ALgebra... surely thats just a myth.

Monkey, irrelevant to the discussion.

Sure it is. I'm shooting you examples of various CIVILIZATIONS that managed to flourish *GASP* despite the western theology du jour. Amazing, isn't it?

HOw many OTHER civilizations were wiped out by CHRISTIANS again?

Monkey, that is irrelevant; this is about ONE particular civilization that was a direct descendant of western christendom.

It's not irrelevant because there are many, MANY civilizations that came and went regardless of christianity. YOU may want to avoid that point because it undermines your goofy fucking opinion about the jebus cult but, hey, nice to know that CIVILIZATION just would not exist were it not for some dark age euro theology!

Monkey, again you prove that you are an idiot. This is fiction you allude to, not what has happened. You speak of other civilizations, yes they exist, as I said earlier in Post #19. However, as editec has most eloquently explained; the church was Western Civilization, the result without it would be different from what we currently have (hence a fiction). Since we are not discussing fiction you are throwing shit for nothing.

We could have had Neanderthals survive instead of CroMagnon, they might both be Hominina but one is not the same as the other. Can your atavistic mind comprehend that Monkey?

Gibbon's theory

Gibbon offers an explanation for why the Roman Empire fell, a task made difficult by a lack of comprehensive written sources, though he was not the only historian to tackle the subject.[3] Most of his ideas are directly taken from what few relevant records were available: those of the Roman moralists of the 4th and 5th centuries,

According to Gibbon, the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions because of a loss of civic virtue among its citizens.[4] They had become weak, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire. Romans, he believed, had become effeminate, unwilling to live a tougher, "manly" military lifestyle. In addition, Gibbon argued that Christianity created a belief that a better life existed after death, which fostered an indifference to the present among Roman citizens, thus sapping their desire to sacrifice for the Empire. He also believed its comparative pacifism tended to hamper the traditional Roman martial spirit. Lastly, like other Enlightenment thinkers, Gibbon held in contempt the Middle Ages as a priest-ridden, superstitious, dark age. It was not until his own age of reason and rational thought, it was believed, that human history could resume its progress.

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yea.. i think i'll go ahead and take Gibbons word for it rather than some dickface on the net who really, REALLY wants to pretend that medieval europe , and the lordly christian church, is why we wear shoes and have an alphabet.

Emphasis mine.

Despite the superscript "[citation needed]" at the end of the "Theory" I will accept it as genuine to Gibbon's conclussions.

I did not attribute shoes or the alphabet to the Church. Without the Church I find it likely that the Latin Alphabet would have been much less readily accepted. However, there was no "without the Church" so the point is moot. It did preserve it and maintained literacy and scholasticism.

Would there have been better, would there have been others? Open a speculative thread.

Now from your own quoted text from the Wikipedia article you will notice the portion of the text boldended: "In addition, Gibbon argued that Christianity created"...

This Wikipedia Article 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. Thus your appeal to authority is denied.


Monkey, in summation:
your reading skills are pathetic;
you are continually attempting to shift the focus away from the real happenings to fictitious events in an effort to denegrate the Church and thus, by association, deny it of any positive effect;
you attempt to cover this by spouting vile idiocies, and slander;
you are a coward, and liar.

 

[AtlasShrieked]

From wikipedia:

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

This si news to you?

oh the horror, the horror.The subtitle should be...and became uncivilized coots in the process. The Irish saved Christianity. Methinks civilization would have eventually recovered without them.

 

[editec]

editec, in regard to Celto-centrism; surely you will agree that Scotland has provided a great deal of quality material to our world?
Scottish Inventors

I meant no disrespect to the Celts.

My complaint was merely the title and basic premise of the book, itself. But it probably the title itself which made the book so popular, so that overstaement is certainly a forgiveable conceit.

FWIW, MOST EUROPEANS of both Eastern and Western Europe are at least in some part Celts.

There really wasn't anyplace in Europe they hadn't settled, and when the Germanic tribes and the Slavic tribes got to Europe, (likely off the Russian steppes) the Celts were there to welcome them.

The original settlers of Bohemia, for example are though to have been Celts.

Their presence has been documented in that land from about 500 BC when King Abigot (of Gaul) send on of his sons to settle a new land to the East..

Abigot's son, Singoves, settled in the land and named it after the name of the Celtic tribe : the [/i] Bojohemum[/I]

They called themselves the Boii

Later they were invaded and overwhelmed by the Maromans, a Germanic tribe roughly during the time of Ceasar Augustus. During this same period, it is reported that Greeks also settled in the area.

Later still, Attilla the Hun and his Avaars left his mark on that land.

Later still, about 450 AD the the Cecy, Slavs from the regions of the east showed up to make their impression on this hodgepodge of European people.

Ancient history like this is one of the reasons I laugh at people when they tell me they're PURE German or PURE Czech or whatever...

The iron and bronze ages lasted a might long time, and during those times, various tribes migrated and interbred all over Europe.

But practically anywhere these tribes went, they encountered CELTS who'd been there first.

It's so common to discover that eariest culture someplace in Europe was Celtic, that I have come to think of the term Celt, not an an ethnic tribe, so much as a description of whatever first inhabitants the Germans or Slavs or Mediteranians met when they got to where they settled.

Genetically I doubt the Celts were all the same people (genetically, I mean) , but I suspect they shared the much same artistic and techological culture such that it is not unreasonable to call them, if not one tribe, then at least one culture.

We're all mutts, you know.

Celts, Germans, Slavs, Meditaranians, Semites, Dorians, whatever.

All of us are really just the combined tribes of iron and bronze age peoples who wandered and settled over Europe when circumstances made it necessary for us to find a new place to live.

 

[Ravi]

I personally think the guy was just being silly with the title of his book. Civilization is subjective and certainly it can be argued that western civilization isn't the be all and end all.

Even so, literature is an important part of any civilization...

 

[Shogun]

Monkey, you have spouted another assertion without evidence. You have failed to provide citations of my words for things you accuse me of after three notifications. You are a coward and a liar.

Bitch, werent you JUST questioning where aspects of OUR government were missing from Romes government when I directly mentioned that Thomas Jefferson looked more to ROME than the VATICAN? Hurry! Go edit your post!



poor guy, you are an ignorant pussy who is having his ass handed to him. Please, feel free to make more ridiculous fucking statements as they provide chuckle fodder throughout the day.


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. But since you call luke-warm blooded, almost bird critters "Monsterous Lizzards" does that make them Lizzards? Shove your shit back up your ass Monkey.



FABLES and MYTHS are not FACTS, cocksheath. Ignorantly mislabeling you a three toes giant sloth doesnt make you a fucking sloth. And, yes, stupid, DINOS WERE FUCKING LIZARDS MORE THAN THEY WERE FUCKING FIRE BREATHING DRAGONS.



see, this is the kind of shit im talking about.




Monkey, you might not want to throw all of your shit because that seems to be what you have for brains.

*yawn*

Is this where I insert "I know you are but what am I, infinity"?

poor guy.. am I picking on you too much?



This is about the Church, the institution, not the belief in dieties.


oh NOW it's not about "christianity" so much as "the church"!



kinda like how "SAVED CIVILIZATION" had to be redefined as "WESTERN CIV" all of a sudden too, eh?






Monkey, again you prove that you are an idiot. This is fiction you allude to, not what has happened. You speak of other civilizations, yes they exist, as I said earlier in Post #19. However, as editec has most eloquently explained; the church was Western Civilization, the result without it would be different from what we currently have (hence a fiction). Since we are not discussing fiction you are throwing shit for nothing.

"DIFFERENT" does not assume that christianity SAVED anything, dude. Of COURSE society would look different if the ottomans conquered europe. no shit. Does that mean that CIVILIZATION would have ceased to exist if it were muslims instead of thumpers in europe? nope. not at all. Which is why you avoid the FACT of other non-christian civilizations LIKE THE BLACK DEATH THAT WIPED OUT MOST OF EUROPES POPULATION during this so called cultural lockbox?




We could have had Neanderthals survive instead of CroMagnon, they might both be Hominina but one is not the same as the other. Can your atavistic mind comprehend that Monkey?

and, still, were that the case IN NO WAY SHAPRE OR FORM is your arguement about the christian church saving civ anything close to reality. Gosh, maybe if we called cromagnons giants then ti would have been true that giants walked the earth!






Despite the superscript "[citation needed]" at the end of the "Theory" I will accept it as genuine to Gibbon's conclussions.

I did not attribute shoes or the alphabet to the Church. Without the Church I find it likely that the Latin Alphabet would have been much less readily accepted. However, there was no "without the Church" so the point is moot. It did preserve it and maintained literacy and scholasticism.

HA! yea... PURPOSEFUL illiteracy and restricting scripture TOO latin BECAUSE the peasants couldn't read the shit sure does sound MAINTAINED! hilarious, dude. Say, how long into this so called life support of civilization did king james FINALLY decide to translate the bible for the masses?


Would there have been better, would there have been others? Open a speculative thread.

fuck you. i'll go ahead and make those points int the goofy thread that insists tht christiany SAVED civilization.


Now from your own quoted text from the Wikipedia article you will notice the portion of the text boldended: "In addition, Gibbon argued that Christianity created"...

This Wikipedia Article 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. Thus your appeal to authority is denied.


HA! yea, I mean, quoting the man's own words and one of the PRIMARY reasons for Rome's fall, as per his infamous anti-church reputation, SURE IS grounds for you to deny anything!



poor guy... how does it feel to fall down and go boom?


Monkey, in summation:
your reading skills are pathetic;
you are continually attempting to shift the focus away from the real happenings to fictitious events in an effort to denegrate the Church and thus, by association, deny it of any positive effect;
you attempt to cover this by spouting vile


yea yea yea.. we can both talk shit, pussy. YOUR pathetic attempt to insist on editing your point after I point out the fallacy of your logic is enough to make any criticism you throw around about as valuable as your grasp of world history. Make sure you make any necessary addendums to your retarded fucking "rhinos are unicorns" crap too. I mean, calling you out on your stupid shit might cause your tantrum but it sure as fuck doesn't seem to purge ignorant fucking statements from your list of dumb shit to post.

 

[Gungnir]

werent you JUST questioning where aspects of OUR government were missing from Romes government when I directly mentioned that Thomas Jefferson looked more to ROME than the VATICAN? Hurry! Go edit your post!

No, that was the poster editec. post #98.

I mean, we ONLY take our fucking political structure from it instead of, say, the fucking VATICAN.

I wasn't aware that Rome had universal suffrage or a bicameral house. Neither was I aware that Rome had a bill of rights, or a supreme court either.

I think that I probably have forgotten more about the real (and really complex and often changing) history of the Roman government than you will ever know, dude.

Monkey, you should have cited your claims against me. You didn't because there is nothing to your defemations but misreading, lies, and idiocy.

FABLES and MYTHS are not FACTS, cocksheath.

Monkey, use your brain. We have evidence for Cro-Magnon and early modern humans observing now extinct species. That those people, lacking an appreciable written language passed on the account of the great megafauna of old is almost certain. Drawing inference from that, and knowing Human tendency towards exageration and to alter stories -- it is certainly plausible to explain mythical creatures as having descended from the oral stories about now extinct megafauna.

Ignorantly mislabeling you a three toes giant sloth doesnt make you a fucking sloth.

Again Monkey, you are an idiot for confusing the above (which I have explained to you previously) with an equating of an Unicorn to a Woolly Rhino.

And, yes, stupid, DINOS WERE FUCKING LIZARDS MORE THAN THEY WERE FUCKING FIRE BREATHING DRAGONS.

Monkey, cite where I claimed Dinosaurs were fire breathing dragons!

oh NOW it's not about "christianity" so much as "the church"!

kinda like how "SAVED CIVILIZATION" had to be redefined as "WESTERN CIV" all of a sudden too, eh?

No Monkey, you are just too stupid to understand the concept or to read the information completely. You see what you want; interpret that glance into the most objctionable thing to you; and then begin screeching, spitting, sputtering, and scatting.

Taking note of the article to which the OP quotes:

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.

Underlined and Boldened emphasis mine.

This is a view which I have been consistent with since my first post (post #15) in this thread:

After the fall of Rome, the Church's enticement of Emperorhood, Excommunication, and Crusade probably helped stabelize the rowdy Barbarians.

"DIFFERENT" does not assume that christianity SAVED anything, dude. Of COURSE society would look different if the ottomans conquered europe. no shit. Does that mean that CIVILIZATION would have ceased to exist if it were muslims instead of thumpers in europe?

Yes, Monkey, as defined by setting civilization = realistic (not fictitious) western civilization which is done when Western Civilization is the one in which you live and is the preeminent one upon the Earth.

HA! yea... PURPOSEFUL illiteracy and restricting scripture TOO latin BECAUSE the peasants couldn't read the shit sure does sound MAINTAINED! hilarious, dude.

Could they have done better? Would others have done better? Open a speculation thread. Did they intentionaly restrict information? Irrelevant. Fact: the Church was the vehicle through which we now have civilization (our civilization). I ILLUSTRATED earlier the how.

Which is why you avoid the FACT of other non-christian civilizations LIKE THE BLACK DEATH THAT WIPED OUT MOST OF EUROPES POPULATION during this so called cultural lockbox?

Monkey if the Black Death was supposed to be an insult you missed your mark. As for another of your unfounded lies; here I remedy with the truth:

Western Civilization, is not Mayan Civilization, nor is it Chinese Civlization, nor Hindu Civilization, nor even Ethiopian Civilization. They are seperate and distinct things that have nought to do with Irish Christians saving them. This is just Western Civilization.

Why would I care about a different civilization when the thread topic is on Western Europe?

Back to your spittle.

Say, how long into this so called life support of civilization did king james FINALLY decide to translate the bible for the masses?

To my knowledge, one of "the masses" started that work on his own in addition to a plethora of already existing translations.

fuck you. i'll go ahead and make those points int the goofy thread that insists tht christiany SAVED civilization.

I've nailed your tail to your ass Monkey, go bother someone else.

HA! yea, I mean, quoting the man's own words and one of the PRIMARY reasons for Rome's fall, as per his infamous anti-church reputation, SURE IS grounds for you to deny anything!

You have YET to QUOTE Edward Gibbon's actual words. You quoted an uncited summary. Neither in that uncited summary, or the rest of the article (if I missed it please quote it) is Gibbon quoted or attributed the idea that the Church was one of the primary reasons for Rome's fall. Neither does your drek qualify as an attempt to address the reasonable questions I raised about preceeding Roman policy.

I did like this portion of the same article:

If the decline of the Roman empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors."

yea yea yea.. we can both talk shit, pussy. YOUR pathetic attempt to insist on editing your point after I point out the fallacy of your logic is enough to make any criticism you throw around about as valuable as your grasp of world history.

I have edited 2 posts in this thread:
post #49
Last edited: 06-04-2008 at 06:46 PM.
Your next reply was at 06-05-2008, 11:21 AM, post #52

post #81
Last edited: 06-10-2008 at 06:04 PM.
Your next reply was at 06-11-2008, 11:26 AM, post #83

Both of my edited post were edited more than 10 hours in advance of your replies. You are a LIAR!

 

[Shogun]

No, that was the poster editec.
Monkey, you should have cited your claims against me. You didn't because there is nothing to your defemations but misreading, lies, and idiocy.

poor guy. am I picking on you and your goofy christianity social bandage a bit too much? Indeed, next thing you know you'll be insisting that you didn't also post a link to "unicorn" rhinos!




Monkey, use your brain. We have evidence for Cro-Magnon and early modern humans observing now extinct species. That those people, lacking an appreciable written language passed on the account of the great megafauna of old is almost certain. Drawing inference from that, and knowing Human tendency towards exageration and to alter stories -- it is certainly plausible to explain mythical creatures as having descended from the oral stories about now extinct megafauna.



cave drawings dont give you the indication of a relevant timeframe for which to base your stupid opinion, dude. Regardless, EXPLANATIONS by fucking cave men that didn't know what a rhino was under OUR nomenclature doesn't make the beast a fucking unicorn. It doesn't make the whale a sea monster. It doesn't make dinosaurs DRAGONS. And, it sure as fuck doesn't validate the schitzoid idea that IGNORANCE proves that a burning bush is gods email service, a meteor is Allah's gift from heaven OR that christiany was the saving grace of civilization.


Again Monkey, you are an idiot for confusing the above (which I have explained to you previously) with an equating of an Unicorn to a Woolly Rhino.


Im not confusing shit, dude. Throw out another stupid opinion about the validity of unicorns via rhinos and i'll laugh at you some more. Which, despite the base stupidity of your position, can you tell me how many horns your posted rhino has? Uh, what does Uni mean again? Not to mention that a rhino is FAR from the same animal as a horse no less. Say, what other ancient brilliance do you want to suggest validates a myth? Maybe phrenology next? The Murcury based life extending elixirs from China? Fuck, why do we even need lasik eye surgery when the bible CLEARLY says that jebus just used a little mud??




Monkey, cite where I claimed Dinosaurs were fire breathing dragons!


You insinuated that they were DRAGONS rather than giant lizards. They are not. Ancient imagination in lue of science doesn't make myths real even if you get tripped up in the nomenclature.



No Monkey, you are just too stupid to understand the concept or to read the information completely. You see what you want; interpret that glance into the most objctionable thing to you; and then begin screeching, spitting, sputtering, and scatting.


Oh THATS a rich accusation this side of your "christianity saved civilization" theory! Poor guy, did you need to backtrack or edit something real quick?



Taking note of the article to which the OP quotes:
Underlined and Boldened emphasis mine.
This is a view which I have been consistent with since my first post (post #15) in this thread:


Oh i KNOW.. Hell, were it not for st patrick then those fucking pagan druids, well into their own autonomous civilization before rome decided to show up, would have never invented SHOES!



your hubris is ethnocentrism, dude. Take your idiot lenses out of your eyewear. The Irish examples is EXACTLY what makes your criticism of Rome such a hilarious laugh factory.


Yes, Monkey, as defined by setting civilization = realistic (not fictitious) western civilization which is done when Western Civilization is the one in which you live and is the preeminent one upon the Earth.


PREEMINANT, eh? gosh, didn't I just nail you on your ethnocentrism? Being associated with any particular culture doesn't make it the primary example of civilization now OR throughout history. Evolution sure as hell doesn't assume that current specie variations are the epitome of potential so it's pretty retarded of you to assume that our current CIVIL state is the best case scenario among an infinity of hypotheticals. Not to mention, the carazy assumption that any particular DOGMA is what saved humanities ability to interact with each other.



Could they have done better? Would others have done better? Open a speculation thread. Did they intentionaly restrict information? Irrelevant. Fact: the Church was the vehicle through which we now have civilization (our civilization). I ILLUSTRATED earlier the how.


It's not irrelevant when the premise of your fucking opinion is that it SAVED civilization, dude. I realize that you are thrashing about trying to avoid that which makes your opinion as farcical as it is but avoiding comparison makes you biased in a particularly non-scientific dogma junky sorta way. The CHURCH is not why we now have an alphabet, monetary system or wear shoes. Sorry if that chaffes your little jebus hardon but communicating humans create their own civilizations DESPITE your bible thumper bullshit. THIS is why you so desperately want to avoid talking about China and every other civ. that blows holes in your goofy fucking position. The Church was as much a vehicle through which we now have civ much like prayer cures paraplegics. By your standard you have to make the exact same statement about Hamurabi's faith too. Let's see how quick you are to give credence to a pagan god whose myth is the root of our legal structure.


Monkey if the Black Death was supposed to be an insult you missed your mark. As for another of your unfounded lies; here I remedy with the truth:

HA!

yea, IM the one who missed something here. Indeed, the black death was just a myth, eh buddy? I mean, midieval euro was just like a fucking disneyland park despite the LIES of evil atheists who would have us believe that the vast majoirty of those living in squalor were ILLITERATE! Imagine that! An Illiterate Serf!




To my knowledge, one of "the masses" started that work on his own in addition to a plethora of already existing translations.


"to my knowledge" being the most profound input you've had in this thread thus far.. Are youtelling me that you aren't aware of the reason the fricking bible was EVENTUALLY translated for the illiterate masses to comprehend for themselves? REALLY?

Clearly, i'm arm wrestling a giant here.


I've nailed your tail to your ass Monkey, go bother someone else.


HA! yea dude.. tell me another funny joke! Maybe you can go read a book on civiliztions outside of your own masterbatory fan boy worshsip of the west since, it seems, your global range of knowledge is lacking.


You have YET to QUOTE Edward Gibbon's actual words. You quoted an uncited summary. Neither in that uncited summary, or the rest of the article (if I missed it please quote it) is Gibbon quoted or attributed the idea that the Church was one of the primary reasons for Rome's fall. Neither does your drek qualify as an attempt to address the reasonable questions I raised about preceeding Roman policy.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

oh THATS fucking rich.. So, unless I quote chapter and page from his literature then he doesn't STILL have the notariety of being the guy who blamed the fall of rome on christianity, eh? WOW, are you this desperate, lil guy? I cite ALL of my evidence, bitch. If you are too stupid to click on a link then so be it. By now, im not too impressed with your cognitive qualities anyway.

REASONABLE questions, eh? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! REasonable like insisting that prehistoric ignorance makes a fucking rhino a unicorn?



yea, some voiceless douchebag on the internet probably DOES know more than the guy within reach of what primary sources have been available. Again, i'll go ahead and take the word of an actual scholar over than of some asshole looking to attribute human civilization to the dogma du jour.



Both of my edited post were edited more than 10 hours in advance of your replies. You are a LIAR!




dude, im only posting in this thread once per day.. CLEARLY there is a ten hour fucking window between my posts. Plenty of time for you to backpeddle and edit your posts accordingly. Face it. I busted your ass, as if it were even necessary by this point, for being a disingenuous asshole. Calling me a monkey will probably take the sting off of that giant red hand print on your face, dude.

 

[Shogun]

 

[editec]

Bluster, eh? for a guy who seems to have forgotten about the ROMAN SENATE and Republican governments you sure are one to talk, buddy. Your logical flaw is that your OPINION that rome was more savage means jack shit. Rome did to the british isles EXACTLY what christian europe did in the new world. There is no "less savage" anything about it.

The rest of your post is self righteous tripe. Indeed, ignoring the inquisition and 9 fucking crusades sure does make ME the ignorant one!

Translation: I am completely over my head, but perhaps if I'm rude enough nobody will notice that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.

Your opinions, however misinformed or half baked are always of interest to us.

Do know that in the future we will endeavor to continue helping you reach beyond your own foolish prejudices to find something like a reality based point of view..

No, no.

No need to thank us.

That's just the kind of posters some of us are.

 

[Shogun]

yea dude.. IM the one over my head when pointing out how CHINA, UK Druids, North and South America and the Ottoman Empire were *GASP* civilizations DESPITE the premise of this thread.


I know I know.. mass illiteracy, population crippling disease, crusades and inquisitions are ALL just like civilization life support!


HAHAHAHAHAHA!

ps, the OPINION that Rome was "more savage" than christian europe is about as profound as suggesting that civilization only counts as long as the populations speak engrish and wear shoes. if you can't wrap your head around that then, by all means, talk some more shit instead of proving me wrong. I mean, you are probably the first person to post a snarky reply on the internet!

 

[Shogun]

Hernando Cortez
PRESERVING CIVILIZATION one gold bearing continent at a time!

 

[Shogun]

Preserving Civilization... whether you like it or not, Pagan!

 

[Shogun]

Who needs facts when you've got Shoes and monotheism!

 

[Gungnir]

poor guy. am I picking on you and your goofy christianity social bandage a bit too much? Indeed, next thing you know you'll be insisting that you didn't also post a link to "unicorn" rhinos!

Again that was the poster named editec that you were replying to, not I (Gungnir).
See here:
editec started on how Christian Europe was less barbaric than Rome in post #88.
In Post #93 you (Shogun) replied to editec, mentioning that "ROME WAS A FUCKING ENLIGHTENED SOCIETY TOO. I mean, we ONLY take our fucking political structure from it instead of, say, the fucking VATICAN. --Shogun"
editec then replied to you with post #98 where he (editec) raised the issue of governmental disimilarities: "I wasn't aware that Rome had universal suffrage or a bicameral house. Neither was I aware that Rome had a bill of rights, or a supreme court either. --editec"
To which you (Shogun) replied (to the poster editec) in post #104, stating that "Bluster, eh? for a guy who seems to have forgotten about the ROMAN SENATE and Republican governments you sure are one to talk, buddy. --Shogun"
Your (Shogun) very next post (post #105) was a response to my (Gungnir) words though it was not addressed specifically to me (Gungnir) or anyone. At the very bottom, where you (Shogun) quote my (Gungnir) rebuke of your repeated inclusion of other civilizations in a discussion about Western Civlization; you there confuse me (Gungnir) with editec, asking "How about we both share a laugh that you seemed to have forgotten what civilization Thomas Jefferson patterned OUR system of government after? --Shogun"

That whole train of discussion between you (Shogun) and editec started at post #88 which is 7 post and 4 days after my most recently edited post (post #81).


Shogun, I (Gungnir) really think you (Shogun) have me (Gungnir) confused with editec.

cave drawings dont give you the indication of a relevant timeframe for which to base your stupid opinion, dude.

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

Regardless, EXPLANATIONS by fucking cave men that didn't know what a rhino was under OUR nomenclature doesn't make the beast a fucking unicorn.

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.

can you tell me how many horns your posted rhino has?

(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.

Monkey, cite where I claimed Dinosaurs were fire breathing dragons!

You insinuated that they were DRAGONS rather than giant lizards. They are not. Ancient imagination in lue of science doesn't make myths real even if you get tripped up in the nomenclature.

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

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

yea it's quite possible that regardless of some ignorant confusion by early man A RHINO IS STILL NOT A FUCKING HORSE WITH A HORN ON ITS FACE.

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.

Hey, so does that mean if some naturalist in the 1400s dug up some dinosaur bones and calls it a DRAGON then, in fact, dinosaurs ARE dragons?

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.

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.

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

But since you call luke-warm blooded, almost bird critters "Monsterous Lizzards" does that make them Lizzards? Shove your shit back up your ass Monkey.

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.

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

Oh i KNOW.. Hell, were it not for st patrick then those fucking pagan druids, well into their own autonomous civilization before rome decided to show up, would have never invented SHOES!

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.

your hubris is ethnocentrism

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.

PREEMINANT, eh? gosh, didn't I just nail you on your ethnocentrism? Being associated with any particular culture doesn't make it the primary example of civilization now OR throughout history.

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

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.

so it's pretty retarded of you to assume that our current CIVIL state is the best case scenario among an infinity of hypotheticals.

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

Not to mention, the carazy assumption that any particular DOGMA is what saved humanities ability to interact with each other.

Good thing I didn't say that one either.

It's not irrelevant when the premise of your fucking opinion is that it SAVED civilization, dude. I realize that you are thrashing about trying to avoid that which makes your opinion as farcical as it is but avoiding comparison makes you biased in a particularly non-scientific dogma junky sorta way. The CHURCH is not why we now have an alphabet, monetary system or wear shoes. Sorry if that chaffes your little jebus hardon but communicating humans create their own civilizations DESPITE your bible thumper bullshit.

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?

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

THIS is why you so desperately want to avoid talking about China and every other civ. that blows holes in your goofy fucking position.

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!

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.

yea, IM the one who missed something here. Indeed, the black death was just a myth, eh buddy? I mean, midieval euro was just like a fucking disneyland park despite the LIES of evil atheists who would have us believe that the vast majoirty of those living in squalor were ILLITERATE! Imagine that! An Illiterate Serf!

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.

"to my knowledge" being the most profound input you've had in this thread thus far.. Are youtelling me that you aren't aware of the reason the fricking bible was EVENTUALLY translated for the illiterate masses to comprehend for themselves? REALLY?

Clearly, i'm arm wrestling a giant here.

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

So, unless I quote chapter and page from his literature then he doesn't STILL have the otariety of being the guy who blamed the fall of rome on christianity, eh?

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.

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.

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.

and one of the PRIMARY reasons for Rome's fall

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.

as per his infamous anti-church reputation, SURE IS grounds for you to deny anything!

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.

By now, im not too impressed with your cognitive qualities anyway.

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.

yea, some voiceless douchebag on the internet probably DOES know more than the guy within reach of what primary sources have been available. Again, i'll go ahead and take the word of an actual scholar over than of some asshole looking to attribute human civilization to the dogma du jour.

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

dude, im only posting in this thread once per day.. CLEARLY there is a ten hour fucking window between my posts. Plenty of time for you to backpeddle and edit your posts accordingly.

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.

Face it. I busted your ass, as if it were even necessary by this point, for being a disingenuous asshole.

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

Calling me a monkey will probably take the sting off of that giant red hand print on your face, dude.

Actually, I don't like calling you Monkey.

As to your picture about Cortez

Hernando Cortez
PRESERVING CIVILIZATION one gold bearing continent at a time!

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