Bede

Actually, Toto has considerably moderated his position. Michael Turton of fond memory abandoned the conflict hypothesis. Ipetrich's first post on this thread represents a considerable softening of his opinion (probably more down to Carrier than me). Other non-believers who say they have benefited from my threads include Hugo Holbling and Celsus.

I agree that you, Malachi, NOGO and a few others are impervious to the facts. But so what? An argument's success is not judged by how successfully it converts the unconvertable. If that were the case evolution would be false.

Best wishes

Bede

Styrofoamdeity

Personally I find the argument that because Christians preserved elements of classical thought they were therefore more or less equally scientific-minded to be rather weak. Christian society in Europe produced comparatively little of intellectual interest during their millennia of unimpeded influence. I would not call some degree of custodionship of classical thought as being equivalent to actually producing lasting science or philosophy.

One can only wonder at what the Greeks could have produced if their culture had survived in its classical form and dominated Europe for a thousand years. One does not have to wonder in the case of Christianity, since it had such an opportunity but produced mainly forgotten works on obscure principles and rites.

True, in Roman histories such as Livy or Tacitus a discussion of a year's events often began with auguries and signs, but these would be brief and qualified, often with "so they say" or some variation. Magic or gods would not be discussed as the causes of events in the histories themselves. Compare this "human" history to that of the Christians and the contrast is glaring. One approach is mostly scientific and the other is mainly magical. Whether elements of classical science were preserved in cloisters or not, the fact remains that something was lost- the intellectual habit of looking at the world scientifically rather than magically.

FatherMithras

Impervious to the facts? That'd be your claim that Christianity was in fact a catalyst and support for the enlightenment and renaissance, despite the numerous refutations on this and other threads. I am not and have enver supported the bizarre, absolutist idea that Christianity totally and absolutely opposed all advancement and thought. However, your claims that it was not a sever hindrance are exactly what you accuse me of, signs that you are impervious to the facts. The idea that people "softened" and are no longer as strongly opposed to your ideas does not merit an acceptance of your premise, which is, as shown throughout dozens of pages in argumentation with you, not likely to happen, unless reality decides to shuffle itself around t better suit your ideas.

Roger Pearse

You're very kind. This will be a quick response, as I am really too busy to leave more than notes at the moment.

Well, the creation of the Gothic style in bookhands, art, etc in the 13th century, would tend to support this idea. But it seems to me unknowable, really.

No, it was a specifically Roman problem: the loyalty of the soldiers to their commanders rather than to the state, which evolved in late Republican times owing to the reluctance of the state to provide for the old soldiers.

I know what you mean, but I think that in practise it does. Ever tried working from a manual when trying to build something which is partly written in Taiwan English? Now imagine if, instead of just being difficult to follow, it was actually wrong in places.

Of course this idea could be taken too far.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mirage

That does seem to make sense. Presumably the economic crises had something to do with this reluctance too.

But you have selected an example where a single specific detail can indeed be crucial. A sequential process, each step depending on the previous steps.

History isn't like that. Though presumed facts X, Y and Z may be wrong, you can still extract an overall picture of the period, particularly with corroborated points (because there is some redundancy) , so long as there is a reasonable likelihood of most of it reflecting that period in some way. It's more of an error tolerant application.

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure that there is evidence of this; if there is, I would like to see it. He inherited the coin types of the tetrarchy, which include Sol Invictus, but as I understand it these disappear part way through his reign, never to reappear.

If anachronistic.

As far as I know, the Chronicon of Eusebius of Caesarea is the first time that anyone in antiquity attempts to put together a universal chronicle, which allows all events in all kingdoms and mythologies to be dated.

Interestly Eusebius uses Manetho, and his chronicle begins with the birth of Abraham, the earliest date that he believes he can date. This he gives as present in the 15th dynasty. That Egypt was older than anyone I believe was generally known, you know; the claim is that Moses is older than Socrates. This must be correct.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

[QUOTE=Roger Pearse;3763251]
Start with the Arch of Constantine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arch_of_Constantine



Pete Brown

NOGO

Every time Jehovah's witnesses come at my door I can't help to think of the number of hours and effort it took to convert all of Europe to the Christian myth.

I doubt that this was done by peasants.

I was once walking in the streets of Tokyo and had a conversation with a man sitting in a van. A Christian, who spends all of his free time trying to convert the Japanese. What a waste of time!

Like Paul, there have been thousands and thousands of well meaning people who have literally dedicated their lives to the myth.

The cost is astronomical.

Bede can go on quoting his facts all he wants.
We can still see today the effect of this myth and Bede is part of it.
Yet it is a pale reflection of what it was when it thrived in full force.

Wads4

Talking of Bede, I have a copy of the "Venerable Bede's" "Ecclesiastical History of the English People". When reading it , one is truck by the emphasis on anectodal reports of magic, marvels, miracles and monsters which the common people lapped up, presumably aided and abetted by Christian stories of miracles and resurrections and demons. Not much science or philosophy here,--just gross superstition passed off as great Christian literature and accomplishments.

Gamera

Yes, I too long for the good old days of classic paganism, when you could rape, kill and enslave anybody at will, since those pesky Christian notions of the human dignity of others hadn't come on the scene yet.