Bede

I see. so its a bit like Mr Lawyer still using nineteenth century popular history as an authority....

Lucretius

As far as arguing that the rise Christianity was at least partly responsible for the down fall of the Roman Empire it is an intruiging idea and I have read a few relatively short essays on this. (Sadly I do not have them at hand to cite at the moment )
I am not however totally convinced that this is the case,but again it may be the case that among a LOT of other factors, all occuring at about the same time , this may just have had some effect.

trexmaster

Notice the quotation marks when I said "'myth'" in my last post. I wasn't taking Bede seriously.

Oh, and Bede, how do you explain WHY "anti-Christians came up with the conflict myth"? Is it possible that there may be a grain of truth that you're trying to bury in an apologetic desert?

Bede

If you aren't prepared to have the grace even take me seriously, then I'm certainly not prepared to waste my time replying to your questions.

Clivedurdle

I think it is correct to say xianity has always come down heavily on heresy. Isn't the immediate problem with science that it's method is immediately heretical because it is asking questions?

The albigensian crusdades are of note. Yup, nothing to do with science, but they thought different thoughts. Not a good idea.

Over time, the habit of asking questions - because you do get better weapons, armour, sheep, tools, became more ingrained, leading to our current formalisation in science and education.

Thanking Jove, Thor or Jesus has always been a separate activity, that cannot be seen to be related to working out how things work. I cannot see how an essentially inward looking activity has much effect, except by various people allowing outward looking more or less free reign. I cannot see religion as a soil for science, they do feel like Gould put it as separate realms. Da Vinci did not do what he did to glorify God, but to experiment with ways to express what he saw and thought.

Which might be a problem with the Flavian hypothesis - why not more emphasis on learning if the aim was a new version of Judaism?

lpetrich

First, that's "lpetrich" with a small l, not a capital I.

And I disagree with the premise that my scenario is silly. Given the track record of what has been proclaimed as "Xianity", I would not be surprised if some Xian apologist someday claims that metaphysical naturalism is equivalent to Xianity, that it has always been, and that those who claim otherwise are either misinterpreted or are fake Xians or are inventors of anti-Xian canards.

I'm reminded of this post by Bede, in which he claims about a study that failed to show that prayer has medicinal value:

Wads4

Edward Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall, was of this mind. Needless to say, his views have been ferociously attacked by Christian apologists.

Philadelphia Lawyer

Yes. And his book was placed on the banned list by the Church in 1783.

However, the consensus of modern scholars is that the Church actually was supportive of historians and historical inquiry. Moreover, the modern discipline of history itself grew out of the chronicles written by medieval clerics. Other, older cultures did attempt to write history, but their efforts failed because they could not draw on the unique Christian heritage of logic and empiricism. In addition, all early modern historians were themselves Christians and many, if not most of them, were theologians besides. Furthermore, the Church has cannonized many historians. Historians who were persecuted by the Church, if any, were in fact persecuted for other reasons. Any arguments to the contrary are based on outdated scholarship and anyone who makes those arguments today is guilty of being a fundamentalist atheist whose sole purpose in life is to blacken the record of Christianity.

As for the placement of Gibbons' book on the index librorum prohibitorum, the fact that other regimes also banned books clearly demonstrates that the Church supported, and did not suppress, free historical inquiry. In addition, mentioning this fact is itself proof of bigoted anti-Catholicism, and ignorant bigotedness at that.

If you are tempted to dispute any of the foregoing, please be advised that I am a graduate student at a bigshot university and I will demonstrate my scholastic and general superiority by subjecting you to an unending stream of snide remarks.

If any further information is required, please refer to my website in which I conclusively demonstrate that Hitler was not a Christian and the Spanish Inquisition was no big deal.

Best wishes.

trexmaster

Atheists do not need to "blacken Christianity's name" to prove their case against Christianity. We infidels already have the silence of the Christians' allegedly omnipotent, omnibenevolent god and the lack of non-NT evidence suggesting that Jesus was anything more than a typical roadside preacher. Saying that Christianity wasn't evil doesn't mean that the case against the religion is invalidated.

Oh, and Philadelphia Lawyer, great Bede impression.

Chris Weimer

Forget it, Bede. Mr. Lawyer's comment is relevant even today. Drop the facade. I have no idea how you can hide the current situation, especially since only Vatican II supported evolution, and now that appears waning. I have nothing further to say on this subject.