| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JaBrIoL" |
| Date: |
25 Apr 2004 11:38:06 AM |
| Object: |
Should religion be involved politics? |
In the United States an election is approaching many will go and elect
a leader, a president, a political leader. But many American who are
"Christian" are supposed to have a leader as well. But apparently a
few do not have enough faith.
I've read that a Canadian archbishop bluntly wrote if a political
government does not do the will of God, then people should get
involved to bring justice to the poor. It seems to me that the
archbishop just told his filigrees, that they can do better than God.
Can "Christians" make the world better? Were they always involved
in politics? Any historians around to answer this question?
.
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
28 Apr 2004 11:41:30 AM |
|
|
JaBrIoL wrote:
In the United States an election is approaching many will go and elect
a leader, a president, a political leader. But many American who are
"Christian" are supposed to have a leader as well. But apparently a
few do not have enough faith.
I've read that a Canadian archbishop bluntly wrote if a political
government does not do the will of God, then people should get
involved to bring justice to the poor. It seems to me that the
archbishop just told his filigrees, that they can do better than God.
Can "Christians" make the world better?
No.
Whenever they can, Christians invariably make the world worse.
Were they always involved in politics?
Yes.
At one time, Christians had total control of the political situation
in Europe. That period is called the Dark Ages.
Any historians around to answer this question?
I suppose.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Risto Karttunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
30 Apr 2004 06:40:18 AM |
|
|
Jim Austin wrote:
At one time, Christians had total control of the political situation
in Europe. That period is called the Dark Ages.
On what basis do you insist that? The Dark Ages, or the Early Middle
Ages (about 500-1000 A.D.) were an era when christianity was being
established in Europe, including battles with moslems, vikings etc. I
wouldn't say Christians had "total control" of anything _then_.
Besides, was there something reprehensible in the Dark Ages or the
prominent christians of that era, Charlemagne for example?
--
risto
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
30 Apr 2004 01:51:43 PM |
|
|
(Risto Karttunen) wrote in message news:<5c1b9d0f.0404300340.583526@posting.google.com>...
Jim Austin wrote:
At one time, Christians had total control of the political situation
in Europe. That period is called the Dark Ages.
On what basis do you insist that? The Dark Ages, or the Early Middle
Ages (about 500-1000 A.D.) were an era when christianity was being
established in Europe, including battles with moslems, vikings etc. I
wouldn't say Christians had "total control" of anything _then_.
Besides, was there something reprehensible in the Dark Ages or the
prominent christians of that era, Charlemagne for example?
Middle-age christians, were not christians in the real sense, 90%
coullf not even read the bible. And they werent allowed to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Risto Karttunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
30 Apr 2004 04:55:15 PM |
|
|
JaBrIoL wrote:
Middle-age christians, were not christians in the real sense, (...)
In that case it makes even less sense to say that "Christians had
total control of the political situation in Europe" then .
--
risto
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
01 May 2004 11:08:27 AM |
|
|
(Risto Karttunen) wrote in message news:<4097ca21.6327442@news-server.welho.com>...
JaBrIoL wrote:
Middle-age christians, were not christians in the real sense, (...)
In that case it makes even less sense to say that "Christians had
total control of the political situation in Europe" then .
yup....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
30 Apr 2004 06:46:25 AM |
|
|
On 30 Apr 2004 04:40:18 -0700, (Risto Karttunen) wrote:
Jim Austin wrote:
At one time, Christians had total control of the political situation
in Europe. That period is called the Dark Ages.
On what basis do you insist that? The Dark Ages, or the Early Middle
Ages (about 500-1000 A.D.) were an era when christianity was being
established in Europe, including battles with moslems, vikings etc. I
wouldn't say Christians had "total control" of anything _then_.
Besides, was there something reprehensible in the Dark Ages or the
prominent christians of that era, Charlemagne for example?
Yes. Convert or die,
And you've forgotten the horros of the "reformation" where Catholics
and Protestants slaughtered each other and anybody who got in the way
including their own: "kill them all, God will look after his own".
You've also forgotten the self-imposed ignorance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Risto Karttunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
30 Apr 2004 04:47:20 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Risto Karttunen wrote:
(...) The Dark Ages, or the Early Middle
Ages (about 500-1000 A.D.) were an era when christianity was being
established in Europe, including battles with moslems, vikings etc. I
wouldn't say Christians had "total control" of anything _then_.
Besides, was there something reprehensible in the Dark Ages or the
prominent christians of that era, Charlemagne for example?
Yes. Convert or die,
And you've forgotten the horros of the "reformation" where Catholics
and Protestants slaughtered each other and anybody who got in the way
including their own: "kill them all, God will look after his own".
Reformation in the Early Middle Ages?
You've also forgotten the self-imposed ignorance.
At least I have now seen an example of it.
--
risto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
30 Apr 2004 04:53:25 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:47:20 GMT, (Risto Karttunen)
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
Risto Karttunen wrote:
(...) The Dark Ages, or the Early Middle
Ages (about 500-1000 A.D.) were an era when christianity was being
established in Europe, including battles with moslems, vikings etc. I
wouldn't say Christians had "total control" of anything _then_.
Besides, was there something reprehensible in the Dark Ages or the
prominent christians of that era, Charlemagne for example?
Yes. Convert or die,
And you've forgotten the horros of the "reformation" where Catholics
and Protestants slaughtered each other and anybody who got in the way
including their own: "kill them all, God will look after his own".
Reformation in the Early Middle Ages?
You've also forgotten the self-imposed ignorance.
At least I have now seen an example of it.
The DARK ages, moron.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Risto Karttunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
30 Apr 2004 05:18:00 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
The DARK ages, moron.
You seem to insist that the Dark Ages extended well beyond the
Renaissance. That is an absurd way of using that term (besides which I
explicitly stated that I was talking about the era 500-1000 A.D. which
is the usual meaning of the Dark Ages).
--
risto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
05 May 2004 08:49:55 PM |
|
|
Risto Karttunen wrote:
Jim Austin wrote:
At one time, Christians had total control of the political situation
in Europe. That period is called the Dark Ages.
On what basis do you insist that?
The Inquisition. The prohibition of medical practice outside casting
out devils. Lack of basic freedoms.
The Dark Ages, or the Early Middle Ages (about 500-1000 A.D.)...
I would extend it to about 1300.
...were an era when christianity was being established in Europe,...
Christianity had already been established during the times of the
Romans, like around 300 AD.
...including battles with moslems, vikings etc. I wouldn't say Christians
had "total control" of anything _then_.
Christianity had sufficiently weakened Europe to the extent that it
was vulnerable to attacks by Vikings, Moslems, etc.
Besides, was there something reprehensible in the Dark Ages or the
prominent christians of that era, Charlemagne for example?
Yes. The Inquisition. The prohibition of medical practice outside
casting out devils. Lack of basic freedoms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Risto Karttunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
06 May 2004 01:56:33 AM |
|
|
Jim Austin wrote:
At one time, Christians had total control of the political situation
in Europe. That period is called the Dark Ages.
On what basis do you insist that?
The Inquisition. The prohibition of medical practice outside casting
out devils. Lack of basic freedoms.
But certainly that prohibition of medical practice and lack of basic
freedoms were not due to that "total control". On the contrary,
Christian scholastics - Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, to name just
two of them - were the first to introduce concepts of basic freedoms
etc., elaborating the ideas of Aristotle and St. Augustine.
And of course the era of the Inquisition does not match with the Dark
Ages, nor is the incentive to use that phrase. The heydays of the
Inquisition came later on.
The Dark Ages, or the Early Middle Ages (about 500-1000 A.D.)...
I would extend it to about 1300.
As you wish; I wouldn't, because of those scholastics, founding of
universities in Europe etc. The ideas of the Renaissance, even the
modern science, have their roots in that era.
In fact I think that the phrase "the Dark Ages" is altogether quite
inappropriate. It was taken into usage as the predecessor of the
Renaissance, but it seems to me that nowadays the demarcation line
between those two eras isn't though as clear-cut as was thought
before.
Christianity had already been established during the times of the
Romans, like around 300 AD.
In Rome, not in the Central and Northern Europe.
Christianity had sufficiently weakened Europe to the extent that it
was vulnerable to attacks by Vikings, Moslems, etc.
Christianity had *weakened* Europe to the extent that Viking and
Moslems dared to attack? Are you serious? Then how do you explain that
the Vikings and Moslems were finally driven away, during the era when
christianity was strengthening in Europe, not weakening?
Besides that, in what way do you think Christianity had "weakened"
Europe? Are you referring to the reign of Charlemagne and the
foundation of the Holy Roman Empire, for example?
--
risto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
06 May 2004 05:52:27 PM |
|
|
Risto Karttunen wrote:
Jim Austin wrote:
At one time, Christians had total control of the political situation
in Europe. That period is called the Dark Ages.
On what basis do you insist that?
The Inquisition. The prohibition of medical practice outside casting
out devils. Lack of basic freedoms.
But certainly that prohibition of medical practice and lack of basic
freedoms were not due to that "total control".
Christians are the ones who were so motivated.
On the contrary, Christian scholastics - Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, to
name just two of them - were the first to introduce concepts of basic freedoms
etc., elaborating the ideas of Aristotle and St. Augustine.
The original Christian impulse was to ban the ideas of Aristotle. It
was from the likes of Thomas Acquinas who made Aristotle respectable
by convincing people that Aristotilian logic was compatable with
Christianity that allowed exposure to Aristotle, which then led to the
Renaissance.
And of course the era of the Inquisition does not match with the Dark
Ages, nor is the incentive to use that phrase. The heydays of the
Inquisition came later on.
That would be as a retrograde operation to maintain the Dark Ages.
The Dark Ages, or the Early Middle Ages (about 500-1000 A.D.)...
I would extend it to about 1300.
As you wish; I wouldn't, because of those scholastics, founding of
universities in Europe etc. The ideas of the Renaissance, even the
modern science, have their roots in that era.
No. It was made possible by the close of that era.
In fact I think that the phrase "the Dark Ages" is altogether quite
inappropriate. It was taken into usage as the predecessor of the
Renaissance, but it seems to me that nowadays the demarcation line
between those two eras isn't though as clear-cut as was thought
before.
The Renaissance was made possible as people became interested in this
world as opposed to the hereafter.1
Christianity had already been established during the times of the
Romans, like around 300 AD.
In Rome, not in the Central and Northern Europe.
Rome was in control of Central and Northern Europe. During the reign
of Constantine, Christianity became the state religion.
Christianity had sufficiently weakened Europe to the extent that it
was vulnerable to attacks by Vikings, Moslems, etc.
Christianity had *weakened* Europe to the extent that Viking and
Moslems dared to attack?
Yes.
Are you serious?
Yes.
Then how do you explain that the Vikings and Moslems were finally driven
away, during the era when christianity was strengthening in Europe, not
weakening?
As Europe moved from the Dark Ages into the Renaissance, Christianity
was weakening as people felt free to focus on secular concerns like
military defense.
Besides that, in what way do you think Christianity had "weakened"
Europe?
The Roman empire collapsed after Christianity becaue the state
religion. What was left was local feifdoms surrounded by vast areas of
anarchy.
Are you referring to the reign of Charlemagne and the
foundation of the Holy Roman Empire, for example?
No.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Risto Karttunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
07 May 2004 02:39:24 AM |
|
|
Jim Austin wrote:
At one time, Christians had total control of the political situation
in Europe. That period is called the Dark Ages.
On what basis do you insist that?
The Inquisition. The prohibition of medical practice outside casting
out devils. Lack of basic freedoms.
But certainly that prohibition of medical practice and lack of basic
freedoms were not due to that "total control".
Christians are the ones who were so motivated.
You seem to think that there had been formulated certain medical
practices and basic freedoms, which were then prohibited and banned by
Christians. Which practices and freedoms, which Christians, and why?
The original Christian impulse was to ban the ideas of Aristotle.
What original Christian impulse? Expressed in the sayings of Jesus or
the Epistles of Paul or where?
It
was from the likes of Thomas Acquinas who made Aristotle respectable
by convincing people that Aristotilian logic was compatable with
Christianity that allowed exposure to Aristotle, which then led to the
Renaissance.
What is your point now? Thomas Acquinas was a Christian theologian if
there ever was one.
And of course the era of the Inquisition does not match with the Dark
Ages, nor is the incentive to use that phrase. The heydays of the
Inquisition came later on.
That would be as a retrograde operation to maintain the Dark Ages.
???
[about the Dark Ages:]
The ideas of the Renaissance, even the
modern science, have their roots in that era.
No. It was made possible by the close of that era.
I said those ideas have *their roots* in that era (mainly in the works
of the scholastics). They didn't come out of the blue.
Christianity had already been established during the times of the
Romans, like around 300 AD.
In Rome, not in the Central and Northern Europe.
Rome was in control of Central and Northern Europe. During the reign
of Constantine, Christianity became the state religion.
In Rome. For example, Clovis converted into Christianity around 500
AD.
Christianity had *weakened* Europe to the extent that Viking and
Moslems dared to attack?
Yes.
Are you serious?
Yes.
Is this your own theory or could you give some references,
corroborating your view?
Then how do you explain that the Vikings and Moslems were finally driven
away, during the era when christianity was strengthening in Europe, not
weakening?
As Europe moved from the Dark Ages into the Renaissance, Christianity
was weakening as people felt free to focus on secular concerns like
military defense.
I'm beginning to think that you are a troll. People didn't feel free
to focus on military defense because of Christianity? Admittedly, this
idea is a refreshing one, for a change - usually Christianity is
blamed rather for aggressiveness and militarism.
Anyway, it was Charles Martel who at Poitiers, much earlier - 732 AD -
stemmed the tide of Moslem invasion. His grandson Charlemagne defeated
the Avars (Huns). And the Viking age ended when Christianity was
established in Scandinavia, around 1000 AD.
Besides that, in what way do you think Christianity had "weakened"
Europe?
The Roman empire collapsed after Christianity becaue the state
religion.
Are you really saying that the Western Roman Empire collapsed *because
of* Christianity? Why?
Of course, the Eastern Empire - Byzantium - existed for a thousand
years more, and its role as a barrier towards Islam was an invaluable
one during the critical era when the Western European culture was
nascent.
Are you referring to the reign of Charlemagne and the
foundation of the Holy Roman Empire, for example?
No.
Yes, you'd better not - certainly Charlemagne was one in the prominent
figures in consolidating the status of Christianity, right in the
middle of the "Dark" Ages.
--
risto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Austin" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
10 May 2004 07:57:35 PM |
|
|
Risto Karttunen wrote:
Jim Austin wrote:
At one time, Christians had total control of the political situation
in Europe. That period is called the Dark Ages.
On what basis do you insist that?
The Inquisition. The prohibition of medical practice outside casting
out devils. Lack of basic freedoms.
But certainly that prohibition of medical practice and lack of basic
freedoms were not due to that "total control".
Christians are the ones who were so motivated.
You seem to think that there had been formulated certain medical
practices and basic freedoms, which were then prohibited and banned by
Christians. Which practices and freedoms, which Christians, and why?
I know that the authoritive literature on medicine at the time was
translated from Arabic.
The original Christian impulse was to ban the ideas of Aristotle.
What original Christian impulse? Expressed in the sayings of Jesus or
the Epistles of Paul or where?
Colossians 2, 8:
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not
after Christ."
Romans 14, 23:
"And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of
faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
It was from the likes of Thomas Acquinas who made Aristotle respectable
by convincing people that Aristotilian logic was compatable with
Christianity that allowed exposure to Aristotle, which then led to the
Renaissance.
What is your point now? Thomas Acquinas was a Christian theologian if
there ever was one.
True enough. By legitimizing Aristotle, Acquinas prepared the way for
the weakening of Christianity's grasp on government, culture, science.
And of course the era of the Inquisition does not match with the Dark
Ages, nor is the incentive to use that phrase. The heydays of the
Inquisition came later on.
That would be as a retrograde operation to maintain the Dark Ages.
???
[about the Dark Ages:]
The ideas of the Renaissance, even the
modern science, have their roots in that era.
No. It was made possible by the close of that era.
I said those ideas have *their roots* in that era (mainly in the works
of the scholastics). They didn't come out of the blue.
If "having roots" means that such ideal occured during the Dark Ages,
then I can accept that. If it means that it came from the ideals that
dominated the Dark Ages, then I don't buy it.
Christianity had already been established during the times of the
Romans, like around 300 AD.
In Rome, not in the Central and Northern Europe.
Rome was in control of Central and Northern Europe. During the reign
of Constantine, Christianity became the state religion.
In Rome. For example, Clovis converted into Christianity around 500
AD.
Constantine converted around 300 AD.
Christianity had *weakened* Europe to the extent that Viking and
Moslems dared to attack?
Yes.
Are you serious?
Yes.
Is this your own theory or could you give some references,
corroborating your view?
That Moslems and Vikings were able to do damages itself testifies to
the weakness of Europe. That Christianity had such dominance during
that area is a good indication of where the responsibility lies.
Christianity preaches pacifism, turning the other cheek, doing good to
persecutors, etc. That it resulted in a continent so easy to attack is
hardly surprising.
Then how do you explain that the Vikings and Moslems were finally driven
away, during the era when christianity was strengthening in Europe, not
weakening?
As Europe moved from the Dark Ages into the Renaissance, Christianity
was weakening as people felt free to focus on secular concerns like
military defense.
I'm beginning to think that you are a troll.
Sounds like a personal problem.
People didn't feel free to focus on military defense because of Christianity?
Admittedly, this idea is a refreshing one, for a change - usually
Christianity is blamed rather for aggressiveness and militarism.
I do not so blame Christianity.
Anyway, it was Charles Martel who at Poitiers, much earlier - 732 AD -
stemmed the tide of Moslem invasion. His grandson Charlemagne defeated
the Avars (Huns). And the Viking age ended when Christianity was
established in Scandinavia, around 1000 AD.
Viking attacks ended when Europeans started building ships, the first
one being the "karg", with high walls that Vikings in their relatively
flat ships could not board. Technology was the main reason that Europe
was able prevail over its enemies and, ultimately, dominate the rest
of the world. Technology became possible when Christian control over
science weakened.
Besides that, in what way do you think Christianity had "weakened"
Europe?
The Roman empire collapsed after Christianity becaue the state
religion.
Are you really saying that the Western Roman Empire collapsed *because
of* Christianity? Why?
I'm certain there were lots of reasons. However, I doubt that
Christianity with its emphasis on pacifism, turning the other cheek,
etc. was of much help in preserving the Roman Empire.
Of course, the Eastern Empire - Byzantium - existed for a thousand
years more, and its role as a barrier towards Islam was an invaluable
one during the critical era when the Western European culture was
nascent.
So far as I can tell, the Byzantines had relatively little contact
with Western Europe until the Crusades when at one time Crusaders
turned their attention on the Byzantines instead of Moslems.
Are you referring to the reign of Charlemagne and the
foundation of the Holy Roman Empire, for example?
No.
Yes, you'd better not - certainly Charlemagne was one in the prominent
figures in consolidating the status of Christianity, right in the
middle of the "Dark" Ages.
I checked up on Charlemagne. Sources indicate that Charlemagne was
brilliant at war and public administration. However, much of his
achievements did not survive his death.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Risto Karttunen" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
12 May 2004 02:30:01 AM |
|
|
Jim Austin wrote:
I know that the authoritive literature on medicine at the time was
translated from Arabic.
Tell me more. What was this authoritative literature on medicine,
which was banned by Christians, and which Christians?
The original Christian impulse was to ban the ideas of Aristotle.
What original Christian impulse? Expressed in the sayings of Jesus or
the Epistles of Paul or where?
Colossians 2, 8:
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not
after Christ."
Romans 14, 23:
"And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of
faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
So, you have read the Epistles and have inferred that those excerpts
ban the ideas of Aristotle (BTW, why not Plato?); thus they are the
most characteristic representatives of Paul's motives and theology,
more so than the theology itself, which you seem to take as secondary.
Right?
(...) By legitimizing Aristotle, Acquinas prepared the way for
the weakening of Christianity's grasp on government, culture, science.
So, he disagreed with Paul about Aristotle, and – how silly of him –
he weakened the grasp of Christianity, apparently by publishing his
great work Summa theologiae, where he establishes certain Catholic
dogmas and assures the infallibility of the Pope, among other things.
I see. However, I'm somewhat bewildered now: if Christianity had made
Europe vulnerable in the Dark Ages, by preaching non-violence, how is
it possible that Charlemagne and Otto the Great, for example, so
potently solidified the status of Christianity then? They were great
rulers, but also great soldiers - weren't they Christians after all?
About Charlemagne:
http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture20b.html
"When Charlemagne took the throne in 771, he immediately implemented
two policies. The first policy was one of expansion. Charlemagne's
goal was to unite all Germanic people into one kingdom. The second
policy was religious in that Charlemagne wanted to convert all of the
Frankish kingdom, and those lands he conquered, to Christianity. As a
result, Charlemagne's reign was marked by almost continual warfare."
and Otto:
http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/OttoGreat.CP.html
"He was an effective military warrior who encouraged military
expansion, colonization, and missionary activity eastward into the
Slavic world. His campaign was to restore kingship on the Carolingian
model."
I wouldn't say these two men preferred turning the other cheek.
[about the Dark Ages:]
The ideas of the Renaissance, even the
modern science, have their roots in that era.
No. It was made possible by the close of that era.
I said those ideas have *their roots* in that era (mainly in the works
of the scholastics). They didn't come out of the blue.
If "having roots" means that such ideal occured during the Dark Ages,
then I can accept that. If it means that it came from the ideals that
dominated the Dark Ages, then I don't buy it.
I said ideas, not ideals. Which ideals do you mean, the Christian
pacifism or what?
(...)
Constantine converted around 300 AD.
Yes?
Christianity had *weakened* Europe to the extent that Viking and
Moslems dared to attack?
Yes.
Are you serious?
Yes.
Is this your own theory or could you give some references,
corroborating your view?
That Moslems and Vikings were able to do damages itself testifies to
the weakness of Europe. That Christianity had such dominance during
that area is a good indication of where the responsibility lies.
Christianity preaches pacifism, turning the other cheek, doing good to
persecutors, etc. That it resulted in a continent so easy to attack is
hardly surprising.
OK, this is your theory. But I'm bewildered again. Take England, for
example. Were the Britons better Christians, when the Anglo-Saxons got
the upper hand over them around 600 AD? Or think about the Norman
Conquest. Edward the Confessor had died without a heir, and Harold
Godwineson, a Saxon, has succeeded him. Then a Viking from Norway,
Harald the Ruthless, invades England but is defeated by Harold and
gets killed. Enter William the Conqueror, who invades England in his
turn, defeating Harold, who is killed at the battle of Hastings. So,
was Harald the Viking the best and meekliest Christian of all, William
the worst, and Harold somewhere in-between?
I'm beginning to think that you are a troll.
Sounds like a personal problem.
I'm mostly amused.
People didn't feel free to focus on military defense because of Christianity?
Admittedly, this idea is a refreshing one, for a change - usually
Christianity is blamed rather for aggressiveness and militarism.
I do not so blame Christianity.
One point for that.
Viking attacks ended when Europeans started building ships, the first
one being the "karg", with high walls that Vikings in their relatively
flat ships could not board. (...)
But surely you, of all people, should think that the Vikings become
gentlier when converted into Christianity, which took place in those
days.
Technology became possible when Christian control over science weakened.
What control? Do you mean the traditional, i.e. Aristotelian and
Ptolemian views in natural sciences?
Are you really saying that the Western Roman Empire collapsed *because
of* Christianity? Why?
I'm certain there were lots of reasons. However, I doubt that
Christianity with its emphasis on pacifism, turning the other cheek,
etc. was of much help in preserving the Roman Empire.
Those pacifistic ideals were not influential then, nor have they ever
been. Please name even one emperor of Rome who was a Christian
pacifist. But in fact I think Christianity really had something to do
with the decline of Western Rome, and this was due to the relative
independence of the church from the state. Those two were rivals,
which divided and thus weakened the resources; the surplus revenue
from the taxes, for example. In Byzantium the Church was subjugated to
the Emperor.
However - as I see it - the decline of both empires was basically
caused by the lack of flexibility in the organization of the state and
by the exploitation and neglect of provinces in the periphery,
something that later on took place also in Turkey of the Ottomans,
Austro-Hungary of the Habsburgs and Soviet Union of the Communist
Party. The separation between the state and the religion could have
been an asset in Western Rome, not necessarily a drawback.
Of course, the Eastern Empire - Byzantium - existed for a thousand
years more, and its role as a barrier towards Islam was an invaluable
one during the critical era when the Western European culture was
nascent.
So far as I can tell, the Byzantines had relatively little contact
with Western Europe until the Crusades when at one time Crusaders
turned their attention on the Byzantines instead of Moslems.
Yes? At least Alcuin of York, Charlemagne's "head-hunter", obtained
classical Grecian manuscripts also from Byzantium. See, for example,
http://www.culturalresources.com/Char.html
A citation from the above:
"Perhaps Charlemagne's greatest achievement was the re-establishment
of contact with the ancient culture of the Mediterranean world. His
teacher and librarian, Alcuin of York, helped him collect and copy
ancient manuscripts. In fact, almost our entire knowledge of ancient
literature is owing to the collecting and copying that began under
Charlemagne."
I checked up on Charlemagne. Sources indicate that Charlemagne was
brilliant at war and public administration. However, much of his
achievements did not survive his death.
That is lamentable indeed. Of course, the legacy of Alexander the
Great had the same fate, for example. But some achievements did
survive, both Alexander's and Charlemagne's.
--
risto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "W. Syme" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
28 Apr 2004 11:47:49 AM |
|
|
On 25 Apr 2004 09:38:06 -0700, (JaBrIoL) wrote:
Can "Christians" make the world better? Were they always involved
in politics? Any historians around to answer this question?
Sorry, Xians are just as evil/corrupted/good/holy as ANYONE. Makes not
the tiniest bit of difference whatsoever.
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
W. Syme (pseudonym), European, non-native English speaker, "soft" atheist.
Email will not be read.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
25 Apr 2004 05:04:19 PM |
|
|
On 25 Apr 2004 09:38:06 -0700, (JaBrIoL) wrote:
In the United States an election is approaching many will go and elect
a leader, a president, a political leader. But many American who are
"Christian" are supposed to have a leader as well. But apparently a
few do not have enough faith.
I've read that a Canadian archbishop bluntly wrote if a political
government does not do the will of God, then people should get
involved to bring justice to the poor. It seems to me that the
archbishop just told his filigrees, that they can do better than God.
Can "Christians" make the world better? Were they always involved
in politics? Any historians around to answer this question?
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Read Amendment 1. It keeps religion and government separate but the
sanctimonious holier than thou people insist in reading around it,
denying it, and these are the people who voters in the United States
of America must vote against.
The United States of America is *not* a Christian nation.
The United States of America allows it's citizens *freedom of
religion* but not the right to meddle with other citizens' choice of
religion, or choice to not have a religion.
That allows Christians to freely embrace and practice their faith but
it cuts them off when they insist that Christianity should be the
preferred religion of the government and therefore override freedom of
religion.
Can you see the catch there?
Add in the fact that the Bible has passages that can be interpreted to
mean that Christians *should* conquer and rule the world to carry out
god's will.
It is the Christian fundamentalists that feel the obligation to invoke
these extreme writings of the Bible and rule the rest of us by it.
Read up on the Dark Ages for further details. You'll see it's been
done before, like in the years from about 400 to 1200. It was a
disaster then and it is a disaster now. It is not new.
I'm no historian, but I don't think there is evidence of any religion
"making the world better".
drift
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
26 Apr 2004 08:56:17 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<ibao8014q1fa124m9qqmnrapfen5pftrjs@4ax.com>...
On 25 Apr 2004 09:38:06 -0700, (JaBrIoL) wrote:
In the United States an election is approaching many will go and elect
a leader, a president, a political leader. But many American who are
"Christian" are supposed to have a leader as well. But apparently a
few do not have enough faith.
I've read that a Canadian archbishop bluntly wrote if a political
government does not do the will of God, then people should get
involved to bring justice to the poor. It seems to me that the
archbishop just told his filigrees, that they can do better than God.
Can "Christians" make the world better? Were they always involved
in politics? Any historians around to answer this question?
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Read Amendment 1. It keeps religion and government separate but the
sanctimonious holier than thou people insist in reading around it,
denying it, and these are the people who voters in the United States
of America must vote against.
The United States of America is *not* a Christian nation.
The United States of America allows it's citizens *freedom of
religion* but not the right to meddle with other citizens' choice of
religion, or choice to not have a religion.
yet the goverment allow atheist teaching in school, starting with the
theory of evolution. telling kids that their religious beliefs are
false. at the same time allowing christian celebration like christmass
and easter to be celebrated in the public school system...
why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
27 Apr 2004 04:37:36 PM |
|
|
(Plssms) wrote in message news:<20040427074450.13568.00000398@mb-m26.aol.com>...
Jabriol@excite.com (JaBrIoL)
at the same time allowing christian celebration like christmass
and easter to be celebrated in the public school system...
Those holidays were stolen by blood-thristy christians from the Pagans.
blood-thristy christians?
christmas is little more then the winter equinox. Easter was a day set aside
to the Anglo-Saxon fetility deity Eoster (there are various spelling of
this)!!!
The name Easter, used in many lands, is not found in the Bible. The
book Medieval Holidays and Festivals tells us that "the holiday is
named after the pagan Goddess of the Dawn and of Spring, Eostre." And
who was this goddess? "Eostre it was who, according to the legend,
opened the portals of Valhalla to receive Baldur, called the White
God, because of his purity and also the Sun God, because his brow
supplied light to mankind," answers The American Book of Days. It
adds: "There is no doubt that the Church in its early days adopted the
old pagan customs and gave a Christian meaning to them. As the
festival of Eostre was in celebration of the renewal of life in the
spring it was easy to make it a celebration of the resurrection from
the dead of Jesus, whose gospel they preached."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Varicose Brain" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
26 Apr 2004 09:42:53 PM |
|
|
On 26 Apr 2004 18:56:17 -0700, (JaBrIoL) wrote:
The United States of America allows it's citizens *freedom of
religion* but not the right to meddle with other citizens' choice of
religion, or choice to not have a religion.
yet the goverment allow atheist teaching in school, starting with the
theory of evolution.
While atheists believe in evolution, how is evolution, in and of
itself, atheistic?
telling kids that their religious beliefs are
false.
Telling someone to leave their beliefs at home is the same as telling
them that their beliefs are false?
at the same time allowing christian celebration like christmass
and easter to be celebrated in the public school system...
why?
Many public schools have done away with any recognition of Christian
holidays, so your argument is non sequitur.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
27 Apr 2004 08:40:47 PM |
|
|
There's a lot of confusion because people haven't thought it through. When
evolution is posted for a theory of origins (which darwin didn't mean for it
to be but which our EDUCATION system GUISEFULLY presents it as!!! In fact
there is a quote from Darwin's work expressing his amazement that it was
taken to this extreme I heard quoted the other day) then the only reason for
such a dramatic, bizarre leap is to totally eliminate the need for a God in
the picture. Hence that form of evolutionary (non)thought is directly tied
to atheism. All scientists who have studied the subject at all know that
1) Miller's experiment is a total flop every time. No matter what volume of
typically available raw materials we expose to heat, cold, electric
discharge, pressure, or magic spells....NEVER does ONE STINKING MOLECULE of
anything resembling a genetic building block result. NEVER.
2) The second law of TD looms unchallenged; with the obvious logical
conclusion that if there wasn't a time t=0 when all matter was created from
a different system...then we are at a state called 'heat death'. We aren't
there. Hence we conclude that there WAS a time t=0 for every subatomic
particle in the universe. (I've only written this about a billion times on
the internet and it's funny how nobody ever even clumsily tries to deny
this! Yet..people go on believing the opposite or so they claim.)
3) Physical formations such as planetary orbits absolutely defy explanation
with the most sophistocated models of astrophysicists. Yet the thought
that they were placed there by a creative God is just intollerable to so
many of them.
Oh on and on we could go delving into the physiological things that mock
evolution and so on. Meanwhile...telling someone to 'leave their beliefs at
home' is like nazi sort of. How can you tell someone to leave their beliefs
somewhere? That's absurd! -Bob
"Varicose Brain" <lacruiser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bphr801r4i0an2dpe0sv4l0lbdu55ko4bo@4ax.com...
On 26 Apr 2004 18:56:17 -0700, (JaBrIoL) wrote:
The United States of America allows it's citizens *freedom of
religion* but not the right to meddle with other citizens' choice of
religion, or choice to not have a religion.
yet the goverment allow atheist teaching in school, starting with the
theory of evolution.
While atheists believe in evolution, how is evolution, in and of
itself, atheistic?
telling kids that their religious beliefs are
false.
Telling someone to leave their beliefs at home is the same as telling
them that their beliefs are false?
at the same time allowing christian celebration like christmass
and easter to be celebrated in the public school system...
why?
Many public schools have done away with any recognition of Christian
holidays, so your argument is non sequitur.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phÿltêr" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
28 Apr 2004 08:23:19 AM |
|
|
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> astounded us with:
news:108u2e7m0oehc8a@corp.supernews.com:
1) Miller's experiment is a total flop every time. No matter what
volume of typically available raw materials we expose to heat, cold,
electric discharge, pressure, or magic spells....NEVER does ONE STINKING
MOLECULE of anything resembling a genetic building block result. NEVER.
LOL, therefore god exists...
No matter how I try, my windows won't grow curtains.
--
Phÿltêr
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://afjc.clickhalah.com/forum/index.php
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ida Tookem" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
28 Apr 2004 11:51:59 AM |
|
|
"Phÿltêr" <Phÿltêr@freeway.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D9D99A989F2Smeagolsbane@192.189.54.177...
LOL, therefore god exists...
No matter how I try, my windows won't grow curtains.
==================
I like this one! :o)
Wise men stare at the unknown, and boldly asks, WHY?
Others... fall on their hands and knees, and start mumbling...
(God did it! God did it!)
~ Thus Spake God's Creator ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~><> ><>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
07 May 2004 04:02:12 PM |
|
|
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:108u2e7m0oehc8a@corp.supernews.com...
There's a lot of confusion because people haven't thought it through.
Oh boy, this should be good :-).
When evolution is posted for a theory of origins (which darwin didn't mean
for
it to be but which our EDUCATION system GUISEFULLY presents it as!!!
Really? Sorry that is abiogenesis, not evolution.
In fact
there is a quote from Darwin's work expressing his amazement that it was
taken to this extreme I heard quoted the other day) then the only reason
for such a dramatic, bizarre leap is to totally eliminate the need for a
God
in the picture.
Did you hear it quoted the other day? Sorry Bob, you'll have to do better
than that. If you can't support that outlandish claim then you need to
retract it. Many Christians today support evolution therefore your premise
is already shown to be false.
Hence that form of evolutionary (non)thought is directly
tied to atheism. All scientists who have studied the subject at all know
that
They do? Another meaningless assertion from Bob.
1) Miller's experiment is a total flop every time. No matter what volume
of typically available raw materials we expose to heat, cold, electric
discharge, pressure, or magic spells....NEVER does ONE STINKING MOLECULE
of anything resembling a genetic building block result. NEVER.
Miller's experiment was a success. He showed that the "primordial soup" was
capable of creating amino acids. Tell me Bob, have you checked the progress
of the research? Of course you haven't. Fifty years is a long time Bob,
especially when dealing with science. You need to go to your corner
drugstore and get a copy of this months "Discover" magazine. There is an
interesting article in it entitled " What Came Before DNA". The article will
let fools like you know just how close science is to creating a self
replicating organism capable of Darwinian evolution. I don't know what your
STINKING response will be then. I guess like all good creationists you'll
just move the goal posts back, except in this case I don't think you will
have enough room to move them back a lot.
2) The second law of TD looms unchallenged; with the obvious logical
conclusion that if there wasn't a time t=0 when all matter was created
from a different system...then we are at a state called 'heat death'.
Say what?? Do you even have a clue as to what the hell you're saying??
We aren't there. Hence we conclude that there WAS a time t=0 for every
subatomic particle in the universe. (I've only written this about a
billion times
on the internet and it's funny how nobody ever even clumsily tries to deny
this! Yet..people go on believing the opposite or so they claim.)
What is there to deny? If there was a big bang, there was a beginning to
time, space and matter. Were you trying to say something different?
3) Physical formations such as planetary orbits absolutely defy
explanation with the most sophistocated models of astrophysicists. Yet
the >thought that they were placed there by a creative God is just
intollerable to so
many of them.
What?? Where are you picking up these little snippets of nonsense? The
planets have an orbit because the mass from which the planets was formed was
rotating. I think that the fact the orbits of the parents are well known to
science and we can calculate all of them shows it isn't such a 'big'
problem.
If "god" created the planetary system he used the same procedures that
natural formation would have used. The planets formed from a rotating
flattened disc that surrounded the sun. This explains why the orbits of all
the planets all lie in essentially the same plane and why they all orbit the
sun in the same direction. Why do you think "god" did that, Bob?
Oh on and on we could go delving into the physiological things that mock
evolution and so on.
You could? Gee, in order to do that you need to do it the first time and so
far you've been an abysmal failure. You sound like a real "creationist
science" whiz to me.
Meanwhile...telling someone to 'leave their beliefs at
home' is like nazi sort of. How can you tell someone to leave their
beliefs somewhere? That's absurd! -Bob
Many people have ditched the mythology of the Hebrew bible. In fact a survey
taken in 2001 and compared to a survey taken in 1990 show that the number of
persons claiming either atheist, agnostic or no religion had grown from 14
million in 1990 to 29 million in 2001. Your side is losing Robert and in
another few decades common sense and reason will overtake and pass the
superstitious explanations of mythology.
"Varicose Brain" <lacruiser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bphr801r4i0an2dpe0sv4l0lbdu55ko4bo@4ax.com...
On 26 Apr 2004 18:56:17 -0700, (JaBrIoL) wrote:
The United States of America allows it's citizens *freedom of
religion* but not the right to meddle with other citizens' choice of
religion, or choice to not have a religion.
yet the goverment allow atheist teaching in school, starting with the
theory of evolution.
While atheists believe in evolution, how is evolution, in and of
itself, atheistic?
telling kids that their religious beliefs are
false.
Telling someone to leave their beliefs at home is the same as telling
them that their beliefs are false?
at the same time allowing christian celebration like christmass
and easter to be celebrated in the public school system...
why?
Many public schools have done away with any recognition of Christian
holidays, so your argument is non sequitur.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Varicose Brain" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
27 Apr 2004 08:45:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:40:47 -0600, "Bob Weigel"
<soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote:
Oh on and on we could go delving into the physiological things that mock
evolution and so on. Meanwhile...telling someone to 'leave their beliefs at
home' is like nazi sort of. How can you tell someone to leave their beliefs
somewhere? That's absurd! -Bob
Religionists certainly have no problem leaving their brains and common
sense at home when they go to their repsective worship services...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
28 Apr 2004 12:42:55 PM |
|
|
"Varicose Brain" <lacruiser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d03u809bg1kocl79d2bdhgjtfqf19er7ds@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:40:47 -0600, "Bob Weigel"
<soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote:
Oh on and on we could go delving into the physiological things that mock
evolution and so on. Meanwhile...telling someone to 'leave their beliefs
at
home' is like nazi sort of. How can you tell someone to leave their
beliefs
somewhere? That's absurd! -Bob
Religionists certainly have no problem leaving their brains and common
sense at home when they go to their repsective worship services...
I agree for the most part. So? It's a screwed up world. We hopefully all
know this. :-) . I'm not a 'religionist'. I believe God is worthy of
worship and I want to worship him in truth and spirit more and more.
However the things we see going on in the religious realm are far far from
worshipping the God of the bible for the most part. These groups are led by
a leader usually who tries to pacify situations for instance instead of
being confrontational. Thus you wind up with people who have hatred amongst
themselves and instead of obeying Jesus and laying down their gift and going
to make things right with their brother/sister (or letting the church know
that the person does not CARE to make things right....) they all bring their
gift before the alter together. Well...god says it STINKS. -Bob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ida Tookem" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? Hearing voices in your head? |
28 Apr 2004 03:54:40 PM |
|
|
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:108vqqa57u7o820@corp.supernews.com...
(or letting the church know
that the person does not CARE to make things right....) they all bring
their
gift before the alter together. Well...god says it STINKS. -Bob
===============================
And now you're speaking for god? How do YOU know what god thinks or says?
--
Ida and Carol....
Wise men stare at the unknown, and boldly asks, WHY?
Others... fall on their hands and knees, and start mumbling...
(God did it! God did it!)
~ Thus Spake God's Creator ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~><> ><>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
28 Apr 2004 03:22:42 PM |
|
|
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:108vqqa57u7o820@corp.supernews.com...
"Varicose Brain" <lacruiser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d03u809bg1kocl79d2bdhgjtfqf19er7ds@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:40:47 -0600, "Bob Weigel"
<soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote:
Oh on and on we could go delving into the physiological things that
mock
evolution and so on. Meanwhile...telling someone to 'leave their
beliefs
at
home' is like nazi sort of. How can you tell someone to leave their
beliefs
somewhere? That's absurd! -Bob
Religionists certainly have no problem leaving their brains and common
sense at home when they go to their repsective worship services...
I agree for the most part. So? It's a screwed up world. We hopefully
all
know this. :-) .
It sure is. That is a primary evidence against a benevolent god.
I'm not a 'religionist'.
Of course you are.
I believe God is worthy of
worship and I want to worship him in truth and spirit more and more.
Why?
However the things we see going on in the religious realm are far far from
worshipping the God of the bible for the most part.
Why is it that we can never find the "true" Christian?
These groups are led by
a leader usually who tries to pacify situations for instance instead of
being confrontational.
And you aren't ?
Thus you wind up with people who have hatred amongst
themselves and instead of obeying Jesus and laying down their gift and
going
to make things right with their brother/sister (or letting the church know
that the person does not CARE to make things right....) they all bring
their
gift before the alter together. Well...god says it STINKS. -Bob
Wow, I knew I shouldn't have messed with Bob, he has a direct pipeline to
god. I love it when someone starts telling others what god thinks or says.
Isn't that about the time that god tells you folks to kill your children?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ida Tookem" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
28 Apr 2004 03:58:32 PM |
|
|
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10904kkobr1iu4c@corp.supernews.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
they all bring
their
gift before the alter together. Well...god says it STINKS. -Bob
---------
Wow, I knew I shouldn't have messed with Bob, he has a direct pipeline to
god. I love it when someone starts telling others what god thinks or says.
Isn't that about the time that god tells you folks to kill your children?
# Yep! Have them stoned at the village gate by the elders,....after you
slaughter whole villages except for the young virgins. Those are saved to
be sexually abused and raped all their lives by being forced into unwanted
marriages and concubinage. Oh, this god is a merry old god indeed....
--
Ida and PQ....
"We look at the ancient Greeks with their gods on a mountain top throwing
lightning bolts and say, 'Those ancient Greeks. They were so silly. So
primitive
and naive. Not like our religions. We have burning bushes talking to people
and
guys walking on water. We're ...sophisticated.'"
-= Paul Provenza =-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry/Anti" |
|
| Title: Re: Should religion be involved politics? |
28 Apr 2004 06:07:55 PM |
|
|
"Ida Tookem" <wehateRACISTS@thisNetwork.com> wrote in message
news:c-2dnR7bP_Kchg3dRVn-iQ@heartoftn.net...
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10904kkobr1iu4c@corp.supernews.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
they all bring
their
gift before the alter together. Well...god says it STINKS. -Bob
---------
Wow, I knew I shouldn't have messed with Bob, he has a direct pipeline
to
god. I love it when someone starts telling others what god thinks or
says.
Isn't that about the time that god tells you folks to kill your
children?
# Yep! Have them stoned at the village gate by the elders,....after you
slaughter whole villages except for the young virgins. Those are saved to
be sexually abused and raped all their lives by being forced into unwanted
marriages and concubinage. Oh, this god is a merry old god indeed....
--
Ida and PQ....
Or, these days, withhold life saving transfusions.
Gramps
Move the @ ahead of hot to email me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
