# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  How much history did Christianity destroy?

## Johane Derite

I came across this:

St. Augustine of Hippo writes in the City of God (written AD 413–426):


"*Let us omit* the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race...They are deceived by those *highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousands of years*, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have passed. (City of God 12:10).

I wonder what these "documents" he is referring to were. I wonder if we will ever know. I wonder how many such documents were destroyed. 
I find his reasoning even more revealing, that he disproved them by reckoning with the "sacred writings."


Just imagine how much history these people must have destroyed. Who knows how much documents and artefacts were totally annihilated in the early
days of Christianity. If they destroyed their own gospels that they considered heretical or Gnostic, imagine how they must have seen non christian historical documents.



Reminds me quite a bit of the Stalinist and Maoist approach to centralized power and the conscious erasure of history. 

In China the Maoists had something called the "Four Olds Campaign" 

LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Olds

"Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas. One of the stated goals of the Cultural Revolution in the People's Republic of China was to bring an end to the Four Olds."



To do this they demanded the destruction of old monuments, texts, artefacts, etc. They even killed people that tried to hide artefacts and the such.







Also, this puts doubt on the actually existing historical documents that were preserved. 

The way Stalin and the USSR presented history was totally
suited to the USSR political motivations at the time, and they redacted and added things to their textbooks on subjects like the french revolution, 
paris commune, feudalism, etc in a conscious manner. Its most likely that the early churches would have done this of course.



Even democracies today destroy documents of crimes they committed because they can't face them. I seriously doubt the churches of the first millenium
would have been better.

Example: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ast-government

----------


## LeBrok

We should be reminded from time to time, what insecurity, intolerance and haltered can do.

----------


## ROS

I do not understand the question well, but I understand that there is a dialectic between what the human being is (which is basically selfish) and the Gospels that we can summarize as love for others, in this dialectic sometimes triumphs the pure and hard egoism of the human being and other times, the least, the evolution that the gospels provide of love to others.


I do not know if this answers your question.

----------


## Johane Derite

> I do not understand the question well






I just came across that quote from Augustine and was quite shocked. 

I guess the question was more speculative, wondering about what those historical documents he wanted "*ommitted"* 
and how this opens all types of questions about "unkown unkowns" i.e. things we don't even know that we don't know.

In this case, the erasure of historical information, or as you call it, the triumphs of egoism.

----------


## ROS

Christianity shows us what is good and this is perfectly understood, then the human being does and undoes as he pleases.


But hey, it is not bad to have a north, although later on you do the opposite.

----------


## Angela

The least tolerant people I've ever met are atheists. Second are extreme left wing people.

----------


## Johane Derite

"Some of the saints listed above are chiefly remembered for their fearless acts of destroying idols"


LINK: https://iconreader.wordpress.com/201...igious-images/



Saint George topples the pagan idols

St Abraham uses staff to destroy the idol of Veles

----------


## ROS

Being intolerant or tolerant is independent of religious or political beliefs, I already have a certain age and in this politics I believe that in any party you find everything and the same happens with atheism or not atheism.


I personally believe in a nation called Spain, but of course I understand that there are people who consider themselves Basque simply or Catalans.


I am from Murcia, in a part of Murcia Valenciano is currently spoken, it seems that I included Valenciano in Cartagena historically because of the repopulations, I have had relatives who have emigrated to Catalua, Valencia, Alicante, etc., but we are all Iberian and Spaniards, if the parents of the homeland who are in the north begin to give up their children badly we are going.


Spain is a great nation and nobody has the right to humiliate it, it is not more than anyone, but less so.


I am Catholic, apostolic, Roman, I am not very practicing, I understand and tolerate the Protestant, Orthodox or other religious or atheist world but I consider myself that way, we have grown up in this religion and we have sucked and we have much to thank.

----------


## ROS

[CITA = Johane Derite; 535819] " Algunos de los santos mencionados anteriormente son principalmente recordados por sus intrpidos actos de destruccin de dolos"


ENLACE: https://iconreader.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/saints-who-destroyed- imgenes religiosas /



San Jorge derrota a los dolos paganos

San Abraham usa personal para destruir el dolo de Veles[/CITAR]

Remember the above the human being is egoist and this leads to nationalism and this leads to racism, this is the nature of the human being, in contrast is the summary message of the Gospels "love one another as I have loved"

----------


## Ygorcs

Well, he was definitely wrong, but apparently also were the documents that he is criticizing in that passage if you read that in its entirety and carefully: 

_They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. And, not to spend many words in exposing the baselessness of these documents, in which so many thousands of years are accounted for, nor in proving that their authorities are totally inadequate, let me cite only that letter which Alexander the Great wrote to his mother Olympias, giving her the narrative he had from an Egyptian priest, which he had extracted from their sacred archives, and which gave an account of kingdoms mentioned also by the Greek historians. In this letter of Alexander's a term of upwards of 5000 years is assigned to the kingdom of Assyria; while in the Greek history only 1300 years are reckoned from the reign of Bel himself, whom both Greek and Egyptian agree in counting the first king of Assyria. Then to the empire of the Persians and Macedonians this Egyptian assigned more than 8000 years, counting to the time of Alexander, to whom he was speaking; while among the Greeks, 485 years are assigned to the Macedonians down to the death of Alexander, and to the Persians 233 years, reckoning to the termination of his conquests._

Egypt as one unified state definitely did not have more than 8,000 years, and Assyria of course didn't have 5,000 years by the time of Augustine. So, it doesn't seem like those documents were real historic documents, but rather other wild speculations about the ancient history not very unlike the wrong statements given by Augustine.

----------


## LeBrok

> The least tolerant people I've ever met are *atheists*. Second are extreme left wing people.


Like Maciamo, Sparkey, Taranis, LeBrok, IronHorse, Maleth, ...

----------


## Angela

> Like Maciamo, Sparkey, Taranis, LeBrok, IronHorse, Maleth, ...


Extremely intolerant of religious belief and believers? Yes, unfortunately I believe so. 

Wonderful in all other respects, however. :)

----------


## IronSide

> Like Maciamo, Sparkey, Taranis, LeBrok, IronHorse, Maleth, ...


IronHorse  :Smile:  

The thing is, where I'm from its dangerous to criticize religion in public, in our case because extreme religious people take control, I don't know if this is or was the case whenever religious people took control.

I know, however, that there is no direct relationship between the two, and religious people can be quite tolerant, LeBrok for example :) and a friend of mine here in Saudi.

----------


## Yetos

just think to be a polytheist

in a foundamental monotheistic world

----------


## Angela

> IronHorse  
> 
> The thing is, where I'm from its dangerous to criticize religion in public, in our case because extreme religious people take control, I don't know if this is or was the case whenever religious people took control.
> 
> I know, however, that there is no direct relationship between the two, and religious people can be quite tolerant, LeBrok for example :) and a friend of mine here in Saudi.


LeBroc is an atheist, as is everyone else in his list. :) 

I can tell you that I have never in my life, throughout the years of my Catholic school education or in the years following before I "lost my faith", heard vituperation against agnostics and atheists from priests, nuns, brothers and sisters, or lay people similar to that which comes from atheists like Bill Maher, for example. 

Most "religious" people have had their own doubts and totally understand why other people might come to believe in no divine agency whatsoever. They don't, in my experience, question the intellect or the reasoning ability or the sanity or the emotional make up of those who don't believe in any god. The latter are usually the stock in trade of what atheists say about religious people of any stripe, well, other than about Muslims, but that's a different discussion.

----------


## davef

I'll admit I was horrible to religious people as a teenager and I remember shouting vulgar insults at groups attending religious events in public (but I'll also admit that I was one of the most disrespectful vulgar little brat on the face of the earth and was sent to the principal almost every day in early elementary school due to my mouth....but I wasn't knocking religion that early on in life, it was simply bodily and other childish insults and forms of vulgarity). 

These days, I'm extremely tolerant of those who believe strongly in the divine and I even have a few friends who are completely devout Catholics and I never mocked them once, nor do I see myself doing so.

----------


## IronSide

> LeBroc is an atheist, as is everyone else in his list. :) 
> 
> I can tell you that I have never in my life, throughout the years of my Catholic school education or in the years following before I "lost my faith", heard vituperation against agnostics and atheists from priests, nuns, brothers and sisters, or lay people similar to that which comes from atheists like Bill Maher, for example. 
> 
> Most "religious" people have had their own doubts and totally understand why other people might come to believe in no divine agency whatsoever. They don't, in my experience, question the intellect or the reasoning ability or the sanity or the emotional make up of those who don't believe in any god. The latter are usually the stock in trade of what atheists say about religious people of any stripe, well, other than about Muslims, but that's a different discussion.


I thought LeBrok was a Catholic, I misunderstood a reference in some other thread, sorry LeBrok.

----------


## bicicleur

2-3 generations ago, the Catholic Church was still quite powefull and dominant here and very paternalistic, trying to controll everybodies mind and habits
my parents generation got liberated from that, and there is some resentment about the way the church have ruled all these generations, that is very natural
and sometimes it is frightening to see all those people conditioned and biassed by Islam coming in who are so convinced about there own beliefs and with whom reasoning seems very difficult

----------


## bicicleur

> I thought LeBrok was a Catholic, I misunderstood a reference in some other thread, sorry LeBrok.


yes, you must have missed something  :Wink: 
look at my last post, he is someone of the generation with the resentment

----------


## Ygorcs

> LeBroc is an atheist, as is everyone else in his list. :) 
> 
> I can tell you that I have never in my life, throughout the years of my Catholic school education or in the years following before I "lost my faith", heard vituperation against agnostics and atheists from priests, nuns, brothers and sisters, or lay people similar to that which comes from atheists like Bill Maher, for example. 
> 
> Most "religious" people have had their own doubts and totally understand why other people might come to believe in no divine agency whatsoever. They don't, in my experience, question the intellect or the reasoning ability or the sanity or the emotional make up of those who don't believe in any god. The latter are usually the stock in trade of what atheists say about religious people of any stripe, well, other than about Muslims, but that's a different discussion.


I agree, Angela. In my experience (of course limited to the internet world and the social reality of Brazil), the older atheists and agnostics are usually very low-profile and tolerant, they simply do not believe, that's all, but they couldn't care less about whether you believe in some religion or not. But the majority of the younger (< 45) generations of atheists are simply awful, sorry if I have to say that. They're the ones that sound more close to the evangelical radicals we have here, in that there is a constant, relentless need to preach loudly and often arrogantly - there is always the "stupid, insane, weak theists" cardboard - about their atheism and criticize other beliefs (yes, being an atheists is also a kind of personal conviction that one holds to be true even though there is no empirical proof, that is, epistemologically it is a personal belief, not much more than that). For people who have no faith and rely on evidences to form their opinions, I find it baffling that younger atheists are often soooooo self-confident and arrogant about what they believe and, if the only thing that unites them is simply a lack of belief in god/gods, it's at least a bit weird to see such a devoted proselytism that not even most religious people are willing to do.

----------


## Salento

imo The Title of this Thread has an opinionated and leading bias.
should have been: “How Much History did Religion Destroy”
Many religions are responsible for the eradication of knowledge, books, monuments, history.
Extremist Religious Groups are still Physically Destroying, and Bombing the History of Humanity, and They are Not Christians.
The extreme left is trying to remove statues and monuments in the United States too.

----------


## Angela

> 2-3 generations ago, the Catholic Church was still quite powefull and dominant here and very paternalistic, trying to controll everybodies mind and habits
> my parents generation got liberated from that, and there is some resentment about the way the church have ruled all these generations, that is very natural
> and sometimes it is frightening to see all those people conditioned and biassed by Islam coming in who are so convinced about there own beliefs and with whom reasoning seems very difficult



A lot of it in Europe was indeed "political". My father was very "anti-clerical". Like a lot of Italian men he stopped attending church when he was confirmed. That caused me a lot of anguish when I was young because I was a very religious little girl. When I wanted, at the age of 12-14 or so, to be a Carmelite I thought he'd have a heart attack. :) Then I discovered boys and gave him different worries.

Still, if you had asked him, he would have said he believed in God and was a Catholic. It's something my American friends don't understand.

Things are totally different in the U.S. because the Church has never held political power. It makes it easier to be religious, if you get what I mean, because there's not so much baggage from the past.

There's still resentment, however, but the cause is different. It's usually because of the rules controlling sexuality (especially homosexuality), divorce, contraception, etc. Meanwhile, while people weren't looking because they are now out of the church and don't even speak to people who are still "in", the emphasis changed in the church. No priest is going to tell you it's a sin to use contraception, the rules for annulment are so loose that it's almost like divorce, the only real "sticking" point is the practice of homosexuality and abortion. I don't think the latter will ever change. 

There's an awful lot of what we call "cafeteria style" Catholics. They "choose" which rules they will take seriously: yes to the central tenants of the faith, and no to the sort of "lifestyle" rules with which they disagree. 

I'm of two minds whether the Church is being smart in loosening some of these rules, although I approve of the end results. Certain people would be satisfied with nothing less than a total acceptance of all kinds of sexual expression, third term abortions, etc. Even then, I think it's questionable whether they would come back to the church. The proof is what has happened to the "mainstream", liberal, Protestant congregations, which are disappearing. The growth is in the conservative Protestant churches. 

Among the very conservative Catholics, of whom I know a few, there are those who believe in the "Faithful Remnant" evolution or de-evolution of the Church, similar to what happened with the Hebrews. The true believers will remain, and the rest will fall away. I think that's probably what will happen.

Another phenomenon is that very conservative Catholics sometimes become Evangelical Protestant Christians because the Church has gotten too "soft".

As to the saints listed above, they are not the saints who are or were "in" people's lives in the modern era, if that makes sense. When I was growing up it was Francis of Assisi, St. Therese, the Little Flower, St. Joseph, maybe St. Bernadette, St. Jude, Mary, of course, especially through her appearances at Lourdes, Fatima and "Yugoslavia". 

The only questionable one, imo, is St. Anthony of Padua, who was actually Portuguese, a disciple of St. Francis. He was very popular with older Italians. I think he's still popular in the Portuguese and Spanish speaking world. All that was emphasized to us was his piety, humility, and his love of the Christ Child. Later on, however, I discovered that he did a lot of preaching against the Italian "Cathars". Francis should have stuck to his original instinct to be suspicious of oratory and too much intellectualization of faith. That's apart from the fact that I think the Cathar "religion" was a crock. 

This is what devotion to St. Francis was all about**:

"Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me bring love.
Where there is offense, let me bring pardon.
Where there is discord, let me bring union.
Where there is error, let me bring truth.
Where there is doubt, let me bring faith.
Where there is despair, let me bring hope.
Where there is darkness, let me bring your light.
Where there is sadness, let me bring joy.
O Master, let me not seek as much
to be consoled as to console,
to be understood as to understand,
to be loved as to love,
for it is in giving that one receives,
it is in self-forgetting that one finds,
it is in pardoning that one is pardoned,
it is in dying that one is raised to eternal life."

Prayer to St. Jude, also a biggie when I was growing up, and still now. Danny Thomas named his hospital for children after him. 

*Most holy Apostle, Saint Jude Thaddeus, friend of Jesus, I place myself in your care at this difficult time. Help me know that I need not face my troubles alone. Please join me in my need, asking God to send me: consolation in my sorrow, courage in my fear, and healing in the midst of my suffering. Ask our loving Lord to fill me with the grace to accept whatever may lie ahead for me and my loved ones, and to strengthen my faith in God's healing powers. Thank you, Saint Jude Thaddeus, for the promise of hope you hold out to all who believe, and inspire me to give this gift of hope to others as it has been given to me.*

----------


## Yetos

it is not only History,
but also science

for example how many mathematicians, were lost,
how many leathers palimpsista become books for prayers,
if the ancient word had produced antikythera mechanism with such accuracy, and tottaly different aproach (eclipse can be the route of a moving circle center, not a 2 center shape)
and found that steam power can move tones of stone, Ηρων Heron of Alexandreia, milleniums before james Watt,
and dare to write down βελοποιικα Balistic science
*think what humanity has lost, in science,
and how much long took to regain it.

*from Heron to James Watt is 1650 years about.
from heron to Alhacen is about 1000 years.

The 'restart' of scientif speach away from religious criteria
took more than a millenium,
and just consider were the 'humanity' is moving and achieved the last 300 years,

Yet some thinks are still under the morale of humans, not religion,
and is needed so.
bur *IS MOVING*

----------


## Yetos

> IronHorse  
> 
> The thing is, where I'm from its dangerous to criticize religion in public, in our case because extreme religious people take control, I don't know if this is or was the case whenever religious people took control.
> 
> I know, however, that there is no direct relationship between the two, and religious people can be quite tolerant, LeBrok for example :) and a friend of mine here in Saudi.



I agree with you,
In Islamic world the religious 'casta' is very high,
and not only high, but also believe that they know everything,
only they, can explain phenomena,
they consider them shelves Doctors mechanics etc etc,

the most stupid thing I heard the last years
is that driving affects the woman ovaries,
and offcourse that was not taken serious,
so women can drive at Arab world.

Do not worry, we had such 'casta' in Europe too.

----------


## bicicleur

> I agree with you,
> In Islamic world the religious 'casta' is very high,
> and not only high, but also believe that they know everything,
> only they, can explain phenomena,
> they consider them shelves Doctors mechanics etc etc,
> the most stupid thing I heard the last years
> is that driving affects the woman ovaries,
> and offcourse that was not taken serious,
> so women can drive at Arab world.
> Do not worry, we had such 'casta' in Europe too.


some also believe female circumsision protects the male who has sex with her from diseases

but the worst is that many despise the kuffar, the non-Muslims
they believe they are superior for being Muslim

and they see 'blasphemy' as a serious crime

this preacher at least tries to get things straight :

----------


## Johane Derite

> imo The Title of this Thread has an opinionated and leading bias.
> should have been: “How Much History did Religion Destroy”
> Many religions are responsible for the eradication of knowledge, books, monuments, history.
> Extremist Religious Groups are still Physically Destroying, and Bombing the History of Humanity, and They are Not Christians.
> The extreme left is trying to remove statues and monuments in the United States too.


I went with this title because Islam and the rest destroyed history in their own regions whereas I think christianity was most relevant in Europe and since this is eupedia and the main focus of member here is discovering europes origins and history, i was wondering about this focus. Many books and history that did survive from the past did so in christian monasteries, so i wonder were they unbiased in what they saved, are there still things in the vaticans archives, etc.

My personal experience with the serbian orthodox church is such that it is a totally political institution that in many cases does not hesitate to lie for political gain. Many leaders are very corrupt and outright lie about so many things in the recent past, that i wonder how trustworthy they are at all about things further down the line.

----------


## Johane Derite

I think it will be fruitful for objectivity of a european historical record if we bare in mind that a lot of the historical sources in the last 2 millenium might be very selective and influenced by church politics

----------


## LeBrok

> IronHorse


 LOL, that's the image I have in my head. Don't know why. Did you have a horse in your avatar in the past?




> The thing is, where I'm from its dangerous to criticize religion in public, in our case because extreme religious people take control, I don't know if this is or was the case whenever religious people took control.
> 
> I know, however, that there is no direct relationship between the two, and religious people can be quite tolerant, LeBrok for example :) and a friend of mine here in Saudi.


 I don't see much connection either, but obviously the Christians of Eupedia feel threatened.

----------


## LeBrok

> I thought LeBrok was a Catholic, I misunderstood a reference in some other thread, sorry LeBrok.


 Yeah, I used to be for half of my life,... till I gathered all the relevant information to prove myself wrong. My mother says that I'm just lazy and don't want to go to church and pray every day, that's why.
I still hope I'm wrong and there is life after death... Just can't find the smallest empirical clue to keep my hopes up.

----------


## LeBrok

> (yes, being an atheists is also a kind of personal *conviction that one holds to be true even though there is no empirical proof*, that is, ...). *For people who have no faith and rely on evidences to form their opinions*, ....


It is in your writing already, you just don't allow it to settle in, like an impure thought, or counter intuitive phenomena.
I went through it myself...

I know it is off topic, but there was not even one atheist accusing religious people of moral corruption, when this off topic started. My response was dictated by straw arguments of some members attacking atheist morality, basically with thick brush across the board for no apparent reason, like we are the worst race on this planet.

----------


## Jovialis

> A lot of it in Europe was indeed "political". My father was very "anti-clerical". Like a lot of Italian men he stopped attending church when he was confirmed. That caused me a lot of anguish when I was young because I was a very religious little girl. When I wanted, at the age of 12-14 or so, to be a Carmelite I thought he'd have a heart attack. :) Then I discovered boys and gave him different worries.
> 
> Still, if you had asked him, he would have said he believed in God and was a Catholic. It's something my American friends don't understand.
> 
> Things are totally different in the U.S. because the Church has never held political power. It makes it easier to be religious, if you get what I mean, because there's not so much baggage from the past.
> 
> There's still resentment, however, but the cause is different. It's usually because of the rules controlling sexuality (especially homosexuality), divorce, contraception, etc. Meanwhile, while people weren't looking because they are now out of the church and don't even speak to people who are still "in", the emphasis changed in the church. No priest is going to tell you it's a sin to use contraception, the rules for annulment are so loose that it's almost like divorce, the only real "sticking" point is the practice of homosexuality and abortion. I don't think the latter will ever change. 
> 
> There's an awful lot of what we call "cafeteria style" Catholics. They "choose" which rules they will take seriously: yes to the central tenants of the faith, and no to the sort of "lifestyle" rules with which they disagree. 
> ...


My grandfather was also very anti-clerical, and was not too keen on religion. My grandmother (his wife), and great-grandmother were religious however. So were my other grand parents. Though, I don't think my other grandfather was that devout. My parents on the other hand are more like cafeteria Catholics, and my mother has expressed before that she's skeptical about religion. The only time you will ever see them in church is if there's a wedding, or a christening. I consider myself agnostic, but culturally catholic. Despite the fact that I don't follow the religion anymore, I think it has taught me good lessons about morality. This is something that is unfortunately being lost in society, with the decline of religiosity. Without moral guidance, we are seeing a decay of long-held values and traditions. Only to be replaced with narcissism, greed, perversion, and decadence.

----------


## Yetos

> Yeah, I used to be for half of my life,... till I gathered all the relevant information to prove myself wrong. My mother says that I'm just lazy and don't want to go to church and pray every day, that's why.
> I still hope I'm wrong and there is life after death... Just can't find the smallest empirical clue to keep my hopes up.



But there is life after death,
I do not know if lasts second or millenias or eternity,
but in underworld there is life,
as also you will be judged,
both by living and dead.

----------


## Yetos

Theon and Pappous 

maybe the most collective of ancient world mathematician

part of their work is in Arabic,
saved by the Arabs,

what Diocletian and Theodosius did
is a crime against Humanity by closing both Bibliotheque and Mouseion 

what some hidden people inside monotheistic religions did
is remarkable,
either inside christianity, with Greek
either inside Islam with Arabic

Pappous collection is fantastic, and big part is rewriten in Arabic
Theon work also
Even osteomachion of Archimedes palimpsista is in Arabic language,
the rebirth of Mathematics was restarted by early Islam and Arabs,

yet they also fell to the 'trap' that every monotheistic religion puts to the faithfull



for the story

that is the today Chinese tansgram




we all that is from China,


but that is found in Arabic language script with Greek/byzantine language palimpsista

The osteomachion or stomachion


etc,

just think what Hypateia could left behind.

PS
i mostly speak about Alexandreia cause I am more familiar
But i know that at Mediolana italy something such had happened too
the same era by same religion,

----------


## Johane Derite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donar%27s_Oak

----------


## Johane Derite

I think it's inevitable that any power structure and ideology will destroy old history to make place for new to be honest.

----------


## Angela

> I think it's inevitable that any power structure and ideology will destroy old history to make place for new to be honest.


I think that's right, at least in the past. 

In my view, all human institutions are corrupt because human beings are corrupt. 

I should perhaps also clarify what I think is a bit of a strong man argument. I don't believe that the majority of Catholics who have problems with the Church's rules about homosexuality, birth control, divorce, abortion etc. are "immoral". I have problems with a lot of it myself, with everything, actually, other than the rules against abortion, and even there I'm ambivalent about first trimester abortions. They, we, just view these things differently than does the Church. 

At the same time, I do believe that when rules like those memorialized in The Ten Commandments are stripped of their connection with God, sin, the hereafter, it is inevitable that with time and new generations the breaking of those rules is easier for a lot although not all people.

----------


## Jovialis

> I think that's right, at least in the past. 
> 
> In my view, all human institutions are corrupt because human beings are corrupt. 
> 
> I should perhaps also clarify what I think is a bit of a strong man argument. I don't believe that the majority of Catholics who have problems with the Church's rules about homosexuality, birth control, divorce, abortion etc. are "immoral". I have problems with a lot of it myself, with everything, actually, other than the rules against abortion, and even there I'm ambivalent about first trimester abortions. They, we, just view these things differently than does the Church. 
> 
> At the same time, I do believe that when rules like those memorialized in The Ten Commandments are stripped of their connection with God, sin, the hereafter, it is inevitable that with time and new generations the breaking of those rules is easier for a lot although not all people.


I agree, 

I think the fundamental moral teachings of acceptance, and trying to find goodness in people are what guides them to those sentiments. 

I fear that in the coming generations, if more people abandon their faith and are not brought up with those fundamental teachings, the society will become crueler, and less forgiving.

----------


## Yetos

it is around 1700 AD

a priest with name ABBA MICHEL FOURMONT
comes to Greece.
to demolish the ancient Sparta,

a place abbandoned but untached even by time and earthquakes,
is vandalised by 60 followers of Abba michel Fourmont

17 centuries Monotheistic Supremacy 
the wrath against paganism did not stoped,

he proudly writes
'I scattered the ashes of king Agesilaos'
something that not even war enemies of Sparta did not do at war,

at 1730 he writes to the Francais ambassadeur in Constantinopolis

'I forced the city to pay for the sins of her ancestors'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Fourmont



JUST IMAGINE WHAT HE HAD FOUND AND HE HAD DESTROYED!!!!!!!

----------


## bicicleur

> I agree, 
> 
> I think the fundamental moral teachings of acceptance, and trying to find goodness in people are what guides them to those sentiments. 
> 
> I fear that in the coming generations, if more people abandon their faith and are not brought up with those fundamental teachings, the society will become crueler, and less forgiving.


there always will be another story

----------


## IronSide

> Yeah, I used to be for half of my life,... till I gathered all the relevant information to prove myself wrong. My mother says that I'm just lazy and don't want to go to church and pray every day, that's why.
> *I still hope I'm wrong and there is life after death*... Just can't find the smallest empirical clue to keep my hopes up.


Ah, I feel the same, I do hope that there is meaning in our existence, and I did love God and faith ... but evidence pointed to the human origin of the Quran because of the scientific and philosophical flaws in it, and so I left my faith. I was 16 at the time.

----------


## Johane Derite

> it is around 1700 AD
> 
> a priest with name ABBA MICHEL FOURMONT
> comes to Greece.
> to demolish the ancient Sparta,
> 
> a place abbandoned but untached even by time and earthquakes,
> is vandalised by 60 followers of Abba michel Fourmont
> 
> ...


wow : / maybe they secretly looted something and there is something in a french museum basement somewhere

----------


## Salento

> Ah, I feel the same, I do hope that there is meaning in our existence, and I did love God and faith ... but evidence pointed to the human origin of the Quran because of the scientific and philosophical flaws in it, and so I left my faith. I was 16 at the time.


 “ Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. 
If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them.
If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. ”
* Marcus Aurelius* 


fyi .... some say that M.A. wrote it differently, but the point of it is what’s important.

----------


## Angela

> there always will be another story


Yes, Bicicleur, but what kind of story? That matters. Communism is a story, Nazism is a story. Even do unto others before they do unto you is a story. 

He is one smart guy, but I don't completely agree with him.

----------


## bicicleur

> Yes, Bicicleur, but what kind of story? That matters. Communism is a story, Nazism is a story. Even do unto others before they do unto you is a story. 
> 
> He is one smart guy, but I don't completely agree with him.


he doesn't say what kind of story
he just says how people want to be decieved
and tells about the power of stories, for good or for bad
he's a good storyteller himself, it brought him succes

----------


## Angela

> *he doesn't say what kind of story
> he just says how people want to be decieved*
> and tells about the power of stories, for good or for bad
> he's a good storyteller himself, it brought him succes


Let's leave aside "humanity denying" stories. Of the life and humanity "affirming" ones, is it better for individuals and human society as a whole to believe a beautiful lie, or the ugly truth?

----------


## Salento

True or not Religion gives comfort to people, the beliefs of something bigger to help them in time of need, and a sense of continuity after our demise.
I don’t have the heart to tell a mother praying for her sick child to not waste her time, or crashing the hope that she won’t see him/her ever again by pointing out that there’s not proof of an after life.
At a personal level most religions ironically teach a Basic universal rule, adopted also by the Stoics: 
*If it’s not right don’t do it, If it’s not true don’t say it.*
At an organized religion level, It would be great if all people accept the notion that the main religious books are not factual Historical truth, and the entirety of their teaching is to be seen as Metaphors, and not to literally follow their interpretation of whatever pages they fixated at particular time, in order to gain a political on else outcome or goal, with the excuse that the “Book” said so.
To those that want to be in touch with their Spirituality, you don’t need to. You believe in an immortal Soul, you have an eternity to do that. Live your life with your feet on the ground, and not with your head in the clouds, life is short, Enjoy it.

“Live and let Live”

----------


## mwauthy

> True or not Religion gives comfort to people, the beliefs of something bigger to help them in time of need, and a sense of continuity after our demise.
> I don’t have the heart to tell a mother praying for her sick child to not waste her time, or crashing the hope that she won’t see him/her ever again by pointing out that there’s not proof of an after life.
> At a personal level most religions ironically teach a Basic universal rule, adopted also by the Stoics: 
> *If it’s not right don’t do it, If it’s not true don’t say it.*
> At an organized religion level, It would be great if all people accept the notion that the main religious books are not factual Historical truth, and the entirety of their teaching is to be seen as Metaphors, and not to literally follow their interpretation of whatever pages they fixated at particular time, in order to gain a political on else outcome or goal, with the excuse that the “Book” said so.
> To those that want to be in touch with their Spirituality, you don’t need to. You believe in an immortal Soul, you have an eternity to do that. Live your life with your feet on the ground, and not with your head in the clouds, life is short, Enjoy it.
> “Live and let Live”


I feel that there are certain mysteries the human mind and science will never be able to answer such as an ant never being able to appreciate the beauty of a Van Gogh painting. These mysteries include something coming from nothing, time regressing backwards to negative infinity, matter being infinitely irreducible at higher and higher energy levels, why there are “laws” to our universe (infinite universes is not compelling or testable in my opinion). Even the interplay between the human mind and sense of self with the physical matter of the brain is not clear cut to me. How chemicals affect thoughts and vice versa.

I feel one of the primary motivations of human existence is to pursue “happiness.” How one goes about pursuing “happiness” is not always clear cut and for many their thoughts and actions are counterproductive to this goal. If someone wants to have optimism and hope in the mysteries of existence and the universe to achieve more “happiness” in their lives I’m totally cool with that.
It’s when people’s hope turns to certainty to the extent that they feel obliged to suppress knowledge, or to burn books, or to impose their will on others at the expense of other people’s happiness is what I have issue with. 

There is a certain humility and balance in hope that I respect as opposed to extremism or “certainty” of any kind.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Ah, I feel the same, I do hope that there is meaning in our existence, and I did love God and faith ... but evidence pointed to the human origin of the Quran because of the scientific and philosophical flaws in it, and so I left my faith. I was 16 at the time.


I managed this growing perception that the Bible (in my case, not the Qur'an, as I'm Catholic) had the wrong answers for many scientific, material, empirical matters quite well by following just one basic rule in my entire life: don't look for transcendental and metaphysical answers in science, and don't look for scientific, material answers in religion, because you'll be disappointed in both situations. 

I can believe in my religion by simply allowing myself to understand that even if a religion is true in its fundaments it is still a historic construction led by humans and, as such, will have been only gradually revealed and consolidated, with several steps and missteps in that journey toward a mature understanding of the faith and certainly with a mix of spiritual and secular influences throughout centuries that we need to distinguish if we're to interpret things correctly _(and in the case of Christianity I grant that convincing oneself of that is easier since - unlike Islam - the official stance is not that the Bible is the direct word of God and that the religion is "all-encompassing" being both about spirituality and secular law/politics- instead, there is an assumption that the Bible comes from books supernaturally inspired by God but written by humans conditioned by their own historic and cultural period, and that there is a kind of inherent separation between religious and lay authority)_. 

Also, once you put into your mind that the accounts about the material world, the cosmos or the humankind are essentially moral/ethical, and not scientific, you become able to see them through metaphorical lenses (thus extracting their metaphysical conclusion) and understand the wisdom in them but also acknowledge the mythical, fable aspect of them. 

It's just that myths are certainly not the objective truth given by a scientific process, but that does not mean that what they meant is totally useless if you look for the core message instead - the "why" - instead of the objective description of the process - the "how".In my opinion that's the only way someone who is well informed and fully accepts the scientific method can reconcile with his religion: by understanding that, no matter how people who knew much less than us used it, religions are ultimately designed to propose answers to questions that science just can't answer due to its own method's and object's constraints, so any time a religious account conflicts with science in a non-spiritual matter you know that science has the objective answer, but religion may well have a meaningful spiritual lesson.

----------


## Vallicanus

> Let's leave aside "humanity denying" stories. Of the life and humanity "affirming" ones, is it better for individuals and human society as a whole to believe a beautiful lie, or the ugly truth?


The truth is never ugly.

----------


## FIREYWOTAN

Thanks for connecting the questions that for so long refused answers. "City Of God" Saint Augustine is a lesson in hypocrisy your thread makes that all so clear. Hiding the core truths is one more way to control how people thought and more significantly how we should be thinking now. But most frightening is that it's happening everyday.

----------


## exceededminimumso..



----------


## LAB

*Thread: How much history did Christianity destroy?*Why not asking ''if what we think we know today is influenced and mislead by religious institutions-countries'' 

The new religion buries the old but keeps some parts of it which can be used by them to assimilate people faster.

Take an example the ''restoration'' of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey where the new religion poured concrete on the world's oldest temple.

----------


## FIREYWOTAN

*Durant's "The Age of Faith". The cost of our beliefs is still a point of supremacy of one over another.

Careless Construction Work’* Hurriyet Daily News reports that heavy equipment is being used to construct a new visitor centre and a concrete walkway to assist the disabled and elderly, in order to improve chances of being included in UNESCO’s World Heritage List, though some would say such actions are in direct opposition to the goals of UNESCO, which is to preserve ancient and historic sites.

The cost of allowing the rights of one religions group will to destroy another's seem like a reminder of hoe easy it is to hate. Thanks you for reminding us that one Faith should't trump another's.

----------


## Rizla

> I do not understand the question well, but I understand that there is a dialectic between what the human being is (which is basically selfish) and the Gospels that we can summarize as love for others, in this dialectic sometimes triumphs the pure and hard egoism of the human being and other times, the least, the evolution that the gospels provide of love to others.


How convenient, when christians do bad things, it's because they are _just_ humans. But when they do good, it's because they are christians. I would claim that it's exactly the other way around.

Christianity has, in this age we live in, completely adopted humanism. If it hadn't, it would still be a judgemental mind****.




> The least tolerant people I've ever met are atheists. Second are extreme left wing people.


That's grand. After 2000 years of monotheistic intolerant persecution and slaughter of heretics. It's now the undogmatic non-believers who are intolerant - particularly if they speak out against the "one true faith".

----------


## Sile

All religions destroy history and also history of other religions ..............because religions shows the most racism than any other institutions ...............nations are next after religions

----------


## LeBrok

> How convenient, when christians do bad things, it's because they are _just_ humans. But when they do good, it's because they are christians. I would claim that it's exactly the other way around.
> 
> Christianity has, in this age we live in, completely adopted humanism. If it hadn't, it would still be a judgemental mind****.
> 
> 
> 
> That's grand. After 2000 years of monotheistic intolerant persecution and slaughter of heretics. It's now the undogmatic non-believers who are intolerant - particularly if they speak out against the "one true faith".


Good observations, Rizla. Welcome to Eupedia.

----------


## Mmiikkii

Looking historical facts from the distance may be cool. But how do you know those 'historic documents destroyed by Christians' were not some kind of propaganda?
Why you assume it's history? Christians didn't invent myths, nor propaganda.
Are you in favour of having culture that justifies Child labor, Women for the House??

----------

