How much history did Christianity destroy?

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!!!!!!!

wow : / maybe they secretly looted something and there is something in a french museum basement somewhere
 
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
220px-Statua_Marco_Aurelio_Musei_Capitolini_Fronte2.JPG


fyi .... some say that M.A. wrote it differently, but the point of it is what’s important.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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”
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[h=1]Thread: How much history did Christianity destroy?[/h]
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.
 
[h=2]Durant's "The Age of Faith". The cost of our beliefs is still a point of supremacy of one over another.

Careless Construction Work’
[/h]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.
 
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".
 
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
 
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.
 
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??
 

This thread has been viewed 26817 times.

Back
Top