# How Christianity saved civilization



## manifold (Apr 14, 2008)

From wikipedia:



> How The Irish Saved Civilization: The Untold Story of Ireland's Heroic Role from the Fall of Rome to the Rise of Medieval Europe is a non-fiction historical book written by Thomas Cahill.
> 
> Cahill argues a case for the Irish people's critical role in preserving Western Civilization from utter destruction by the Germanic tribes (Visigoths, Huns, Franks, Angles, Saxons, Ostrogoths, etc.). The book retells the story from the collapse of the Roman Empire and the pivotal role played by members of the clergy at the time. A particular focus is placed upon Saint Patrick and retells his early struggles through slavery; basically retelling portions of The Confession of Saint Patrick. Early parts of the book examine Ireland before Patrick and the role of Saint Augustine of Hippo. Particular focus is placed upon Saint Columba and the monks he trained and the monasteries he set up in the Hiberno-Scottish mission. In a sense, these holy men salvaged everything possible from the destruction of the Roman Empire.
> 
> How the Irish Saved Civilization was first published in March 1995 and appeared on the New York Times Bestseller List for almost two years.





Since the Irish that saved civilization were Christian, I took license with my thread title.  But it's still perfectly accurate.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 14, 2008)

manifold said:


> From wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ha!

Wrong.

Here's how the Irish saved civilization:

http://www.guinness.com/gateway/


----------



## manifold (Apr 14, 2008)

Ravir said:


> Ha!
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> ...



That helped too.


----------



## Shogun (Apr 14, 2008)

indeed.. being conquered by the dogma of the romans probably IS why we have air conditioning, direct deposit and barbecue sauce.


*yawn*


----------



## manifold (Apr 14, 2008)

Shogun said:


> indeed.. being conquered by the dogma of the romans probably IS why we have air conditioning, direct deposit and barbecue sauce.



So that's what civilization means to you.   

Well, in all fairness, I guess two out of three go a long way toward allowing you to never have to leave the comfort of your mom's basement.


----------



## Shogun (Apr 14, 2008)

manifold said:


> So that's what civilization means to you.
> 
> Well, in all fairness, I guess two out of three go a long way toward allowing you to never have to leave the comfort of your mom's basement.



I realize that it probably scarred you when you came downstairs and I had your mom locked in some sexual contortions that a mexican wrestler would be proud of but do you have to keep bringing up relatives?


Hell, nothing says "modern society"  QUITE like a catholic doing what catholics do to non believers back in the good ole days, eh?  Yes, talk about the saving grace of our modern culture.


----------



## manifold (Apr 14, 2008)

No matter how much it might piss you off, it doesn't change the fact that the thread title is accurate.


----------



## Shogun (Apr 14, 2008)

manifold said:


> No matter how much it might piss you off, it doesn't change the fact that the thread title is accurate.



meh.. accurate to a guy who really, REALLY wants it to be so.


go hold a sign and picket reality at a soldiers funeral dude...  You'll probably net more attention than you do here with similar stupid arguments.

(ps, right now, this very minute, I am laughing at you for suggesting that "civilization" must be interpreted through the opinion of the european church..  I mean, you know how christian were people living in the CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION!  HA!  Native civilization?!?  nope.. not blond haired, blue eyed "jewish" enough!  HAHAHAHAHAHA!)


----------



## manifold (Apr 14, 2008)

I understand your reticence.  Reality can be a real bitch sometimes, especially for those that spend so much time in a fantasy world.


----------



## Shogun (Apr 14, 2008)

yea.. tell me about a fantasy world some more mr. driving the snakes from ireland saved civilization..

 


hey, thank god we don't call ancient aztec cultures CIVILIZATION since it wasn't stamped with a european god label!


 


civ·i·li·za·tion  (sv-l-zshn)
n.
1. An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
2. The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: *Mayan civilization*; *the civilization of ancient Rome.*
3. The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.
4. Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.
5. Modern society with its conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilization


 


You are becoming as impotent as RGS, dude.


----------



## manifold (Apr 14, 2008)

As long as I don't become as impotent as you.


----------



## Shogun (Apr 14, 2008)

manifold said:


> As long as I don't become as impotent as you.



oh wow well you got me there..


 


I know you are but what am I... There...  another profound reply.


----------



## manifold (Apr 14, 2008)




----------



## nibor (May 18, 2008)

I think not.........................http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/323.html


----------



## Gungnir (May 18, 2008)

After the fall of Rome, the Church's enticement of Emperorhood, Excommunication, and Crusade probably helped stabelize the rowdy Barbarians.  

Without the Roman Catholic Church, there is no telling how civilization would have developed. I don't imagine we would have had the Italian Renaissance.

The Scots have provided quite a bit of civilization to the world as well.


----------



## Shogun (May 18, 2008)

indeed, if euro thumpers were not arund to make injuns wear shoes then who KNOWS how they would have turned out?  I mean, it's not as if the germanic people and natives were around for thousands of years prior to the infestation of a certain dogmatic cult that can justify every dead body in it's wake.


----------



## Diuretic (May 18, 2008)

I rather think the Enlightenment saved civilisation.  I'd hardly call the Church a paragon of virtue in the Dark Ages.

But I could be wrong


----------



## nibor (May 18, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> I rather think the Enlightenment saved civilisation.  I'd hardly call the Church a paragon of virtue in the Dark Ages.
> 
> But I could be wrong



I hardly call the church a paragon of virtue TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Gungnir (May 24, 2008)

Shogun said:


> indeed, if euro thumpers were not arund to make injuns wear shoes then who KNOWS how they would have turned out?  I mean, it's not as if the germanic people and natives were around for thousands of years prior to the infestation of a certain dogmatic cult that can justify every dead body in it's wake.


Well, the Injuns would probably still be living in their Stone Age Civilization up North while down South they would still be cutting each other's hearts out. 

The Injuns in the Carolina-Georgia region looked promising. I don't know what happened to the Mississippi mound builders though.



Diuretic said:


> I rather think the Enlightenment saved civilisation.  I'd hardly call the Church a paragon of virtue in the Dark Ages.
> 
> But I could be wrong


The Church saved Europe long enough from Barbarity until the Enlightenment multiplied the vector by the freaking huge ass scalar.

You are not wrong, just off the mark a little.


----------



## Shogun (May 25, 2008)

Gungnir said:


> Well, the Injuns would probably still be living in their Stone Age Civilization up North while down South they would still be cutting each other's hearts out.
> 
> The Injuns in the Carolina-Georgia region looked promising. I don't know what happened to the Mississippi mound builders though.
> 
> ...



how ethnocentric of you.  I mean, it's not like that whole advanced civilizations blossomed and flourished in south America prior to someone from europe present...

 

and, the church saved europe like a dictator unites europe.  Would you like to play that same card when compared with Asia?


----------



## jillian (May 25, 2008)

Gungnir said:


> The Church saved Europe long enough from Barbarity until the Enlightenment multiplied the vector by the freaking huge ass scalar.
> 
> You are not wrong, just off the mark a little.



Do you really believe that? The Church in Europe during the middle ages WAS barbaric. It didn't save Europe from barbarity. Feudal systems. Vicious dictators. The Church prosecuting people based on dogma.... science virtually non-existent.... 

and, of course, "nobody expects the spanish inquisition".

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A[/ame]

yep...those were the days....


----------



## midcan5 (May 26, 2008)

Saved civilization from what? For what? And what is civilization exactly - look around!


----------



## manifold (May 26, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Saved civilization from what? For what? And what is civilization exactly - look around!



Good advise.  When I look around, I see that things aren't that bad at all.  In fact, things are quite civilized and good.  I'm surprised that your life sucks so bad yet you still find time to waste here...and have internet access.


----------



## Anguille (May 26, 2008)

manifold said:


> From wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Irish were incidental. It all comes down to guns, germs and geography.


----------



## manifold (May 26, 2008)

Anguille said:


> The Irish were incidental. It all comes down to guns, germs and geography.



Racist scum!


----------



## Shogun (May 26, 2008)




----------



## Anguille (May 26, 2008)

.........................


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 1, 2008)

Shogun said:


> how ethnocentric of you.  I mean, it's not like that whole advanced civilizations blossomed and flourished in south America prior to someone from europe present...


Cutting each other's heart out... on their massive step pyramids. Better? 



> and, the church saved europe like a dictator unites europe.  Would you like to play that same card when compared with Asia?


A.) The jury is still out on the dictator issue.
B.) What chunk of Asia are you talking about; and why should I care when the discussion is on what the Church did for Europe?



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> Do you really believe that? The Church in Europe during the middle ages WAS barbaric. It didn't save Europe from barbarity. Feudal systems. Vicious dictators. The Church prosecuting people based on dogma.... science virtually non-existent....


A.) The Church was a memtic institution to which a barbarian people could direct their respect, and in this capacity it saved the skillset cultivated by the preceeding people until the barbarians had become settled enough to utilize such.
B.) Barbarians do not become Romans overnight.


----------



## jillian (Jun 1, 2008)

Gungnir said:


> A.) The Church was a memtic institution to which a barbarian people could direct their respect, and in this capacity it saved the skillset cultivated by the preceeding people until the barbarians had become settled enough to utilize such.
> B.) Barbarians do not become Romans overnight.



Romans?!?!?! Unless I'm not following your post, I think you're getting your timeline messed up. We're talking about the Crusaders. They didn't turn into Romans...


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 1, 2008)

"Roman" is an allusion to Enlighteend State Level Society.


----------



## jillian (Jun 1, 2008)

Gungnir said:


> "Roman" is an allusion to Enlighteend State Level Society.



Thank you for elaborating for me. So essentially, we're talking about religion as opiate of the masses? you'll forgive me if I don't see a postive side to them killing and pillaging whether it's in the name of some pagan king or in the name of jesus. but maybe that's just me.

anyway, i'm too tired to think about it now, so i'm off to sleep.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 1, 2008)

jillian said:


> Thank you for elaborating for me. So essentially, we're talking about religion as opiate of the masses? you'll forgive me if I don't see a postive side to them killing and pillaging whether it's in the name of some pagan king or in the name of jesus. but maybe that's just me.
> 
> anyway, i'm too tired to think about it now, so i'm off to sleep.



The masses may need an opiate-like alternative to keep them all from self destructing.


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 2, 2008)

jillian said:


> So essentially, we're talking about religion as opiate of the masses?


No.


----------



## jillian (Jun 2, 2008)

Gungnir said:


> No.



But it's kind of like a bunch of 10 year olds channeling their energy on the soccer field instead of tearing the house apart? Help me out here, because I'm not seeing any benefits that didn't exist prior to Christianity, particularly given that all of the societal controls were already in place vis a vis other belief systems.


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 3, 2008)

The Church was a memtic institution to which a barbarian people could direct their respect, and in this capacity it saved the skillset cultivated by the preceeding people until the barbarians had become settled enough to utilize such.

Scriptorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shogun (Jun 4, 2008)

christians invented breathing too.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 4, 2008)

Shogun said:


> christians invented breathing too.


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 4, 2008)

Stick to your day job. If your day job happens to be commedy, find a different occuption.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 4, 2008)

Are you talking to yourself after re-reading your phenomenally retarded post about christians saving barbarians from themselves?  Thank god (HA!) there were no other cultures void of jebus to have come long with their OWN skillsets, eh?  I mean, I'd hate to make a funny that both reminded you of Asian culture AND it's lack of jewish ghosts.


dont be sad.  I'd forgive you for that heliocentrism mishap if you can forgive me for evolution.


----------



## manifold (Jun 4, 2008)

bwhahahahahahaha!  

Now Soggy is taking credit for evolution.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 4, 2008)

you have problems with abstract concepts in general, dont you?


I was making an allusion to two relevant divides between science and religion.  I guess I should have taped the edges before you liked the page and gave your tongue a papercut.


----------



## jillian (Jun 4, 2008)

Gungnir said:


> The Church was a memtic institution to which a barbarian people could direct their respect, and in this capacity it saved the skillset cultivated by the preceeding people until the barbarians had become settled enough to utilize such.
> 
> Scriptorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



If one believes in memetics.



> Bribiesca, a critic to memetics, calls it "a pseudoscientific dogma" and "a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of conciousness and cultural evolution" among other things. As factual criticism, he refers to the lack of a code script for memes, as the DNA is for genes, and to the fact that the meme mutation mechanism (i.e., an idea going from one brain to another) is too unstable (low replication accuracy and high mutation rate), which would render the evolutionary process chaotic.[2]
> 
> Another scientific critique comes from semiotics, (e.g., Deacon[3], Kull[4]) stating that the concept of meme is a primitivized concept of sign. Meme is thus described in memetics as a sign without its triadic nature. In other words, meme is a degenerate sign, which includes only its ability of being copied. Accordingly, the objects of copying are memes, whereas the objects of translation (sensu lato) and interpretation are signs.



Memetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

btw, I think you might have linked scriptorum by mistake.

*Edit* Even if I were a believer in memetics, I'd still say christianity was duplicative since the purposes for which you believe christianity existed already existed in judaism which predated it by, what... 3,000 years?


----------



## manifold (Jun 4, 2008)

Shogun said:


> you have problems with abstract concepts in general, dont you?
> 
> 
> I was making an allusion to two relevant divides between science and religion.  I guess I should have taped the edges before you liked the page and gave your tongue a papercut.




hehehe!

Thanks for not letting me down.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 4, 2008)

manifold said:


> hehehe!
> 
> Thanks for not letting me down.



clearly, it was your history teacher, and probably your HS counselor, that seems to have let you down, homey.


----------



## manifold (Jun 4, 2008)

Good boy.  Here, have some scooby snacks.


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 4, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Are you talking to yourself after re-reading your phenomenally retarded post about christians saving barbarians from themselves?  Thank god (HA!) there were no other cultures void of jebus to have come long with their OWN skillsets, eh?  I mean, I'd hate to make a funny that both reminded you of Asian culture AND it's lack of jewish ghosts.



Use your brain.

Why would *I* care about a fictional scenario? If you want that discussion, create a thread on What Ifs; this thread is on What Happened. Why would *I* care about a different civilization when the thread topic is on Western Europe? 



> dont be sad.  I'd forgive you for that heliocentrism mishap if you can forgive me for evolution.


Why would I not celebrate the Italian Renaissance and Enlightenment thereafter? That is the event which propelled Western European Civilization to the appex and allowed it to conquer the world.

The Renaissance is a point of pride for me.



> I guess I should have taped the edges before you *liked* the page and gave your tongue a papercut.


How does one actually get a paper cut on their tongue by *liking* a page?



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> If one believes in memetics.


Culture as passed from person to person, usually hereditarily; with the ability to be selected by societal pressures, natural pressures, and competition. Meme is the closest word to describe such.

I linked to Scriptorium on purpose.


----------



## jillian (Jun 4, 2008)

Gungnir said:


> Culture as passed from person to person, usually hereditarily; with the ability to be selected by societal pressures, natural pressures, and competition. Meme is the closest word to describe such.
> 
> I linked to Scriptorium on purpose.



I know what it is. I also saw the criticism of it as pseudoscience. Again, it appears even if one believes in memes, that christianity would have been redundant.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 4, 2008)

*Why would I care about a fictional scenario? If you want that discussion, create a thread on What Ifs; this thread is on What Happened. Why would I care about a different civilization when the thread topic is on Western Europe? *

well, ACTUALLY, the thread is on CIVILIZATION.. 

* How Christianity saved civilization*

not, uh, western europe.   And, as a matter of fact, christianity has NO bearing on the CIVILIZATION in Asia or S. America.  What would you care, indeed.



*Why would I not celebrate the Italian Renaissance and Enlightenment thereafter? That is the event which propelled Western European Civilization to the appex and allowed it to conquer the world.
The Renaissance is a point of pride for me.*


Me and the ghost of Copernicus is glad to hear that.  However, your christian ancestors are probably damning you to hell this very moment.  Just think, someday your progeny will make the same statement about Evolution.

*
How does one actually get a paper cut on their tongue by liking a page?*


my bad.. I left out the letter C.. you know, C and is helio*C*entrism??


(forgive me, that could have been finnier but there are no C's in Blasphemy)


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 4, 2008)

Shogun said:


> well, ACTUALLY, the thread is on CIVILIZATION..
> 
> * How Christianity saved civilization*
> 
> not, uh, western europe.


Link to which the OP refers thus, since there is no one civilization this thread refers to Western European Civilization.



> And, as a matter of fact, christianity has NO bearing on the CIVILIZATION in Asia or S. America.  What would you care, indeed.


Especially since those civilization*s* are not at all related to the *Western European Civilization*.



> Me and the ghost of Copernicus is glad to hear that.  However, your christian ancestors are probably damning you to hell this very moment.  Just think, someday your progeny will make the same statement about Evolution.


I do not fully understand your implications on Evolution. First, are you refering to Macro Evolution (an Ape suddenly gives birth to a Man) or Micro Evolution (the descendants of an Ape gradually become a Man)? Are you saying that I do not believe in Evolution? Are you saying that my progeny (I am a thanking you for the compliment and well-wish) will not believe in Evolution?



			
				jillian said:
			
		

> I know what it is. I also saw the criticism of it as pseudoscience. Again, it appears even if one believes in memes, that christianity would have been redundant.



From the Scriptorium link:
_By the start of the 13th century, monastic manuscript production declined because secular copyshops had developed to write for the laity. These were closely followed by urban bookshops circa 1250 that before the introduction of printing in the last quarter of the fifteenth century had already virtually replaced the monastery as a source for books.~Wikipedia referencing Christopher De Hamel, Scribes and Illuminators, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992), 5._

A pagan Byzantine Emperor could not have offered the Imperator Romanorum.
Which led to this which made these people turn into these people who prospered off of this. By the time this was over they were ready for the Enlightenment.

Or in other words (pay attention Shogun, this is commedy) these people became these people who profitted off of this thing so they could become these people.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 4, 2008)

Shogun said:


> indeed, if euro thumpers were not arund to make injuns wear shoes then who KNOWS how they would have turned out?  I mean, it's not as if the germanic people and natives were around for thousands of years prior to the infestation of a certain dogmatic cult that can justify every dead body in it's wake.



Er, the injuns had their own shoes, shogun.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 4, 2008)

I don't believe that Christianity saved civilization in a sense.  It certainly changed it...but saved it?  I doubt it.  Unless you're looking at "saved" in the manner of the lifestyle and society that we enjoy today.  If Christianity had not taken hold, we'd be living different lifestyles and have different society, and wouldn't even notice if we could have it better or not.  

Shog, you think you could ease up on the Christian hating??  This thread isn't whether or not you like or believe Christianity, it's an analyzation of historical events and whether or not the instituion (not the belief) saved Civilization. Just because these prominent holy men were "holy" and Christian doesn't mean they can't achieve anything or have a profound impact.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 5, 2008)

*Link to which the OP refers thus, since there is no one civilization this thread refers to Western European Civilization.*


HAHAHAHAHAHA!




oooook, buddy.. whatever you say.
*
Especially since those civilizations are not at all related to the Western European Civilization.*


again, read the thread.  The posted article is just as fucking stupid as you are for making such a pompous, ignorant fucking statement.


*
I do not fully understand your implications on Evolution. First, are you refering to Macro Evolution (an Ape suddenly gives birth to a Man) or Micro Evolution (the descendants of an Ape gradually become a Man)? Are you saying that I do not believe in Evolution? Are you saying that my progeny (I am a thanking you for the compliment and well-wish) will not believe in Evolution?*


Im pointing out the clear historic pattern of YOUR side having to swallow its pride and start rationalizing MY side very few hundred years after the growing pains of reason coming to dominate myths.  YOU find yourself having to accept evolution deapite your dogmatic ancestors refusing to do so.  MUCH LIKE how YOUR kids' kids will do the same for principals that you don't agree with.  And, Im not dividing the nomenclature according to how you want to frame the issue; I said Evolution and thats the word your progeny will comprehend beyond YOUR faith based initiative.


*
From the Scriptorium link:
By the start of the 13th century, monastic manuscript production declined because secular copyshops had developed to write for the laity. These were closely followed by urban bookshops circa 1250 that before the introduction of printing in the last quarter of the fifteenth century had already virtually replaced the monastery as a source for books.~Wikipedia referencing Christopher De Hamel, Scribes and Illuminators, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992), 5.*


I KNOW.  and just THINK what might have been implied had those pesky fucking Asians hadn't developed their own written language!

*
A pagan Byzantine Emperor could not have offered the Imperator Romanorum.
Which led to this which made these people turn into these people who prospered off of this. By the time this was over they were ready for the Enlightenment.*

COULD NOT  HAVE, eh?



well, now I know who to run to if I have any questions about an alternate universe...



*
Or in other words (pay attention Shogun, this is commedy) these people became these people who profitted off of this thing so they could become these people.*


Your theory is noted.  I suggest you refrain of ever watching the film "birth of a nation".


----------



## Shogun (Jun 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I don't believe that Christianity saved civilization in a sense.  It certainly changed it...but saved it?  I doubt it.  Unless you're looking at "saved" in the manner of the lifestyle and society that we enjoy today.  If Christianity had not taken hold, we'd be living different lifestyles and have different society, and wouldn't even notice if we could have it better or not.
> 
> Shog, you think you could ease up on the Christian hating??  This thread isn't whether or not you like or believe Christianity, it's an analyzation of historical events and whether or not the instituion (not the belief) saved Civilization. Just because these prominent holy men were "holy" and Christian doesn't mean they can't achieve anything or have a profound impact.



Perhaps you can parse your first paragraph with your second paragraph, dude.  Sure, chriatians have achieved quite a bit.. but, saving civilization is NOT one of them.  Entire civilizations on seperate continents belay that fact.  Not to mention, if you wanna be technical, the OPPOSITE is true if one were to give south American societies the benefit of the term "civilization". 


Hell, how impressed was marco polo with non-western society?


----------



## Anguille (Jun 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I don't believe that Christianity saved civilization in a sense.  It certainly changed it...but saved it?  I doubt it.  Unless you're looking at "saved" in the manner of the lifestyle and society that we enjoy today.  If Christianity had not taken hold, we'd be living different lifestyles and have different society, and wouldn't even notice if we could have it better or not.
> 
> Shog, you think you could ease up on the Christian hating??  This thread isn't whether or not you like or believe Christianity, it's an analyzation of historical events and whether or not the instituion (not the belief) saved Civilization. Just because these prominent holy men were "holy" and Christian doesn't mean they can't achieve anything or have a profound impact.



I don't know if the Christians saved civilization but they certainly neglected to save indoor plumbing when the Roman Empire fell.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 5, 2008)

Shogun said:


> Perhaps you can parse your first paragraph with your second paragraph, dude.  Sure, chriatians have achieved quite a bit.. but, saving civilization is NOT one of them.  Entire civilizations on seperate continents belay that fact.  Not to mention, if you wanna be technical, the OPPOSITE is true if one were to give south American societies the benefit of the term "civilization".
> 
> 
> Hell, how impressed was marco polo with non-western society?



LOL.....I agree. I don't believe they saved civilization--depending on your definition of "saved" and what exact civilization is being talked about.  I agree 100%...


----------



## BrianH (Jun 5, 2008)

Anguille said:


> I don't know if the Christians saved civilization but they certainly neglected to save indoor plumbing when the Roman Empire fell.



I'm glad I wasn't around for that one....


----------



## Shogun (Jun 5, 2008)

BrianH said:


> LOL.....I agree. I don't believe they saved civilization--depending on your definition of "saved" and what exact civilization is being talked about.  I agree 100%...



in fact, i've always wondered what the west would have become if the Romans had applied a tad bit more lionfood pressure on their pesky cults...


----------



## jillian (Jun 5, 2008)

Shogun said:


> in fact, i've always wondered what the west would have become if the Romans had applied a tad bit more lionfood pressure on their pesky cults...



they'd have been....

jewish


----------



## BrianH (Jun 5, 2008)

Shogun said:


> in fact, i've always wondered what the west would have become if the Romans had applied a tad bit more lionfood pressure on their pesky cults...



Yeah I know...Could you imagine if the Byzantine Empire had been "less off" than the Western Empire?


----------



## editec (Jun 8, 2008)

Civilization was 





> SAVED?!



Great news! 

Did they store it in tupperware or something for the last century?

When, pray tell, do they plan on bringing it back out so that we can see what Western Civilization would actually look like?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 8, 2008)

jillian said:


> they'd have been....
> 
> jewish



I realize that you'd assume that jews would be taking over any culture they come into contact with but i dont recall any othe source that indicates that ROMANS were JEWISH or had any plan to convert.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 8, 2008)

What a bunch of living in denial, intellectually dishonest bullshit this thread has become.  Christianity is one of the base elements of Western civilization.  That isn't saying other civilizations didn't/don't exist.  It isn't saying Western civilization could NOT have been reached by a different route.

Love 'em or hate 'em, the Church indeed molded the basis for our current civilization.  Only when one reaches a state of supreme arrogance does the meaning behind who and what we are as a civilization disappear.

Arguing otherwise is just making excuses attempting to justify the hate.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 8, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Christianity is one of the base elements of Western civilization.



Couldn't agree more.


----------



## roomy (Jun 8, 2008)

Agosticism is the new religion and it is fast becoming Atheism, give it another century or so and I expect christianity to be a tolerated cult and Islam almost non existent due to the fact that the middle east and all in it is completely destroyed.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 8, 2008)

roomy said:


> Agosticism is the new religion and it is fast becoming Atheism, give it another century or so and I expect christianity to be a tolerated cult and Islam almost non existent due to the fact that the middle east and all in it is completely destroyed.



Is THAT what it says on bottom of your pint?


----------



## BrianH (Jun 8, 2008)

editec said:


> Civilization was
> 
> Great news!
> 
> ...



I hope this is sarcasm.....or you're misinterpreting "saved"


----------



## BrianH (Jun 8, 2008)

roomy said:


> Agosticism is the new religion and it is fast becoming Atheism, give it another century or so and I expect christianity to be a tolerated cult and Islam almost non existent due to the fact that the middle east and all in it is completely destroyed.



Actually, Islam is the fastest growing religion....from what I've read.

*"Data for Islam reveal that the growing number of Muslims is due primarily to immigration (in the West) and higher birth rates (worldwide).[9]

In 2006, countries with a Muslim majority had an average population growth rate of 1.8% per year (when weighted by percentage Muslim and population size).[10] This compares with a world population growth rate of 1.12% per year.[11] 
According to the "Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life"[12] 
 Islam is already the fastest-growing religion in Europe. Driven by immigration and high birthrates, the number of Muslims on the continent has tripled in the last 30 years. Most demographers forecast a similar or even higher rate of growth in the coming decades.  

"According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the World Christian Database as of 2007 estimated the six fastest growing religions of the world to be Islam (1.84%), the Bahá'í Faith (1.7%), Sikhism (1.62%), Jainism (1.57%), Hinduism (1.52%), and Christianity (1.32%). High birth rates were cited as the reason for the growth.[13] 
Monsignor Vittorio Formenti, who compiles the Vatican's yearbook, said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that "For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top: Muslims have overtaken us," He said that Catholics accounted for 17.4 percent of the world population -- a stable percentage -- while Muslims were at 19.2 percent. "It is true that while Muslim families, as is well known, continue to make a lot of children, Christian ones on the contrary tend to have fewer and fewer," the monsignor said.[14] "*

Claims to be the fastest growing religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are others that claim this, but I think Islam takes the cake IMO.

Foreign Policy: The List: The World&rsquo;s Fastest-Growing Religions


----------



## BrianH (Jun 8, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> What a bunch of living in denial, intellectually dishonest bullshit this thread has become.  Christianity is one of the base elements of Western civilization.  That isn't saying other civilizations didn't/don't exist.  It isn't saying Western civilization could NOT have been reached by a different route.
> 
> Love 'em or hate 'em, the Church indeed molded the basis for our current civilization.  Only when one reaches a state of supreme arrogance does the meaning behind who and what we are as a civilization disappear.
> 
> Arguing otherwise is just making excuses attempting to justify the hate.



Couldn't have put it better myself.  Whether you hate Christianity or Not, it has played a crucial part of our history.  While I will not argue whether or not it "saved" civilization...you cannot deny it's importance and contributions to the way we and others around the world live.  This is not to say that other religions have not played a critical role...but to argue that Christianity did not have a decisive and important role in the devlopment of Western Society is kind of ignorant.  It would be similar to argue that Islam has had no effect on Middle Eastern society....


----------



## roomy (Jun 8, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Is THAT what it says on bottom of your pint?




No, it came out of the top of my head and it should have read agnosticism


----------



## BrianH (Jun 8, 2008)

roomy said:


> No, it came out of the top of my head and it should have read agnosticism



agnosticismation is a bad thing...lol. (Bushism)It is practiced by agnosticismationists.


----------



## roomy (Jun 8, 2008)

BrianH said:


> agnosticismation is a bad thing...lol. (Bushism)It is practiced by agnosticismationists.



Don't you mean agnosticmationistists?


----------



## BrianH (Jun 8, 2008)

roomy said:


> Don't you mean agnosticmationistists?



LOL....yeah, how'd you know?


----------



## editec (Jun 9, 2008)

Of course Christianty played a vital role in making Western Civilization what it is today.

Christendom WAS the bedrock principle upon which our civilization existed from about 5th through about the 16th century. Generally speaking even as late as the 1700s in Europe, the KING was also the leader of the religion, yes?

The whole reason the Founding Fathers went so far out of their way to separate church from state was because for a long _long_ time there *religion and state were essantially the same thing.*


----------



## jillian (Jun 9, 2008)

editec said:


> Of course Christianty played a vital role in making Western Civilization what it is today.
> 
> Christendom WAS the bedrock principle upon which our civilization existed from about 5th through about the 16th century. Generally speaking even as late as the 1700s in Europe, the KING was also the leader of the religion, yes?
> 
> The whole reason the Founding Fathers went so far out of their way to separate church from state was because for a long _long_ time there *religion and state were essantially the same thing.*



Actually, the Church brought us the Dark Ages. It was separation from the church that brought us the enlightenment.

And there was plenty of civilization prior to christianity.


----------



## editec (Jun 9, 2008)

> Actually, the Church brought us the Dark Ages. It was separation from the church that brought us the enlightenment.



Well, the decline of the Western Roman Empire brought us the Dark ages, but one supposes that one might argue (and lose the argument) that Christiantity played a role in causing Rome's collapse.



> And there was plenty of civilization prior to christianity.



And plenty of civilization during the "dark ages", too.

Not a civilization as you and I have come to define it, perhaps, but a _viable _civilization nevertheless.

I'm not defending Christendom, here, I'm just pointing out that it WAS the ONLY GAME IN TOWN.

Remember the question is *did Christiantiy save civilization?*

My response is merely that it BECAME what we thought of a civilization.

Not that it was better or worse, merely that it WAS.


----------



## manifold (Jun 9, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> Christianity is one of the base elements of Western civilization.





Ravir said:


> Couldn't agree more.




Ummm, this wasn't lost on me dillhole!  And it wasn't very nice either.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 9, 2008)

manifold said:


> Ummm, this wasn't lost on me dillhole!  And it wasn't very nice either.





I figured if no one else got it, you would.


----------



## Anguille (Jun 9, 2008)

Ravir said:


> I figured if no one else got it, you would.



"Base" as lowly?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 9, 2008)

Anguille said:


> "Base" as lowly?



He probably meant to say basic. Maybe it's another of those terms that's lost in translation? I'll ask my Mexican homey.


----------



## editec (Jun 9, 2008)

He used an ambiguous word which could mean either lowly or foundational

It was a clever retort, actually.

Ironically both meanings work historically, too.

When Rome was falling, Bishops often were the base upon with those local communities rested.

Bishops in those days were typically well heeled Romans, the only people who could read and write, and the person that the people looked to for advise and to settle disputes.

The fragmentation of the Roman empire left local governments to make it on their own, and the only other reasonably organized groupx of people to take on that task were the local parishes.

The early church wasn't nearly the monolithic power it became by the 14th century, ubt it was the BASE upon which that more complex Christendom civilization was built.

So that remark was funny AND right.


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 10, 2008)

Shogun said:


> oooook, buddy.. whatever you say.





> again, read the thread.  The posted article is just as fucking stupid as you are for making such a pompous, ignorant fucking statement.


Look at the first freaking post, the opening post. I have boldened and underlined what the thread is about.



manifold said:


> From wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This thread deals exclusively with Western Civlization. 
Here again is the link to which the OP refers

Western Civilization, is not Mayan Civilization, nor is it Chinese Civlization, nor Hindu Civilization, nor even Ethiopian Civilization. They are seperate and distinct things that have nought to do with Irish Christians saving them. This is just Western Civilization.



> Im pointing out the clear historic pattern of YOUR side having to swallow its pride and start rationalizing MY side very few hundred years after the growing pains of reason coming to dominate myths.


What is my side and what is your side? 

Your side seems to be the inability to read and talking nonsense that is tangential to the conversation. For instance; your tangent about non-Western Civilization that you started in Post #10 because of your inability to read. A simple convention when talking about one civilization (especially the one you are a part of and the one that currently DOMINATES the world) is to drop the specifier and refer to it as "Civilization".



> And, Im not dividing the nomenclature according to how you want to frame the issue; I said Evolution and thats the word your progeny will comprehend beyond YOUR faith based initiative.


You are out of your apeshit mind. 
Macroevolution is a simplification of the evolutionary processes (microevolution) where one species suddenly (magically) becoming another. Macroevolution is a common tactic used by Creationist (a strawman) to deny the real issue. If you are impuning that I think of evolution in terms of magic transformations I am greatly offended.

You have accused me of a nefarious faith based (implied Christian Religion) agenda to hold against scientific observation of our world and nature in substitute for a magical world view. Show the proof for your accusation or retract it! I have expressed support for the idea that the Church has preserved Western Civilization until the Renaissance. Clearly I place my affection to that transformitive era.



> YOU find yourself having to accept evolution deapite your dogmatic ancestors refusing to do so.


You accuse me of things which you have no evidence for. If you can understand this concept; we do not work corruption of blood.



> MUCH LIKE how YOUR kids' kids will do the same for principals that you don't agree with.


Humans are Humans, I can only do the best I can to ensure that my genes and ideas carry forth into untold generations.



> I KNOW.  and just THINK what might have been implied had those pesky fucking Asians hadn't developed their own written language!


Attend;


			
				Gungnir said:
			
		

> Why would I care about a different civilization when the thread topic is on Western Europe?





> well, now I know who to run to if I have any questions about an alternate universe...


Thy master.


----------



## manifold (Jun 10, 2008)

Rep for Gungnir


----------



## Shogun (Jun 11, 2008)

*

Since the Irish that saved civilization were Christian, I took license with my thread title. But it's still perfectly accurate.*



Hey, blather on about clarification if you need to, buddy.  Looking for that one tasty flea in mani's pelt won't make the thread title AND Mani's own words any less general about "CIVILIZATION".

It's fucking hilarious that you need to justify a clarification THIS SIDE of the very nomenclature that makes your position such a farce.  But, hey, if Mani is here to cheer lead then you MUST be on to something!

I would suggest you be a bit clearer when making ridiculous fucking claims about the importance of your particular faith the next time the need arises to make an ass of yourself.


*Your side seems to be the inability to read and talking nonsense that is tangential to the conversation. For instance; your tangent about non-Western Civilization that you started in Post #10 because of your inability to read. A simple convention when talking about one civilization (especially the one you are a part of and the one that currently DOMINATES the world) is to drop the specifier and refer to it as "Civilization".*


DOMINATES the fucking world, eh?  HA!  Tell that to China, sucker.  You know, that very same example I bitchslapped you with earlier in this thread.  If YOU want to claim that christians saved CIVILIZATION, well, then you'd be a fucking retarded crackhead.  IF you want to claim that it helped MOLD WESTERN civ then you'd have a point.  Not that christianity SAVED western civ at all.  one can make the exact same argument about the GREEK PANTHEON SAVING western civ too.  Whoopteefuckingdo.  Profound shit, right?


*
You are out of your apeshit mind.
Macroevolution is a simplification of the evolutionary processes (microevolution) where one species suddenly (magically) becoming another. Macroevolution is a common tactic used by Creationist (a strawman) to deny the real issue. If you are impuning that I think of evolution in terms of magic transformations I am greatly offended.

You have accused me of a nefarious faith based (implied Christian Religion) agenda to hold against scientific observation of our world and nature in substitute for a magical world view. Show the proof for your accusation or retract it! I have expressed support for the idea that the Church has preserved Western Civilization until the Renaissance. Clearly I place my affection to that transformitive era.*



Like I said.. tell it to the ghost of Copernicus, bitch.  Name ONE SINGLE THING that we observe dogma giving more insight than science.  ONE SINGLE THING that rebels against the historic FACT of christianity having to eventually accept the science it was originally quick to torch.  You cant do it.  You cant name ONE single aspect of our culture which christianity provides a greater comprehension than science.  Thus, since you are do goddamn dumb to understand my allusion, YOUR kids will be touting evolution, REGARDLESS of it's variant form, just like YOU do heliocentrism today.  Go ahead and take away the telescope and science text book, dude.  Making Mani's pink puppy junk pop out of it's sheath won't change this.

HEY, maybe another DARK AGE will SAVE CIVILIZATION!



Hell, WITCH BURNING, ILLITERACY and fucking DISEASE are all telltale signs of healthy societies buried in the fertile soil of christianity!  Just ask CHINA.


----------



## editec (Jun 11, 2008)

This seems to me to no longer be an argument about Western civilization, rather one between two people with agendas setting out to either villify or glorify Western Roman Catholic Christianity

Western Civ (read The WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE -- also known as the HOLY Roman Empire writ LARGE) collapsed.

Since Rome had become a Christian Empire by the time of its collapse, and since most of the former places in the Western European lands of that Empire were under siege and attack by tribes of Frankish pagans,  the people of the empire had very little left of that Roman civilization BUT their Church to cling to and use as a unifying cultural identity

*The Roman Church didn't SAVE civilization, it was just about all that was left of the structure of ROME that still had enough cohesion to survive.* 

Meanwhile the EASTERN Roman Empire, still another Christian Empire, please note, continued on its merry way largely untouched by the invasions of the Frankish heathens.

So, one could make the case that the Chuch didn't SAVE Western Euopean Civilization, so much as the fact that the Roman Catholic Church WAS Western Civilization...at least for a while.

A Christian civilization fraught with warts and flaws, to be sure, but really...that was about the only civilized (by their standards, at least) game in town.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 11, 2008)

You tell 'em Shog. Damn Mexico is part of western civilization, too, and look at that rat-hole.


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 13, 2008)

Shogun said:
			
		

> If YOU want to claim that christians saved CIVILIZATION, well, then you'd be a fucking retarded crackhead. IF you want to claim that it helped MOLD WESTERN civ then you'd have a point.



Excerpts from my posts in this thread. 


			
				Gungnir said:
			
		

> post #15
> After the fall of Rome, the Church's enticement of Emperorhood, Excommunication, and Crusade probably helped stabelize the rowdy Barbarians.
> 
> Without the Roman Catholic Church, there is no telling how civilization would have developed. I don't imagine we would have had the Italian Renaissance.
> ...


You are screatching and flapping your arms for the sake of your own amusement.



> one can make the exact same argument about the GREEK PANTHEON SAVING western civ too.


You would be wrong.



> Like I said.. tell it to the ghost of Copernicus, bitch.  Name ONE SINGLE THING that we observe dogma giving more insight than science.  ONE SINGLE THING that rebels against the historic FACT of christianity having to eventually accept the science it was originally quick to torch.  You cant do it.  You cant name ONE single aspect of our culture which christianity provides a greater comprehension than science.


Quote my words (one single sentence) where I disparage science, the Italian Renaissance, the Englightenment, the Industrial Revolution, or any such.



> Thus, since you are do goddamn dumb to understand my allusion, YOUR kids will be touting evolution, REGARDLESS of it's variant form, just like YOU do heliocentrism today.  Go ahead and take away the telescope and science text book, dude.  Making Mani's pink puppy junk pop out of it's sheath won't change this.


Monkey, quit throwing shit and prove your claims about my beliefs with citations.



> Hell, WITCH BURNING, ILLITERACY and fucking DISEASE are all telltale signs of healthy societies buried in the fertile soil of christianity!


Telltale of a plague ridden barbarian people coping with new lifestyle in a changing environment through available means of cause and effect comprehension. Barbarians settled and adjusted, plagues receded--things improve.



> DOMINATES the fucking world, eh?  HA!  Tell that to China, sucker.


Their culture left them at the Qing Dynasty, ours took them to the modern day. Say hello to the Opium Wars.



> Just ask CHINA.


Open a thread for discussion of the Orient.



editec said:


> This seems to me to no longer be an argument about Western civilization, rather one between two people with agendas setting out to either villify or glorify Western Roman Catholic Christianity


I am not glorifying, only accounting. I am an axe grinding orthodoxy quaker deist.



> Western Civ (read The WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE -- also known as the HOLY Roman Empire writ LARGE) collapsed.
> 
> Since Rome had become a Christian Empire by the time of its collapse, and since most of the former places in the Western European lands of that Empire were under siege and attack by tribes of Frankish pagans,  the people of the empire had very little left of that Roman civilization BUT their Church to cling to and use as a unifying cultural identity
> 
> ...


Yes.



Ravi said:


> You tell 'em Shog. Damn Mexico is part of western civilization, too, and look at that rat-hole.


What was the colonial ambition of Spain compared to England in America?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 14, 2008)

oh yes.. apparently, in western civ Greeks don't matter despite being a bronze age CIVILIZATION that directly influenced Rome...

:LOL:


This is the kind of shit im talking about, dude.  if you wanna believe that christianity was the key to the success of western civ then so be it.  Unicorns and dragons exist in the rainforrest too, buddy.  you'd better get your expedition on.


----------



## editec (Jun 14, 2008)

> Quote:
> Hell, WITCH BURNING, ILLITERACY and fucking DISEASE are all telltale signs of healthy societies buried in the fertile soil of christianity!



Hey, while I am not defending witch burning illiteracy or disease, you sound as though you believe that the Roman civilization was not far more brutal, ignorant and diseased than the Chistendom that  replaced it.

Do you have any idea how monsterous and brutal that Roman Empire that Christendom eventually replaced _really_ was?

Christendom Europe was a far less brutal society, and far more like what we have _now,_ than Rome _ever_ was.

DESPITE all its flaws, despite that we all reject the stagnation of the mideval era, suggesting that  the highly  functional (but moribund) Christendom society was_ far worse _than the one it replaced is just flat out a wild overstatement, and hardly one that does not reveal your prejudice, either.

Rome fell because it was _corrupt._

It no longer served the people of the empire enough for the people of the empire to care what happened to it.   

It could NOT fight off the pagan hordes.

Please note that *the Christendom culture you obviously so loath DID have enough social cohesion that Rome had lost.*

Christendom not only survived wave after wave of pagan invasions, but it turned those pagans into devout Christians who eventually drove the Moslems out of Europe. (Go Charles Martel, leader adn founder of the _HOLY _ROMAN EMPIRE!)

So one can't help but think that that despite all that we both think is pretty damned lame, Christendom  must have been doing _something_ right.

It lasted nearly 1000 years before it morphed into this enlightened  society which most historians credit as having started in the 15th century or so.

Somebody mentioned Caporicus in this thread, right?

Bear in mind that he was the PRODUCT of the education one could get in what was basically  Christian universities in Bologna and Padua. 

Had he not become fascinated by budding science he'd might very well have become a BISHOP.


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 14, 2008)

Shogun said:


> oh yes.. apparently, in western civ Greeks don't matter despite being a bronze age CIVILIZATION that directly influenced Rome...


Monkey, attend to your own words, emphasis mine:



			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> one can make the exact same argument about the GREEK PANTHEON *SAVING* western civ too.


Assuming you are not addressing the Pantheon Temple in Rome, and that you are not addressing the Parthenon in Athens; but specifically the pantheon of Greek dieties...

The Church was an actual institution which preserved scholasticism, fostered a study of philosophy, fostered a sense of commonhood amongst nations, generated artistic and economic commerce, and attempted to instill a form of societal order. 

The pantheon of Greek dieties was utilized by an already settled people and was used in the teaching of morallizing fables at best. At most; the pantheon did not settle barbarians into cultured people -- it was the product of a cultured people.



> This is the kind of shit im talking about, dude.


Your inability to read?



> if you wanna believe that christianity was the key to the success of western civ then so be it.


Now that you are on the correct civilization, you will address the issue claimed: that Christianity saved (preserved, provided rudiments of) Western Civilization. 

Obviously the success of Western Civilization lay in the Italian Renaissance.



> Unicorns and dragons exist in the rainforrest too, buddy. you'd better get your expedition on.


Unicorn 1
Unicorn 2
Dragon 1
Dragon 2
Dragon 3


Provide citations from what I have typed for the things you accused me of.


----------



## editec (Jun 15, 2008)

This debate rages on because it is based on a flawed premise.

Christianity couldn't SAVE civilization because there was nothing remotely like a civiliation (as we understand the meaning of that term, at least) _to save._

The government of the Western Roman EMPIRE could no longer carry out the unifying activities which made that empire (and its version of "civilization) exist.

The fragments of civilization which it left behind were to a great extent on their own.

The only organization left which kept western Europe from COMPLETELY fragmenting was the Church.

As that Church began filling the management vacumn that a fallen rome left behind, it became more and more THE unifying force of the gestalt of the Western world.


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 15, 2008)

Please explain the term "gestalt".


----------



## editec (Jun 15, 2008)

> gestalt
> n : a configuration or pattern of elements so unified as a whole
> that it cannot be described merely as a sum of its parts



Civilization pretty much fits this bill, methinks.

Hence, suggesting that "Christianity saved civilization" misses the point.

Christianity was so much a part of that post Roman civilization that it cannot be separated from the civilization itself to be given credit (or not)  for saving it.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 15, 2008)

editec said:


> Hey, while I am not defending witch burning illiteracy or disease, you sound as though you believe that the Roman civilization was not far more brutal, ignorant and diseased than the Chistendom that  replaced it.
> Do you have any idea how monsterous and brutal that Roman Empire that Christendom eventually replaced _really_ was?
> Christendom Europe was a far less brutal society, and far more like what we have _now,_ than Rome _ever_ was.
> DESPITE all its flaws, despite that we all reject the stagnation of the mideval era, suggesting that  the highly  functional (but moribund) Christendom society was_ far worse _than the one it replaced is just flat out a wild overstatement, and hardly one that does not reveal your prejudice, either.
> ...




ooooh yes.. FAR less brutal!  Indeed, no less than 9 crusades AND an inquisisition to boot.  From conquering to EXTERMINATING locals who did not coply you act as though christians were not out doing the exacts SAEM SHIT that Rome did to the germanic people.  Hell, from pope to pope it's fucking laughable to suggest that christianity was LESS SAVAGE than Rome just because YOU identify with jebus and not Zeus.  For real, dude.  talk about spitshining a fucking turd.  ROME WAS A FUCKING ENLIGHTENED SOCIETY TOO.  I mean, we ONLY take our fucking political structure from it instead of, say, the fucking VATICAN. 


christianity didn't SAVE shit.  and it sure as hell wasn't the angel of civilization during it's reign any more than confucious is the only reason there is a united china.  Hell, let's go ahead and ignore the FACT that it was christians that destroyed ROME's superiority in the world!


----------



## Paul Itical (Jun 15, 2008)

The crusades were countering the muslims. I thought everyone knew this?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 15, 2008)

Gungnir said:


> Monkey, attend to your own words, emphasis mine:
> 
> 
> Assuming you are not addressing the Pantheon Temple in Rome, and that you are not addressing the Parthenon in Athens; but specifically the pantheon of Greek dieties...
> ...



rhinos, huh?  RHINOS are unicorns now?  nice.



say, what was the illiteracy rate during 80% of chrisian domination of culture again?  yes..  preserved I tellya!  HOw many OTHER civilizations were wiped out by CHRISTIANS again?  indeed, i'm sure we'd all be wandering the fields if the jebus cult were not here to SAVE civilization!


----------



## Shogun (Jun 15, 2008)

Paul Itical said:


> The crusades were countering the muslims. I thought everyone knew this?



Did the muslims NOT have a civilization going on?  Gosh.. those pesky fucking arabs and their ALgebra...  surely thats just a myth.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 15, 2008)

editec said:


> This debate rages on because it is based on a flawed premise.
> 
> Christianity couldn't SAVE civilization because there was nothing remotely like a civiliation (as we understand the meaning of that term, at least) _to save._
> 
> ...



Have you read the book? It's actually quite entertaining. 



> *Editorial Reviews*
> *Amazon.com*
> In this delightful and illuminating look into a crucial but little-known "hinge" of history, Thomas Cahill takes us to the "island of saints and scholars," the Ireland of St. Patrick and the Book of Kells. Here, far from the barbarian despoliation of the continent, monks and scribes laboriously, lovingly, even playfully preserved the West's written treasury. When stability returned in Europe, these Irish scholars were instrumental in spreading learning, becoming not only the conservators of civilization, but also the shapers of the medieval mind, putting their unique stamp on Western culture.


----------



## editec (Jun 15, 2008)

> ooooh yes.. FAR less brutal! Indeed, no less than 9 crusades AND an inquisisition to boot.



Comparing those pathetic dust-ups to the wholesale slaughter that Rome typically did, is of course, an enormous mistake of scale.  

But if your point is that Christendom was not the same enlightened society of people that you and I are members of, you'll get no debate from me on _that _point.



> From conquering to EXTERMINATING locals who did not coply you act as though christians were not out doing the exacts SAEM SHIT that Rome did to the germanic people.



Again, the issue upon which we disagree is mostly one of scale and comparison.



> Hell, from pope to pope it's fucking laughable to suggest that Christianity was LESS SAVAGE than Rome just because YOU identify with jebus and not Zeus.



I do not _identify _with Jesus OR Zeus, FYI.   

I suggest that Christendom was less savage than Rome because I know something about just how savage Rome was, and know that Christendom simply didn't have the ability to be SO savage.

But hey, let's not let reality stand in the way of your great rant, shall we?



> For real, dude. talk about spitshining a fucking turd.



For really real dude, I am treating you with respect, and I'd appreciate the same from you.



> ROME WAS A FUCKING ENLIGHTENED SOCIETY TOO.



In some ways, Rome was far more enlightened than Christendom to be sure.  

IF you define enlightenment as advanced engineering, I suppose. 



> I mean, we ONLY take our fucking political structure from it instead of, say, the fucking VATICAN.



I wasn't aware that Rome had universal suffrage or a bicameral house.  Neither was I aware that Rome had a bill of rights, or a supreme court either.

I think that I probably have forgotten more about the real (and really complex and often changing) _history_ of the Roman government than you will ever know, dude.



> christianity didn't SAVE shit.



If you had actually read my posts you would realize that that is exactly what I have been saying since post one.  

Christianity didn't SAVE the post Roman civilization, it WAS the post-Roman civilization.  Perhaps the distinction is too fine for you to grasp, but I can assure you the distinction_ is vast._



> and it sure as hell wasn't the angel of civilization



It sure as hell wasn't. I quite agree.  

In fact, much of it was seriously tragically flawed in ways that I am sure both you are I both would agree is thoroughly  repugnant. 

Something I noted that Christendom was flawed in my previous posts, but apparently you missed that in your zeal to put words into my mouth so you could give me your lecture which is essentially entirely fact free.



> during it's reign any more than confucious is the only reason there is a united china.



Now you're just being silly and having a tussle with some straw man of your imagination.



> Hell, let's go ahead and ignore the FACT that it was christians that destroyed ROME's superiority in the world!



Let's ignore the fact that you obviously are basing your opinions about what the root cause of the fall of IMPERIAL Rome based on your own prejudices and your obvious (and ignorance-based) hard-on about events in history that you barely know anything about. 

But in your defense, what your argument  lacks in substance you more than make up for with bluster.


----------



## editec (Jun 15, 2008)

Ravi asked



> Have you read the book? It's actually quite entertaining.



How the _Irish Saved Civilization_, you mean?

Right now it's sitting on the water closet of my crapper.  I've read about half of it.

So far it strikes me as having validity ONLY if you credit civilization as meaning only LITERATURE.

Perhaps, my opinion will change by the time I finish it.

But I completely agree with you it is an interesting premise and a good read. 

It is, I think  _somewhat _overstated and entirely too Celto-centric.

Bear in mind while WESTERN ROMAN EMPIRE shit the bed, the EASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE continued to thrive for quite some time.

Their contribution (and that of the Moslems, too) to the dispersal of the knowledge that we like now like to think of as WESTERN was pretty significant, too.


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 15, 2008)

editec said:


> Civilization pretty much fits this bill, methinks.
> 
> Hence, suggesting that "Christianity saved civilization" misses the point.
> 
> Christianity was so much a part of that post Roman civilization that it cannot be separated from the civilization itself to be given credit (or not)  for saving it.


This sounds reasonable.



			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> Hell, let's go ahead and ignore the FACT that it was christians that destroyed ROME's superiority in the world!


Show proof that such was more detrimental than:
Octavian not codifying rules of succession for the Emperorhood;
the appointment of Commodus as Emperor;
the coming to power of the Severan Dynasty;
Caracalla's giving citizenship to all freemen in the Empire;
the continual Barbarian migration into Europe;
the increased centralization of power to the Emperorhood;
the tetrarchy;
the use of slave labor over the steam engine;
increasing use of foreign mercenaries and granting of lands to them;
increasing trouble with Asiatic upstarts and powers.



			
				Paul Itical said:
			
		

> The crusades were countering the muslims. I thought everyone knew this?


Partly, it started out more against the Turks. Even then the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, weakening it in the long run.



			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> Did the muslims NOT have a civilization going on? Gosh.. those pesky fucking arabs and their ALgebra... surely thats just a myth.


Monkey, irrelevant to the discussion.



> rhinos, huh? RHINOS are unicorns now? nice.


European rhinos died out so only folktales and cave paintings would have been left. Over the millenia it is quite possible tales about Rhinos became Unicorns. Or are you too stupid to see that?

Say Monkey, what of the Pantheon? Have any more comments?



> say, what was the illiteracy rate during 80% of chrisian domination of culture again?


This is not 100% so, in your own words:


> yes.. preserved I tellya!





> HOw many OTHER civilizations were wiped out by CHRISTIANS again?


Monkey, that is irrelevant; this is about ONE particular civilization that was a direct descendant of western christendom.


Monkey, read carefully; provide citations from what I have typed for the things you accused me of.


----------



## editec (Jun 15, 2008)

> Show proof that such was more detrimental than:
> Octavian not codifying rules of succession for the Emperorhood;
> the appointment of Commodus as Emperor;
> the coming to power of the Severan Dynasty;
> ...




I see somebody's obviously been leafing though their Gibbons.

Hey I know!

Why don't  start a thread where we can debate what really cased the fall of the Roman empire.

That debate could last longer than the empire itself lasted, and we'd _still_ never arrive at a conclusive answer_ other than hubris._

Original Sin --ya' don't need to be a Christian to understand the concept.

We're bad monkeys, folks.


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 15, 2008)

I have 3 volumes of 6.



> Why don't start a thread where we can debate what really cased the fall of the Roman empire.
> 
> That debate could last longer than the empire itself lasted, and we'd still never arrive at a conclusive answer other than hubris.




editec, in regard to Celto-centrism; surely you will agree that Scotland has provided a great deal of quality material to our world?
Scottish Inventors


----------



## manifold (Jun 15, 2008)

I have to say I'm pretty happy with myself for having started this thread.  If there was an emoticon for patting oneself on the back, I'd post it here. 

Nice work fellas!


----------



## Shogun (Jun 15, 2008)

editec said:


> Comparing those pathetic dust-ups to the wholesale slaughter that Rome typically did, is of course, an enormous mistake of scale.
> But if your point is that Christendom was not the same enlightened society of people that you and I are members of, you'll get no debate from me on _that _point.
> Again, the issue upon which we disagree is mostly one of scale and comparison.
> do not _identify _with Jesus OR Zeus, FYI.
> ...




Bluster, eh?  for a guy who seems to have forgotten about the ROMAN SENATE and Republican governments you sure are one to talk, buddy.  Your logical flaw is that your OPINION that rome was more savage means jack shit.    Rome did to the british isles EXACTLY what christian europe did in the new world.  There is no "less savage" anything about it.  

The rest of your post is self righteous tripe.  Indeed, ignoring the inquisition and 9 fucking crusades sure does make ME the ignorant one!


----------



## Shogun (Jun 15, 2008)

*Show proof that such was more detrimental than:
Octavian not codifying rules of succession for the Emperorhood;
the appointment of Commodus as Emperor;
the coming to power of the Severan Dynasty;
Caracalla's giving citizenship to all freemen in the Empire;
the continual Barbarian migration into Europe;
the increased centralization of power to the Emperorhood;
the tetrarchy;
the use of slave labor over the steam engine;
increasing use of foreign mercenaries and granting of lands to them;
increasing trouble with Asiatic upstarts and powers.
*

Gibbon's theory

Gibbon offers an explanation for why the Roman Empire fell, a task made difficult by a lack of comprehensive written sources, though he was not the only historian to tackle the subject.[3] Most of his ideas are directly taken from what few relevant records were available: those of the Roman moralists of the 4th and 5th centuries,

According to Gibbon, the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions because of a loss of civic virtue among its citizens.[4] They had become weak, outsourcing their duties to defend their Empire to barbarian mercenaries, who then became so numerous and ingrained that they were able to take over the Empire. Romans, he believed, had become effeminate, unwilling to live a tougher, "manly" military lifestyle. In addition, Gibbon argued that Christianity created a belief that a better life existed after death, which fostered an indifference to the present among Roman citizens, thus sapping their desire to sacrifice for the Empire. He also believed its comparative pacifism tended to hamper the traditional Roman martial spirit. Lastly, like other Enlightenment thinkers, Gibbon held in contempt the Middle Ages as a priest-ridden, superstitious, dark age. It was not until his own age of reason and rational thought, it was believed, that human history could resume its progress.

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


yea.. i think i'll go ahead and take Gibbons word for it rather than some dickface on the net who really, REALLY wants to pretend that medieval europe , and the lordly christian church, is why we wear shoes and have an alphabet.





*Monkey, irrelevant to the discussion.*

Sure it is.  I'm shooting you examples of various CIVILIZATIONS that managed to flourish *GASP* despite the western theology du jour.  Amazing, isn't it?

*
European rhinos died out so only folktales and cave paintings would have been left. Over the millenia it is quite possible tales about Rhinos became Unicorns. Or are you too stupid to see that?*

yea it's quite possible that regardless of some ignorant confusion by early man A RHINO IS STILL NOT A FUCKING HORSE WITH A HORN ON ITS FACE.  Hey, so does that mean if some naturalist in the 1400s dug up some dinosaur bones and calls it a DRAGON then, in fact, dinosaurs ARE dragons?



*
Say Monkey, what of the Pantheon? Have any more comments?*

what of it?  Have you ever seen me post the rediculous assertion that it was greek or roman belief in gods that SAVED civilization?  hell no.  It's an opinion that is STUPID AS HELL.


*This is not 100% so, in your own words:*

Oh yes.. if at least ONE POPE can read then CLEARLY civilization is SAVED!



*

Monkey, that is irrelevant; this is about ONE particular civilization that was a direct descendant of western christendom.
*

It's not irrelevant because there are many, MANY civilizations that came and went regardless of christianity.  YOU may want to avoid that point because it undermines your goofy fucking opinion about the jebus cult but, hey, nice to know that CIVILIZATION just would not exist were it not for some dark age euro theology!



*
Monkey, read carefully; provide citations from what I have typed for the things you accused me of.*


How about we both share a laugh that you seemed to have forgotten what civilization Thomas Jefferson patterned OUR system of government after?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 15, 2008)

Republicanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


enjoy


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 15, 2008)

Shogun said:
			
		

> How about we both share a laugh that you seemed to have forgotten what civilization Thomas Jefferson patterned OUR system of government after?


Monkey, you have spouted another assertion without evidence. You have failed to provide citations of my words for things you accuse me of after three notifications. You are a coward and a liar.



> yea it's quite possible that regardless of some ignorant confusion by early man A RHINO IS STILL NOT A FUCKING HORSE WITH A HORN ON ITS FACE. Hey, so does that mean if some naturalist in the 1400s dug up some dinosaur bones and calls it a DRAGON then, in fact, dinosaurs ARE dragons?


No Monkey, what this means is that the fables of Unicorns and Dragons possibly originated in now extinct species whose descriptions were gradually altered through the millenia of retellings. But since you call luke-warm blooded, almost bird critters "Monsterous Lizzards" does that make them Lizzards? Shove your shit back up your ass Monkey.



> what of it? Have you ever seen me post the rediculous assertion that it was greek or roman belief in gods that SAVED civilization? hell no. It's an opinion that is STUPID AS HELL.


Monkey, you might not want to throw all of your shit because that seems to be what you have for brains.

This is about the Church, the institution, not the belief in dieties.



			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> Gungnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> Gungnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Monkey, again you prove that you are an idiot. This is fiction you allude to, not what has happened. You speak of other civilizations, yes they exist, as I said earlier in Post #19. However, as editec has most eloquently explained; the church was Western Civilization, the result without it would be different from what we currently have (hence a fiction). Since we are not discussing fiction you are throwing shit for nothing.

We could have had Neanderthals survive instead of CroMagnon, they might both be Hominina but one is not the same as the other. Can your atavistic mind comprehend that Monkey?



> Gibbon's theory
> 
> Gibbon offers an explanation for why the Roman Empire fell, a task made difficult by a lack of comprehensive written sources, though he was not the only historian to tackle the subject.[3] Most of his ideas are directly taken from what few relevant records were available: those of the Roman moralists of the 4th and 5th centuries,
> 
> ...


Emphasis mine.

Despite the superscript "[citation needed]" at the end of the "Theory" I will accept it as genuine to Gibbon's conclussions.

I did not attribute shoes or the alphabet to the Church. Without the Church I find it likely that the Latin Alphabet would have been much less readily accepted. However, there was no "without the Church" so the point is moot. It did preserve it and maintained literacy and scholasticism. 

Would there have been better, would there have been others? Open a speculative thread.

Now from your own quoted text from the Wikipedia article you will notice the portion of the text boldended: "In addition, Gibbon argued that Christianity created"...

This Wikipedia Article neither attributes to Gibbon the belief that the failure of Rome was explicitly the fault of Christians nor attributes to Gibbon the belief that Christianity in the Roman Empire was any more detrimental than the things which I cited. Thus your appeal to authority is denied.


Monkey, in summation:
your reading skills are pathetic;
you are continually attempting to shift the focus away from the real happenings to fictitious events in an effort to denegrate the Church and thus, by association, deny it of any positive effect;
you attempt to cover this by spouting vile idiocies, and slander;
you are a coward, and liar.


----------



## AtlasShrieked (Jun 15, 2008)

manifold said:


> From wikipedia:
> 
> Since the Irish that saved civilization were Christian, I took license with my thread title.  But it's still perfectly accurate.


This si news to you?

_oh the horror, the horror._The subtitle should be...and became uncivilized coots in the process. The Irish saved Christianity. Methinks civilization would have eventually recovered without them.


----------



## editec (Jun 16, 2008)

> editec, in regard to Celto-centrism; surely you will agree that Scotland has provided a great deal of quality material to our world?
> Scottish Inventors



I meant no disrespect to the Celts.  

My complaint was merely the title and basic premise of the book, itself.  But it probably the title itself which made the book so popular, so that overstaement is certainly a forgiveable conceit.

FWIW, MOST EUROPEANS of both Eastern and Western Europe are at least in some part Celts.

There really wasn't anyplace in Europe they hadn't settled, and when the Germanic tribes and the Slavic tribes got to Europe, (likely off the Russian steppes) the Celts were there to welcome them.

The original settlers  of Bohemia, for example are though to have been  Celts.  

Their presence has been documented in that land from about 500 BC when  King Abigot (of Gaul) send on of his sons to settle a new land to the East..

Abigot's son, Singoves, settled in the land and named it after the name of the Celtic tribe : the [/i] Bojohemum[/I]

They called themselves the Boii 

Later they were invaded and overwhelmed by the Maromans, a Germanic tribe roughly during the time of Ceasar Augustus.  During this same period, it is reported that Greeks also settled in the area.

Later still, Attilla the Hun and his Avaars left his mark on that land.

Later still, about 450 AD the the _Cecy_, Slavs from the regions of the east showed up to make their impression on this hodgepodge of European people.

Ancient history like this is one of the reasons I laugh at people when they tell me they're PURE German or PURE Czech or whatever...

The iron and bronze ages lasted a might long time, and during those times, various tribes migrated and interbred all over Europe.

But practically anywhere these tribes went, they encountered CELTS who'd been there first.  

It's so common to discover that eariest culture  someplace in Europe was Celtic, that I have come to think of the term Celt, not an an ethnic tribe, so much as a description of whatever first inhabitants the Germans or Slavs or Mediteranians met when they got to where they settled. 

Genetically I doubt the Celts were all the same people (genetically, I mean) , but I _suspect _they shared the much same artistic and techological culture such that it is not unreasonable to call them, if not one tribe, then at least one culture.

We're all mutts, you know. 

Celts, Germans, Slavs, Meditaranians, Semites, Dorians, whatever.

All of us are really just the combined tribes of iron and bronze age peoples who wandered and settled over Europe when circumstances made it necessary for us to find a new place to live.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 16, 2008)

I personally think the guy was just being silly with the title of his book. Civilization is subjective and certainly it can be argued that western civilization isn't the be all and end all.

Even so, literature is an important part of any civilization...


----------



## Shogun (Jun 16, 2008)

*Monkey, you have spouted another assertion without evidence. You have failed to provide citations of my words for things you accuse me of after three notifications. You are a coward and a liar.*

Bitch, werent you JUST questioning where aspects of OUR government were missing from Romes government when I directly mentioned that Thomas Jefferson looked more to ROME than the VATICAN?  Hurry!  Go edit your post!



poor guy, you are an ignorant pussy who is having his ass handed to him.  Please, feel free to make more ridiculous fucking statements as they provide chuckle fodder throughout the day.

*
No Monkey, what this means is that the fables of Unicorns and Dragons possibly originated in now extinct species whose descriptions were gradually altered through the millenia of retellings. But since you call luke-warm blooded, almost bird critters "Monsterous Lizzards" does that make them Lizzards? Shove your shit back up your ass Monkey.
*


FABLES and MYTHS are not FACTS, cocksheath.  Ignorantly mislabeling you a three toes giant sloth doesnt make you a fucking sloth.  And, yes, stupid, DINOS WERE FUCKING LIZARDS MORE THAN THEY WERE FUCKING FIRE BREATHING DRAGONS.



see, this is the kind of shit im talking about.



*
Monkey, you might not want to throw all of your shit because that seems to be what you have for brains.*

*yawn*

Is this where I insert "I know you are but what am I, infinity"?

poor guy.. am I picking on you too much?


*
This is about the Church, the institution, not the belief in dieties.*


oh NOW it's not about "christianity" so much as "the church"!



kinda like how "SAVED CIVILIZATION" had to be redefined as "WESTERN CIV" all of a sudden too, eh?





*
Monkey, again you prove that you are an idiot. This is fiction you allude to, not what has happened. You speak of other civilizations, yes they exist, as I said earlier in Post #19. However, as editec has most eloquently explained; the church was Western Civilization, the result without it would be different from what we currently have (hence a fiction). Since we are not discussing fiction you are throwing shit for nothing.*

"DIFFERENT" does not assume that christianity SAVED anything, dude.  Of COURSE society would look different if the ottomans conquered europe.  no shit.  Does that mean that CIVILIZATION would have ceased to exist if it were muslims instead of thumpers in europe?  nope.  not at all.  Which is why you avoid the FACT of other non-christian civilizations LIKE THE BLACK DEATH THAT WIPED OUT MOST OF EUROPES POPULATION during this so called cultural lockbox?



*
We could have had Neanderthals survive instead of CroMagnon, they might both be Hominina but one is not the same as the other. Can your atavistic mind comprehend that Monkey?*

and, still, were that the case IN NO WAY SHAPRE OR FORM is your arguement about the christian church saving civ anything close to reality.  Gosh, maybe if we called cromagnons giants then ti would have been true that giants walked the earth!





*
Despite the superscript "[citation needed]" at the end of the "Theory" I will accept it as genuine to Gibbon's conclussions.

I did not attribute shoes or the alphabet to the Church. Without the Church I find it likely that the Latin Alphabet would have been much less readily accepted. However, there was no "without the Church" so the point is moot. It did preserve it and maintained literacy and scholasticism. *

HA!  yea...  PURPOSEFUL illiteracy and restricting scripture TOO latin BECAUSE the peasants couldn't read the shit sure does sound MAINTAINED!  hilarious, dude.  Say, how long into this so called life support of civilization did king james FINALLY decide to translate the bible for the masses?

*
Would there have been better, would there have been others? Open a speculative thread.*

fuck you.  i'll go ahead and make those points int the goofy thread that insists tht christiany SAVED civilization.

*
Now from your own quoted text from the Wikipedia article you will notice the portion of the text boldended: "In addition, Gibbon argued that Christianity created"...*

*This Wikipedia Article neither attributes to Gibbon the belief that the failure of Rome was explicitly the fault of Christians nor attributes to Gibbon the belief that Christianity in the Roman Empire was any more detrimental than the things which I cited. Thus your appeal to authority is denied.
*

HA!  yea, I mean, quoting the man's own words and one of the PRIMARY reasons for Rome's fall, as per his infamous anti-church reputation, SURE IS grounds for you to deny anything!



poor guy...  how does it feel to fall down and go boom?

*
Monkey, in summation:
your reading skills are pathetic;
you are continually attempting to shift the focus away from the real happenings to fictitious events in an effort to denegrate the Church and thus, by association, deny it of any positive effect;
you attempt to cover this by spouting vile *


yea yea yea.. we can both talk shit, pussy.  YOUR pathetic attempt to insist on editing your point after I point out the fallacy of your logic is enough to make any criticism you throw around about as valuable as your grasp of world history.  Make sure you make any necessary addendums to your retarded fucking "rhinos are unicorns" crap too.  I mean, calling you out on your stupid shit might cause your tantrum but it sure as fuck doesn't seem to purge ignorant fucking statements from your list of dumb shit to post.


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 16, 2008)

Shogun said:


> werent you JUST questioning where aspects of OUR government were missing from Romes government when I directly mentioned that Thomas Jefferson looked more to ROME than the VATICAN?  Hurry!  Go edit your post!


No, that was the poster editec. post #98. 


			
				editec said:
			
		

> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Monkey, you should have cited your claims against me. You didn't because there is nothing to your defemations but misreading, lies, and idiocy.



> FABLES and MYTHS are not FACTS, cocksheath.


Monkey, use your brain. We have evidence for Cro-Magnon and early modern humans observing now extinct species. That those people, lacking an appreciable written language passed on the account of the great megafauna of old is almost certain. Drawing inference from that, and knowing Human tendency towards exageration and to alter stories -- it is certainly plausible to explain mythical creatures as having descended from the oral stories about now extinct megafauna.



> Ignorantly mislabeling you a three toes giant sloth doesnt make you a fucking sloth.


Again Monkey, you are an idiot for confusing the above (which I have explained to you previously) with an equating of an Unicorn to a Woolly Rhino.



> And, yes, stupid, DINOS WERE FUCKING LIZARDS MORE THAN THEY WERE FUCKING FIRE BREATHING DRAGONS.


Monkey, cite where I claimed Dinosaurs were fire breathing dragons! 



> oh NOW it's not about "christianity" so much as "the church"!
> 
> kinda like how "SAVED CIVILIZATION" had to be redefined as "WESTERN CIV" all of a sudden too, eh?


No Monkey, you are just too stupid to understand the concept or to read the information completely. You see what you want; interpret that glance into the most objctionable thing to you; and then begin screeching, spitting, sputtering, and scatting. 

Taking note of the article to which the OP quotes:


			
				How the Irish Saved Civilization - Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The book retells the story from the collapse of the Roman Empire and *the pivotal role played by members of the clergy at the time. A particular focus is placed upon Saint Patrick* and retells his early struggles through slavery; basically retelling portions of The Confession of Saint Patrick. *Early parts of the book examine Ireland before Patrick and the role of Saint Augustine of Hippo. Particular focus is placed upon Saint Columba and the monks he trained and the monasteries he set up in the Hiberno-Scottish mission.* In a sense, *these holy men salvaged everything possible from the destruction of the Roman Empire.*


Underlined and Boldened emphasis mine.

This is a view which I have been consistent with since my first post (post #15) in this thread:


			
				Gungnir said:
			
		

> After the fall of Rome, the Church's enticement of Emperorhood, Excommunication, and Crusade probably helped stabelize the rowdy Barbarians.





			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> "DIFFERENT" does not assume that christianity SAVED anything, dude.  Of COURSE society would look different if the ottomans conquered europe.  no shit.  Does that mean that CIVILIZATION would have ceased to exist if it were muslims instead of thumpers in europe?


Yes, Monkey, as defined by setting civilization = realistic (not fictitious) western civilization which is done when Western Civilization is the one in which you live and is the preeminent one upon the Earth.



> HA!  yea...  PURPOSEFUL illiteracy and restricting scripture TOO latin BECAUSE the peasants couldn't read the shit sure does sound MAINTAINED!  hilarious, dude.


Could they have done better? Would others have done better? Open a speculation thread. Did they intentionaly restrict information? Irrelevant. Fact: the Church was the vehicle through which we now have civilization (our civilization). I ILLUSTRATED earlier the how.



> Which is why you avoid the FACT of other non-christian civilizations LIKE THE BLACK DEATH THAT WIPED OUT MOST OF EUROPES POPULATION during this so called cultural lockbox?


Monkey if the Black Death was supposed to be an insult you missed your mark. As for another of your unfounded lies; here I remedy with the truth:



			
				Gungnir said:
			
		

> Western Civilization, is not Mayan Civilization, nor is it Chinese Civlization, nor Hindu Civilization, nor even Ethiopian Civilization. They are seperate and distinct things that have nought to do with Irish Christians saving them. This is just Western Civilization.





			
				Gungnir said:
			
		

> Why would I care about a different civilization when the thread topic is on Western Europe?




Back to your spittle.



			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> Say, how long into this so called life support of civilization did king james FINALLY decide to translate the bible for the masses?


To my knowledge, one of "the masses" started that work on his own in addition to a plethora of already existing translations.



> fuck you.  i'll go ahead and make those points int the goofy thread that insists tht christiany SAVED civilization.


I've nailed your tail to your ass Monkey, go bother someone else.



> HA!  yea, I mean, quoting the man's own words and one of the PRIMARY reasons for Rome's fall, as per his infamous anti-church reputation, SURE IS grounds for you to deny anything!


You have *YET* to *QUOTE* Edward Gibbon's actual words. You quoted an uncited summary. Neither in that uncited summary, or the rest of the article (if I missed it please quote it) is Gibbon quoted or attributed the idea that the Church was one of the primary reasons for Rome's fall. Neither does your drek qualify as an attempt to address the reasonable questions I raised about preceeding Roman policy.

I did like this portion of the same article:


			
				The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Edward Gibbon said:
			
		

> If the decline of the Roman empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors."






			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> yea yea yea.. we can both talk shit, pussy.  YOUR pathetic attempt to insist on editing your point after I point out the fallacy of your logic is enough to make any criticism you throw around about as valuable as your grasp of world history.


I have edited 2 posts in this thread:
*post #49*
Last edited: 06-04-2008 at 06:46 PM. 
Your next reply was at 06-05-2008, 11:21 AM, post #52

*post #81*
Last edited: 06-10-2008 at 06:04 PM.
Your next reply was at 06-11-2008, 11:26 AM, post #83

Both of my edited post were edited more than 10 hours in advance of your replies. You are a LIAR!


----------



## Shogun (Jun 17, 2008)

*No, that was the poster editec. 
Monkey, you should have cited your claims against me. You didn't because there is nothing to your defemations but misreading, lies, and idiocy.*

poor guy.  am I picking on you and your goofy christianity social bandage a bit too much?  Indeed, next thing you know you'll be insisting that you didn't also post a link to "unicorn" rhinos!



*
Monkey, use your brain. We have evidence for Cro-Magnon and early modern humans observing now extinct species. That those people, lacking an appreciable written language passed on the account of the great megafauna of old is almost certain. Drawing inference from that, and knowing Human tendency towards exageration and to alter stories -- it is certainly plausible to explain mythical creatures as having descended from the oral stories about now extinct megafauna.
*


cave drawings dont give you the indication of a relevant timeframe for which to base your stupid opinion, dude.  Regardless, EXPLANATIONS by fucking cave men that didn't know what a rhino was under OUR nomenclature doesn't make the beast a fucking unicorn.  It doesn't make the whale a sea monster.  It doesn't make dinosaurs DRAGONS.  And, it sure as fuck doesn't validate the schitzoid idea that IGNORANCE proves that a burning bush is gods email service, a meteor is Allah's gift from heaven OR that christiany was the saving grace of civilization.

*
Again Monkey, you are an idiot for confusing the above (which I have explained to you previously) with an equating of an Unicorn to a Woolly Rhino.
*

Im not confusing shit, dude.  Throw out another stupid opinion about the validity of unicorns via rhinos and i'll laugh at you some more.  Which, despite the base stupidity of your position, can you tell me how many horns your posted rhino has?  Uh, what does Uni mean again?  Not to mention that a rhino is FAR from the same animal as a horse no less.  Say, what other ancient brilliance do you want to suggest validates a myth?  Maybe phrenology next?  The Murcury based life extending elixirs from China?  Fuck, why do we even need lasik eye surgery when the bible CLEARLY says that jebus just used a little mud??




*Monkey, cite where I claimed Dinosaurs were fire breathing dragons! *


You insinuated that they were DRAGONS rather than giant lizards.  They are not.  Ancient imagination in lue of science doesn't make myths real even if you get tripped up in the nomenclature.


*
No Monkey, you are just too stupid to understand the concept or to read the information completely. You see what you want; interpret that glance into the most objctionable thing to you; and then begin screeching, spitting, sputtering, and scatting. *


Oh THATS a rich accusation this side of your "christianity saved civilization" theory!  Poor guy, did you need to backtrack or edit something real quick?



*Taking note of the article to which the OP quotes:
Underlined and Boldened emphasis mine.
This is a view which I have been consistent with since my first post (post #15) in this thread:
*

Oh i KNOW.. Hell, were it not for st patrick then those fucking pagan druids, well into their own autonomous civilization before rome decided to show up, would have never invented SHOES!



your hubris is ethnocentrism, dude.  Take your idiot lenses out of your eyewear.  The Irish examples is EXACTLY what makes your criticism of Rome such a hilarious laugh factory.  

*
Yes, Monkey, as defined by setting civilization = realistic (not fictitious) western civilization which is done when Western Civilization is the one in which you live and is the preeminent one upon the Earth.*


PREEMINANT, eh?  gosh, didn't I just nail you on your ethnocentrism?  Being associated with any particular culture doesn't make it the primary example of civilization now OR throughout history.  Evolution sure as hell doesn't assume that current specie variations are the epitome of potential so it's pretty retarded of you to assume that our current CIVIL state is the best case scenario among an infinity of hypotheticals.  Not to mention, the carazy assumption that any particular DOGMA is what saved humanities ability to interact with each other.


*
Could they have done better? Would others have done better? Open a speculation thread. Did they intentionaly restrict information? Irrelevant. Fact: the Church was the vehicle through which we now have civilization (our civilization). I ILLUSTRATED earlier the how.*


It's not irrelevant when the premise of your fucking opinion is that it SAVED civilization, dude.  I realize that you are thrashing about trying to avoid that which makes your opinion as farcical as it is but avoiding comparison makes you biased in a particularly non-scientific dogma junky sorta way.  The CHURCH is not why we now have an alphabet, monetary system or wear shoes.  Sorry if that chaffes your little jebus hardon but communicating humans create their own civilizations DESPITE your bible thumper bullshit.  THIS is why you so desperately want to avoid talking about China and every other civ. that blows holes in your goofy fucking position.  The Church was as much a vehicle through which we now have civ much like prayer cures paraplegics.  By your standard you have to make the exact same statement about Hamurabi's faith too.  Let's see how quick you are to give credence to a pagan god whose myth is the root of our legal structure. 

*
Monkey if the Black Death was supposed to be an insult you missed your mark. As for another of your unfounded lies; here I remedy with the truth:*

HA!

yea, IM the one who missed something here.  Indeed, the black death was just a myth, eh buddy?  I mean, midieval euro was just like a fucking disneyland park despite the LIES of evil atheists who would have us believe that the vast majoirty of those living in squalor were ILLITERATE!  Imagine that!  An Illiterate Serf!




*To my knowledge, one of "the masses" started that work on his own in addition to a plethora of already existing translations.
*

"to my knowledge" being the most profound input you've had in this thread thus far..  Are youtelling me that you aren't aware of the reason the fricking bible was EVENTUALLY translated for the illiterate masses to comprehend for themselves?  REALLY?

Clearly, i'm arm wrestling a giant here.

*
I've nailed your tail to your ass Monkey, go bother someone else.*


HA!  yea dude.. tell me another funny joke!  Maybe you can go read a book on civiliztions outside of your own masterbatory fan boy worshsip of the west since, it seems, your global range of knowledge is lacking.

*
You have YET to QUOTE Edward Gibbon's actual words. You quoted an uncited summary. Neither in that uncited summary, or the rest of the article (if I missed it please quote it) is Gibbon quoted or attributed the idea that the Church was one of the primary reasons for Rome's fall. Neither does your drek qualify as an attempt to address the reasonable questions I raised about preceeding Roman policy.*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

oh THATS fucking rich.. So, unless I quote chapter and page from his literature then he doesn't STILL have the notariety of being the guy who blamed the fall of rome on christianity, eh?  WOW, are you this desperate, lil guy?  I cite ALL of my evidence, bitch.  If you are too stupid to click on a link then so be it.  By now, im not too impressed with your cognitive qualities anyway.  

REASONABLE questions, eh?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  REasonable like insisting that prehistoric ignorance makes a fucking rhino a unicorn?



yea, some voiceless douchebag on the internet probably DOES know more than the guy within reach of what primary sources have been available.  Again, i'll go ahead and take the word of an actual scholar over than of some asshole looking to attribute human civilization to the dogma du jour.


*
Both of my edited post were edited more than 10 hours in advance of your replies. You are a LIAR!
*



dude, im only posting in this thread once per day.. CLEARLY there is a ten hour fucking window between my posts. Plenty of time for you to backpeddle and edit your posts accordingly.  Face it.  I busted your ass, as if it were even necessary by this point, for being a disingenuous asshole.  Calling me a monkey will probably take the sting off of that giant red hand print on your face, dude.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 17, 2008)




----------



## editec (Jun 17, 2008)

> Bluster, eh? for a guy who seems to have forgotten about the ROMAN SENATE and Republican governments you sure are one to talk, buddy. Your logical flaw is that your OPINION that rome was more savage means jack shit. Rome did to the british isles EXACTLY what christian europe did in the new world. There is no "less savage" anything about it.
> 
> The rest of your post is self righteous tripe. Indeed, ignoring the inquisition and 9 fucking crusades sure does make ME the ignorant one!



*Translation:* _I am completely over my head, but perhaps if I'm rude enough nobody will notice that I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about. _

Your opinions, however misinformed or half baked are always of interest to us.

Do know that in the future we will endeavor to continue helping you reach beyond your own foolish prejudices to find something like a reality based point of view..

No, no. 

No need to thank us.  

That's just the kind of posters some of us are.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 17, 2008)

yea dude.. IM the one over my head when pointing out how CHINA, UK Druids, North and South America and the Ottoman Empire were *GASP* civilizations DESPITE the premise of this thread.


I know I know.. mass illiteracy, population crippling disease, crusades and inquisitions are ALL just like civilization life support!


HAHAHAHAHAHA!

ps, the OPINION that Rome was "more savage" than christian europe is about as profound as suggesting that civilization only counts as long as the populations speak engrish and wear shoes.  if you can't wrap your head around that then, by all means, talk some more shit instead of proving me wrong.  I mean, you are probably the first person to post a snarky reply on the internet!


----------



## Shogun (Jun 17, 2008)

Hernando Cortez
PRESERVING CIVILIZATION one gold bearing continent at a time!


----------



## Shogun (Jun 17, 2008)

Preserving Civilization... whether you like it or not, Pagan!


----------



## Shogun (Jun 17, 2008)

Who needs facts when you've got Shoes and monotheism!


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 18, 2008)

Shogun said:


> poor guy.  am I picking on you and your goofy christianity social bandage a bit too much?  Indeed, next thing you know you'll be insisting that you didn't also post a link to "unicorn" rhinos!


Again that was the poster named editec that you were replying to, not I (Gungnir).
See here:
editec started on how Christian Europe was less barbaric than Rome in post #88.
In Post #93 you (Shogun) replied to editec, mentioning that "ROME WAS A FUCKING ENLIGHTENED SOCIETY TOO. I mean, we ONLY take our fucking political structure from it instead of, say, the fucking VATICAN. --Shogun"
editec then replied to you with post #98 where he (editec) raised the issue of governmental disimilarities: "I wasn't aware that Rome had universal suffrage or a bicameral house. Neither was I aware that Rome had a bill of rights, or a supreme court either. --editec"
To which you (Shogun) replied (to the poster editec) in post #104, stating that "Bluster, eh? for a guy who seems to have forgotten about the ROMAN SENATE and Republican governments you sure are one to talk, buddy. --Shogun"
Your (Shogun) very next post (post #105) was a response to my (Gungnir) words though it was not addressed specifically to me (Gungnir) or anyone. At the very bottom, where you (Shogun) quote my (Gungnir) rebuke of your repeated inclusion of other civilizations in a discussion about Western Civlization; you there confuse me (Gungnir) with editec, asking "How about we both share a laugh that you seemed to have forgotten what civilization Thomas Jefferson patterned OUR system of government after? --Shogun"

That whole train of discussion between you (Shogun) and editec started at post #88 which is *7 post and 4 days* after my most recently edited post (post #81).


Shogun, I (Gungnir) really think you (Shogun) have me (Gungnir) confused with editec.




			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> cave drawings dont give you the indication of a relevant timeframe for which to base your stupid opinion, dude.


They do when they are datable by pigment and surrounding artifacts.



> Regardless, EXPLANATIONS by fucking cave men that didn't know what a rhino was under OUR nomenclature doesn't make the beast a fucking unicorn.


You're right it does not; however (as I have said for the last few posts) this Woolly Rhino does show a possible origin from which the tale of the mythological creature called the Unicorn, could have been based.



> can you tell me how many horns your posted rhino has?


(one extinct large fur covered grazing quadriped with a large horn located on the central foward upper part of its skull) x (9,000 years of the Telephone Game) just could very well be from where the myth of the Unicorn comes.



			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> Gungnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I postulated that Ratites, Varanidaes, and Phorusrhacidaes could be the origin from which the myth of Dragons spread. 

You claimed that I was equating a Woolly Rhino to a Unicorn with this statement:


			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> yea it's quite possible that regardless of some ignorant confusion by early man A RHINO IS STILL NOT A FUCKING HORSE WITH A HORN ON ITS FACE.


And then attempted to reinforce that by stating the fact that if a dinosaur is called a dragon it is still a dinosaur and can never be a dragon.


			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> Hey, so does that mean if some naturalist in the 1400s dug up some dinosaur bones and calls it a DRAGON then, in fact, dinosaurs ARE dragons?


So I corrected your implication that I am equating a myth with a reality, when I am saying the reality is the base from which the myth grew.


			
				Gungnir said:
			
		

> No Monkey, what this means is that the fables of Unicorns and Dragons possibly originated in now extinct species whose descriptions were gradually altered through the millenia of retellings.


Then, Monkey, to show how stupid you are, I turned your game around on you:


			
				Gungnir said:
			
		

> But since you call luke-warm blooded, almost bird critters "Monsterous Lizzards" does that make them Lizzards? Shove your shit back up your ass Monkey.


Just as you don't think that Dinosaurs are mere Lizzards (akin to calling an Arachnid an Insect), I do not think a Woolly Rhino is a Unicorn.

Monkey, if you do not like my answers; you should stop making snide and stupid quips.



			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> Oh i KNOW.. Hell, were it not for st patrick then those fucking pagan druids, well into their own autonomous civilization before rome decided to show up, would have never invented SHOES!


Start a thread on an alternative history where the Druidic civilization remained independent and I will speculate with you. But the Druidic civilization didn't remain independent and they didn't factor into the time frame we are discussing; so stop posting about them.



> your hubris is ethnocentrism


If this thread were about the importance of Taoist teachings on Chinese Civilization, I would harp on you just as vigorously as I am now if you had opined about a civilization other than China.



> PREEMINANT, eh? gosh, didn't I just nail you on your ethnocentrism? Being associated with any particular culture doesn't make it the primary example of civilization now OR throughout history.


If it is the one most followed by the most powerful populations, yes it does.



> Evolution sure as hell doesn't assume that current specie variations are the epitome of potential


Where have you learned this from? 
A) Evolution is a combination of factors that result in a general trend of natural selection of the fittest. Thus evolution will not assume because it is incapable of assuming.
B) There is no epitome in evolution.



> so it's pretty retarded of you to assume that our current CIVIL state is the best case scenario among an infinity of hypotheticals.


This is not what I stated. You would cry or laugh (or defecate yourself) at my perfect civilization.



> Not to mention, the carazy assumption that any particular DOGMA is what saved humanities ability to interact with each other.


Good thing I didn't say that one either.



> It's not irrelevant when the premise of your fucking opinion is that it SAVED civilization, dude. I realize that you are thrashing about trying to avoid that which makes your opinion as farcical as it is but avoiding comparison makes you biased in a particularly non-scientific dogma junky sorta way. The CHURCH is not why we now have an alphabet, monetary system or wear shoes. Sorry if that chaffes your little jebus hardon but communicating humans create their own civilizations DESPITE your bible thumper bullshit.


In Civilization (WESTERN CIVILIZATION): 
what percipitated the Carolingian Renaissance;
in Dark Age Western Europe, where was education recieved;
in pre Italian Renaissance Western Europe, where were most scholars to be found;
in pre Italian Renaissance Western Europe, who was the cause of great building projects works of art;
in pre Italian Renaissance Western Europe, who created the monarchy system for which the barbarians competed, and in the doing so settled from tribal into state-level society?

Not who could have done it, but who did do it.



> THIS is why you so desperately want to avoid talking about China and every other civ. that blows holes in your goofy fucking position.


How could the Church have done anything for the Chinese, Hindus, Mayans, or Persians when it was (at that time) located in Western Europe? I don't want to talk about them because I am not talking about them. If I were talking about them I would talk about only them and nothing irrelevant. Which is what was being done until you became a screaming, flailing, scatting monkey!

So if you so desire to talk about Chinese Civilization open a thread on it and I will regail you with stories abound of the Ming Dynasty. If you want to talk about what could have happened if there was no Church and the Chinese took over the world, open a speculative thread and I will cospeculate with you. 



> yea, IM the one who missed something here. Indeed, the black death was just a myth, eh buddy? I mean, midieval euro was just like a fucking disneyland park despite the LIES of evil atheists who would have us believe that the vast majoirty of those living in squalor were ILLITERATE! Imagine that! An Illiterate Serf!


Monkey, you must be brain addled again.

The light which was Rome extinguished, der Tag, Gotterdamerung, the End of Days. The only people left in a symbolence of order were religious philosophers and they had to hornswaggle a continent full of Barbarians. Remember, their ranks were soon filled with Barbarians too. If you are condemning them for not immediately becoming a nationalized health care state (with an epidemic preparedness plan) along with a tax payer funded public school system -- you're rediculous. 



> "to my knowledge" being the most profound input you've had in this thread thus far.. Are youtelling me that you aren't aware of the reason the fricking bible was EVENTUALLY translated for the illiterate masses to comprehend for themselves? REALLY?
> 
> Clearly, i'm arm wrestling a giant here.


William Tyndale
Old English Bible Translations
King James Version
English Translations of the Bible



> So, unless I quote chapter and page from his literature then he doesn't STILL have the otariety of being the guy who blamed the fall of rome on christianity, eh?


Monkey, you asserted that "it was christians that destroyed ROME's superiority in the world!"
I asked you, Monkey, to "Show proof that such {Christianity} was more detrimental" than a list of reasons.
You replied by copying a block of text from Wikipedia. I will note that you did not include the [citation needed] superscript that was attached to the end of the block of text you coppied. If you do not believe doing such to be intellectually dishonest, that is your own name to live with. However since you are a liar I doubt you care Monkey.

The text which you copied neither attributes to Gibbon the belief that the failure of Rome was explicitly the fault of Christians nor attributes to Gibbon the belief that Christianity in the Roman Empire was any more detrimental than the things which I cited. Since nothing else in that entire article attributed to Gibbon the belief that Christianity in the Roman Empire was any more detrimental than the things which I cited nor attributed to Gibbon the belief that the failure of Rome was explicitly the fault of Christians -- your appeal to authority was denied.

To this you replied that you were quoting Gibbon's words. Since you were quoting an uncited summary of Gibbon's writings, you were not quoting Gibbon's words. Thus you are a liar.



> and one of the PRIMARY reasons for Rome's fall


Nor did anything in that uncited passage, coppied block of text, or entire article attribute to Gibbon that Christianity was the primary reason for Rome's fall.



> as per his infamous anti-church reputation, SURE IS grounds for you to deny anything!


So infamous that you can not come up with an actual quote or cited review to give substance to your words? You denied it to yourself Monkey.



> By now, im not too impressed with your cognitive qualities anyway.


I didn't think a screaming, flailing, scatting, addled, lying Monkey such as yourself could be impressed with anything beyond the ability to smear feces on a wall.



> yea, some voiceless douchebag on the internet probably DOES know more than the guy within reach of what primary sources have been available. Again, i'll go ahead and take the word of an actual scholar over than of some asshole looking to attribute human civilization to the dogma du jour.


Yes, an actual scholar so near reach of primary sources that the actual scholar couldn't be bothered to cite his work.



> dude, im only posting in this thread once per day.. CLEARLY there is a ten hour fucking window between my posts. Plenty of time for you to backpeddle and edit your posts accordingly.


As has already been demonstrated; 
you have confused me with another poster, see above;
you can not cite your claims against me(Where is that proof of me claiming there is no evolution? Where is that proof of me being set against scientific research);
you spew profanity and idiocy on a normal course of posting.
Thus you are addled, cowardly, and a liar. In both cases I have edited my post 7 minutes after submitting them, you took over 15.5 hours to reply to the first edited post and almost 17.367 hours to reply to the second edited post. If in that time, you can not be bothered to actually read what post you are replying to, you should not even bother replying.



> Face it. I busted your ass, as if it were even necessary by this point, for being a disingenuous asshole.


I'm sorry what? {cricket} {cricket} {cricket} Stop lying or start taking brain suppliments.



> Calling me a monkey will probably take the sting off of that giant red hand print on your face, dude.


Actually, I don't like calling you Monkey.

As to your picture about Cortez


> Hernando Cortez
> PRESERVING CIVILIZATION one gold bearing continent at a time!


You obviously fell asleep in some class to think that the men of the West came to the Americas as anything but VICTORIOUS CONQUERORS!


----------



## Gungnir (Jun 18, 2008)

And to Hammurabi, while his laws may have been nice -- I don't see what they have to do with the Allthing, Common Law, Germanic Juries, or the Juris Corpus Civilis.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 19, 2008)

Gungnir said:


> And to Hammurabi, while his laws may have been nice -- I don't see what they have to do with the Allthing, Common Law, Germanic Juries, or the Juris Corpus Civilis.



of course you don't.  Just like you don't see why a cross section of global civilizations unravel your claim that christianity allows us to wear shoes today.


----------



## editec (Jun 19, 2008)

Shogun, is that what you think Gungir is _really _saying?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 19, 2008)

*They do when they are datable by pigment and surrounding artifacts.*

according to whose testing method?  do we ASSUME that surrounding artifacts were used by the same people who made the cave drawings?  Do these things become vacuum sealed locations once the paint dried?  I mean, clearly Stonehenge was used by a single culture during a 20 year timeframe, eh?

*
You're right it does not; however (as I have said for the last few posts) this Woolly Rhino does show a possible origin from which the tale of the mythological creature called the Unicorn, could have been based.*

thats called a theory, dude.  It's also a theory that there is a wandering dinosaur deep in the African jungles.  It's also a theory that bigfoot, nessie, and the chupacabra are possibly neanderthal, a dinosaur and a blood sucking varmint.  Thankfully, humans have never had a steak of imagination to work over their lively schema regarding shit that they can't otherwise explain, eh?  I mean, if some ignorant ancient people thought a rhino was a unicorn then, clearly, unicorns exist.



*
(one extinct large fur covered grazing quadriped with a large horn located on the central foward upper part of its skull) x (9,000 years of the Telephone Game) just could very well be from where the myth of the Unicorn comes.*

*
MYTH* being the key word in your sentence.

*
I postulated that Ratites, Varanidaes, and Phorusrhacidaes could be the origin from which the myth of Dragons spread. *

Again, MYTH being the key word you cannot leave out of your reply.
*

You claimed that I was equating a Woolly Rhino to a Unicorn with this statement:

And then attempted to reinforce that by stating the fact that if a dinosaur is called a dragon it is still a dinosaur and can never be a dragon.*

You did equate a rhino with a unicorn just like you equated dinos with dragons.  Is this backpeddling good for your shins, dude?  Regardless of what it is CALLED, neither remain evidence of MYTHICAL beasts living on our planet.

*
So I corrected your implication that I am equating a myth with a reality, when I am saying the reality is the base from which the myth grew.*

yea.. NOW you rely on the word MYTH like a shield from your previous assumptions.  You know, kinda like NOW you have to narrow the tread topic to WESTERN civ despite the thread title....  The reality is not based on how the myth grew since THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A UNICORN OR DRAGON.


*
Then, Monkey, to show how stupid you are, I turned your game around on you:*

HA!

yea, ply that luke-warm birdlike shit elsewhere, dude.  BIRDLIKE doesn't belay the REPTILIAN nature of dinos.  Sure, I see the similarities between feathers and scales too.. BUT, that doesn't mean a fucking flying dino validates the legend of the ROC.  REGARDLESS of the myths believed by humanity.


*
Just as you don't think that Dinosaurs are mere Lizzards (akin to calling an Arachnid an Insect), I do not think a Woolly Rhino is a Unicorn.*

Yet, dinos WERE reptiles just like lizards are.  *Can you tell me how equestrian a fucking rhino is? *


*
Monkey, if you do not like my answers; you should stop making snide and stupid quips.*


It's not that I don't like your answers, dude.. Indeed, they provide a good 15 minutes of entertainment each morning this week.  Perhaps you should stop backpeddling and pretending that myths validate cryptozoology while deflecting away from the fact of a cross section of global civilizations...

I mean, since we all know how much of a civilization preserver Cortez was and all.

*
Start a thread on an alternative history where the Druidic civilization remained independent and I will speculate with you. But the Druidic civilization didn't remain independent and they didn't factor into the time frame we are discussing; so stop posting about them.*


Eat me.  Remind me what the title of THIS thread is again?  how christianity saved WHAT?  Indeed, this is where I enjoy watching you run, screaming, from the silliness of your own posts.  Indeed, they didn't become a factor because they were busy being dominated by the Roman culture much in the same way CHRISTIANS were out dominating the hell out of other CIVILIZATIONS.  Thus, your premise that christianity SAVED civ is about as farcical as the length you will go to backpeddle yourself a narrower arguement.  I'll KEEP posting about them, and the Chinese, and any other damn civilization I want to since these are the historic facts you desperately wish to avoid while pretending that the jebus cult is why we have an alphabet and wear shoes.


*
If this thread were about the importance of Taoist teachings on Chinese Civilization, I would harp on you just as vigorously as I am now if you had opined about a civilization other than China.
*

*How Christianity saved civilization*

dont cry on my should because you dropped your load prematuerley and now find yourself having to clean up the mess of your original statements, dude.  THIS THREAD didnt' specify western civ.  But, thats besides the point.  You assume that Civ would have died off had it not been for christianity in the west and Im going to still laugh as such a goofy fucking premise.  The FACT remains that congregated humanity becomes an interactive CIVILIZATION regardless of the dogma involved.  This is why you don't want to acknowledge the cross section of cultures that prove this beyond trying to gladhand the particular dogma that happens to flavor the culture that you identify with.  Bringing up rhino unicorns and birdlike reptiles wont change this FACT.

*
If it is the one most followed by the most powerful populations, yes it does.*

And, yet, here we are living in a world where CHINA, again, makes your goofy statement balk.  Why doesn't CHINA count in your equation, dude?  

So, let me extend your logic here.. So, because ROME was such a vast, powerful culture that dominated the shit out of other civs (like the west) then THEIR pantheon is also similarly to thank for the preservation of CIV, eh?  Ole Zeus was THE MAN, right?  This is why you don't like my Hammurabi reference, isnt it?  By attributing significant social events to the cultural dogma of the time, like you do with midieval europe, you also assume that Hammurabi, whose coded laws are DIRECTLY where we patterned our legal system after, is saving civilization due to his religious beliefs.  Such an idea is RETARDED, eh?  yet, I get the feeling that you'd agree if you identified with the dogma of Hammurabi.
*

Where have you learned this from? 
A) Evolution is a combination of factors that result in a general trend of natural selection of the fittest. Thus evolution will not assume because it is incapable of assuming.
B) There is no epitome in evolution.*


a combination of factors that include an environment that doesn't dictate which stronger specie will survive.  The Tyranosaurus was a pretty fit beast, eh?  Yet, here we are with none left roaming the planet.  Fitness of a specie is not the one midigating factor in evolution.  Indeed, where did you learn YOUR science from?


*
This is not what I stated. You would cry or laugh (or defecate yourself) at my perfect civilization.
*

oh im sure I would.  Likewise, im sure you would piss on yourself right before tying a noose were you thrust into MY best case scenerio.  Uh, whats your point, again?

*
Good thing I didn't say that one either.*

indeed, "christianity saved civilization" is so ambiguous!


*
In Civilization (WESTERN CIVILIZATION): 
what percipitated the Carolingian Renaissance;
in Dark Age Western Europe, where was education recieved;
in pre Italian Renaissance Western Europe, where were most scholars to be found;
in pre Italian Renaissance Western Europe, who was the cause of great building projects works of art;
in pre Italian Renaissance Western Europe, who created the monarchy system for which the barbarians competed, and in the doing so settled from tribal into state-level society?*

You ASSUME that all of this is the only path for which a civilization can take in order to survive.  Again, I hate to keep bitchslapping you with a cross section of global cultures but the FACT remains that there are plenty of other examples that don't fit the mold you are trying to force Civilization into.  Indeed, it is precisely BECAUSE of the very scarcity of education reserved for the christian church that makes your argument a total joke.  I mean, we NEEDED a fucking monarchy for humanity to interact with itself, didn't we?  Thank god masses of north American natives all refined to a society of state-level tribes don't count.. If only they wore shoes!



*Not who could have done it, but who did do it.*

Many people in many places.  Tell me, genius, how did christianity save the JEWS?  Their civilization predates your pony by thousands of years.  Why, and we even have some still roaming around today!  So, how thankful should they be for being "saved" by western europes black death dogma?

*
How could the Church have done anything for the Chinese, Hindus, Mayans, or Persians when it was (at that time) located in Western Europe? I don't want to talk about them because I am not talking about them. If I were talking about them I would talk about only them and nothing irrelevant. Which is what was being done until you became a screaming, flailing, scatting monkey!*

Of COURSE you don't want to talk about them.  Gosh, SHOCKER.  Thankfully, THEY don't count as a CIVILIZATION... or something.  

Indeed, what could the church have done?  destroyed their culture like every other example of christian involvement with non-christians comes to mind.

*
So if you so desire to talk about Chinese Civilization open a thread on it and I will regail you with stories abound of the Ming Dynasty. If you want to talk about what could have happened if there was no Church and the Chinese took over the world, open a speculative thread and I will cospeculate with you. *

Indeed, it's not speculation to call shennanigans on your opinon that civilization would simply not be were it not for christianty.  If you want to fall back on the whole "b-b-but I didn't mean everyone when I said civ - just europe" then so be it.  It remains laughable that christianity "saved" anything given it's history of death, illiteracy and squalor.  


*
Monkey, you must be brain addled again.

The light which was Rome extinguished, der Tag, Gotterdamerung, the End of Days. The only people left in a symbolence of order were religious philosophers and they had to hornswaggle a continent full of Barbarians. Remember, their ranks were soon filled with Barbarians too. If you are condemning them for not immediately becoming a nationalized health care state (with an epidemic preparedness plan) along with a tax payer funded public school system -- you're rediculous. 
*

yea, IM the rediculous one for seeing that medieval europe was far, FAR from the saving grace of civilization..  Indeed, lecture me on ethnocentrism some more after having to narrow your argument despite the thread title.  BARBARIANS STILL HAD A CIVILIZATION TOO.  They did not wander the fields grazing like animals.  Again, this is why you refuse to acknowledge teh druid CIVILIZATION before being ransacked by Rome.  Did it fit your Shoe wearing standard?  probably not.  But, then here you are making excuses for the fucking inquisistion, black death and crusades, NOT TO MENTION every other cultural interaction where christains were busy destroying CIVIZATIONS rather than "preserving" them. Spare me your goofy double standard.


*
William Tyndale
Old English Bible Translations
King James Version
English Translations of the Bible*


Indeed, now how many of those versions were complete and reflective of what we know as the bible today.. instead of scribed notes from the guy translating the latin and hebrew?  Further, how widespread were these editions READ?  Does this even REMOTELY reflect the civil interaction that was going on REGARDLESS between humans depite the dogma?  Of course not.. But, please, continue trying to pat your faith on it's back.

*

Monkey, you asserted that "it was christians that destroyed ROME's superiority in the world!"
I asked you, Monkey, to "Show proof that such {Christianity} was more detrimental" than a list of reasons.
You replied by copying a block of text from Wikipedia. I will note that you did not include the [citation needed] superscript that was attached to the end of the block of text you coppied. If you do not believe doing such to be intellectually dishonest, that is your own name to live with. However since you are a liar I doubt you care Monkey.*



AGAIN, I'll go ahead and take block text reference from a man who had a wee bit closer scope of reference than some internet bozo looking to crown his faith with one more bullshit accolade.  Trust me, dude.. hoping that a "citation needed" line discounts the premise of Gibbon's conclusions is both laughable and transparent.  Please, do continue to throw stones at intellectual dishonesty though.

Indeed, I sure am a liar that a historian named Gibbon blamed christians for the downfall of rome.  for REAL.



*
The text which you copied neither attributes to Gibbon the belief that the failure of Rome was explicitly the fault of Christians nor attributes to Gibbon the belief that Christianity in the Roman Empire was any more detrimental than the things which I cited. Since nothing else in that entire article attributed to Gibbon the belief that Christianity in the Roman Empire was any more detrimental than the things which I cited nor attributed to Gibbon the belief that the failure of Rome was explicitly the fault of Christians -- your appeal to authority was denied.*


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

ok dude.. YOU go ahead and believe that i'm lying to you.

*"That public virtue which among the ancients was denominated patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members. Such a sentiment, which had rendered the legions of the republic almost invincible, could make but a very feeble impression on the mercenary servants of a despotic prince; and it became necessary to supply that defect by other motives, of a different, but not less forcible nature; honour and religion." Chapter 1*

Best of Gibbon's DECLINE & FALL

The rise of a city, which swelled into an Empire, may deserve, as a singular prodigy, the reflection of a philosophic mind. But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, *and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine;* and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians.

Gibbon: General Observations


As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear, without surprise or scandal, that the introduction, or at least the abuse, of Christianity had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of the military spirit were buried in the cloister; a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes, who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and the more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody, and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country.


Gibbon: General Observations



*
To this you replied that you were quoting Gibbon's words. Since you were quoting an uncited summary of Gibbon's writings, you were not quoting Gibbon's words. Thus you are a liar.*

fine, bitch.  Read above.  Gibbons very own words.  I hope this little charade buys you a couple hours of internet reputation or something.  NOW, TELL me how Gibbons is not directly faulting christianity with the fall of rome.




*
Nor did anything in that uncited passage, coppied block of text, or entire article attribute to Gibbon that Christianity was the primary reason for Rome's fall.*

HA!

indeed..

*and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine*

SURE is ambiguous!

*
So infamous that you can not come up with an actual quote or cited review to give substance to your words? You denied it to yourself Monkey.*


Did you hope I WOULDNT dig up the man's actual words?  Scroll up homey.



*
I didn't think a screaming, flailing, scatting, addled, lying Monkey such as yourself could be impressed with anything beyond the ability to smear feces on a wall.*


OR, in this case, curbstomp your silly little retarded notion that christianity is the SAVIOUR of CIVILIZATION, eh?



poor guy.. calling me names really does make your opinion relevant!

not that I mind.. since, clearly, i've been running laps around you for pages now.


*
Yes, an actual scholar so near reach of primary sources that the actual scholar couldn't be bothered to cite his work.*

Again, if THIS weak shit is what you hope will keep you from having to avoid Gibbons then you must really be red in the face right about now, eh?




*
As has already been demonstrated; 
you have confused me with another poster, see above;
you can not cite your claims against me(Where is that proof of me claiming there is no evolution? Where is that proof of me being set against scientific research);
you spew profanity and idiocy on a normal course of posting.
Thus you are addled, cowardly, and a liar. In both cases I have edited my post 7 minutes after submitting them, you took over 15.5 hours to reply to the first edited post and almost 17.367 hours to reply to the second edited post. If in that time, you can not be bothered to actually read what post you are replying to, you should not even bother replying.
*


Hey, make ANOTHER excuse for ANOTHER stupid assertion of yours, dude.  It's cool.  I think we've seen enough to follow your pattern here.  Feel free to edit whatever you find necessary though.  Clearly, i post according to your itinerary!



*
I'm sorry what? {cricket} {cricket} {cricket} Stop lying or start taking brain suppliments.
*


BIG WORDS from a guy hoping I won't reply until the following morning, dude.  Plenty of editing and redaction time, right?  Hey, I probably wont reply for another 24 hours so make sure you sweep up your posts as necessary!  Hey, that window might even be enough time to read a chapter or two of Gibbons!



*Actually, I don't like calling you Monkey.*

sure you do.  It's a reflex to having your ass handed to you.  It amounts to a kid huffing and puffing as he stalks off to his room where an authority figure told his to go as punishment.


*
As to your picture about Cortez

You obviously fell asleep in some class to think that the men of the West came to the Americas as anything but VICTORIOUS CONQUERORS!
*


Apparently, you need to replace your Sarcasm battery.  My point, that you seemed to miss, spoke of Cortez's preservation of civilization depsite having destroyed one.  You know, being a christian from western europe one might have figured that his presence would be like mana from heaven instead of a cultural black death.


TENEZ!


----------



## editec (Jun 19, 2008)

> NOW, TELL me how Gibbons is not directly faulting christianity with the fall of rome.



Directly faulting?

Bit of an overstatement, don't you think?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 19, 2008)

what is Constantine's claim to fame in the hierarchy of Roman rulers again?


----------



## tipper (Jun 23, 2008)

manifold said:


> From wikipedia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for being a voice for Christians. It's about time one of us spoke out.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 23, 2008)

....and stoned someone like the good ole days?


----------



## editec (Jun 23, 2008)

> what is Constantine's claim to fame in the hierarchy of Roman rulers again?


 
Which proves what, exactly?


----------



## Shogun (Jun 23, 2008)

...exactly my point about the role christianity played in the downfall of rome as described by Gibbons.  Say, how can christianity save civilization if it couldn't save one of the earliest examples of human civilization?


----------



## AllieBaba (Jun 23, 2008)

Civilization is doomed, but our souls aren't.


----------



## Gungnir (Jul 5, 2008)

Shogun said:
			
		

> thats called a theory, dude.



Of course it is.





> It's also a theory that there is a wandering dinosaur deep in the African jungles.  It's also a theory that bigfoot, nessie, and the chupacabra are possibly neanderthal, a dinosaur and a blood sucking varmint.



That is supposition and speculation.





> Thankfully, humans have never had a steak of imagination to work over their lively schema regarding shit that they can't otherwise explain, eh?  I mean, if some ignorant ancient people thought a rhino was a unicorn then, clearly, unicorns exist.



Wrong conclusions; clearly those Rhinos existed and the "streak of imagination" worked over the years to create the Unicorn story.





> MYTH[/B] being the key word in your sentence.



Post #107

"No Monkey, what this means is that the fables of Unicorns and Dragons possibly originated in now extinct species whose descriptions were gradually altered through the millenia of retellings"

post #100

"European rhinos died out so only *folktales* and cave paintings would have been left. *Over the millenia* it is *quite possible tales* about Rhinos *became Unicorns*. Or are you too stupid to see that?"



Myth being the *very key* word.





> Regardless of what it is CALLED, neither remain evidence of MYTHICAL beasts living on our planet.



Good thing I never said there was.





> kinda like NOW you have to narrow the tread topic to WESTERN civ



Which is what you would do if you had any reading comprehension.





> THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A UNICORN OR DRAGON.



Never disagreed. Why are you in all caps? 





> that doesn't mean a fucking flying dino validates the legend of the ROC.  REGARDLESS of the myths believed by humanity.



If the Roc myth was from South East Asia or the Pacific Islands I would say it likely had a basis in reality, just like the Unicorn.





> Yet, dinos WERE reptiles just like lizards are.



Not if they were luke-warm blooded.





> *Can you tell me how equestrian a fucking rhino is? *



After several thousand years of retelling and invention, I'd be surprised if a Rhino remained an herbivore in stories. To your question, very. Both are quadrupedal odd-toed ungulates; similar in grazing, digestion and structure.





			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> Gungnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I said, there is no epitome. Fitness is not a measure of epitome but a measure of how successful a species is within an environment. The large dinosaurs ceased to be fit when the world charred after the Chicxulub Impact.



			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> according to whose testing method?  do we ASSUME that surrounding artifacts were used by the same people who made the cave drawings?  Do these things become vacuum sealed locations once the paint dried?  I mean, clearly Stonehenge was used by a single culture during a 20 year timeframe, eh?



These locations are testable just as trash pits and multilevel sites are. Since the paintings are the questioned subject we can analyze their materials, and scale them against known pigments and existing sources. Use recovered artifacts and the local fossil record to verify your findings.





> Perhaps you should stop backpeddling and pretending that myths validate cryptozoology while deflecting away from the fact of a cross section of global civilizations...



If you have a backpeddling claim cite it. Before soon, I suspect you might be blaming my two edited posts for your Checkbook being off balance.



Monkey, remember, you brought up Unicorns first. I showed there is more to this world than your simple analysis.





> I mean, since we all know how much of a civilization preserver Cortez was and all.



He did all right by my people. That metric is all that matters in this thread.





> Eat me.



I'll bring the fava beans and Chianti.





> Remind me what the title of THIS thread is again?  how christianity saved WHAT?  Indeed, this is where I enjoy watching you run, screaming, from the silliness of your own posts.  Indeed, they didn't become a factor because they were busy being dominated by the Roman culture much in the same way CHRISTIANS were out dominating the hell out of other CIVILIZATIONS.  Thus, your premise that christianity SAVED civ is about as farcical as the length you will go to backpeddle yourself a narrower arguement.  I'll KEEP posting about them, and the Chinese, and any other damn civilization I want to since these are the historic facts



Mayan Civilization, Aztec Civilization, Incan Civilization, Chinese Civilization, Hindu Civilization, Ethiopian Civilization, Western Civilization. Civilization*s*. Obviously the non-plural form used in the thread title, along with the quite specific quoted text in the OP restrict this discussion to a single civilization which was quite specifically and exactly addressed in the quoted text as "Western Civilization".



No one disparages those others as not having their own civilization which thrived independently of others but they are just not the subject of discussion in this thread.





> you desperately wish to avoid while pretending that the jebus cult is why we have an alphabet and wear shoes.



Where do you come up with the shoe fetish?





> dont cry on my should because you dropped your load prematuerley and now find yourself having to clean up the mess of your original statements, dude.  THIS THREAD didnt' specify western civ.



By specifying key participants and institutions of Western Civilization, and by quoting an article that specified Western Civilization the discussion is restricted to Western Civilization.





> But, thats besides the point.  You assume that Civ would have died off had it not been for christianity in the west



I think that our current civilization would not have come to pass. I also doubt that the technological and philosophical progress of Western Europe would have been as rapid.





> The FACT remains that congregated humanity becomes an interactive CIVILIZATION regardless of the dogma involved.



Agreed, but it is stupid and silly to say that one is the exact same as the other. This being what you are doing you are stupid and silly. Monkey.





> And, yet, here we are living in a world where CHINA, again, makes your goofy statement balk.  Why doesn't CHINA count in your equation, dude?



Because they stopped using their Civilization.





> So, let me extend your logic here.. So, because ROME was such a vast, powerful culture that dominated the shit out of other civs (like the west) then THEIR pantheon is also similarly to thank for the preservation of CIV, eh?  Ole Zeus was THE MAN, right?



My logic here regards the institution of the Church. Not the Pantheon as already discussed. Taking a quote from Mr. Gibbon though:



The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire said:


> The public virtue which among the ancients was denominated patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members. Such a sentiment, which had rendered the legions of the republic almost invincible, could make but a very feeble impression on the mercenary servants of a despotic prince; and it became necessary to supply that defect by other motives, of a different, but not less forcible nature; honour and religion. The peasant, or mechanic, imbibed the useful prejudice that he was advanced to the more dignified profession of arms, in which his rank and reputation wold depend on his own valour; and that, although the prowess of a private soldier must often escape the notice of fame, his own behaviour might sometimes confer glory or disgrace on the company the legion, or even the army, to whose honours he was associated. On his first entrance into the service, an oath was administered to him, with every circumstance of solemnity. He promised never to desert his standard, to submit his own will to the commands of his leaders, and to sacrifice his loife for the safety of the Emperor and the empire. The attachment of the Roman troops to their standards was inspired by the united influence of religion and of honour. The golden eagle, which glittered in the front of the legion, was the object of their fondest devotion; nor was it esteemed less impious than it was ignominious, to abandon that sacred ensign in the hour of danger.



So yes, the religion made of the Legionnaire's duty, honor, and valor in solitude and in cohesion proved a very real boon to the Roman people.





			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> This is why you don't like my Hammurabi reference, isnt it?  By attributing significant social events to the cultural dogma of the time, like you do with midieval europe, you also assume that Hammurabi, whose coded laws are DIRECTLY where we patterned our legal system after, is saving civilization due to his religious beliefs.  Such an idea is RETARDED, eh?  yet, I get the feeling that you'd agree if you identified with the dogma of Hammurabi.



Attend;



			
				Gungnir said:
			
		

> And to Hammurabi, while his laws may have been nice -- I don't see what they have to do with the Allthing, Common Law, Germanic Juries, or the Juris Corpus Civilis.











			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> Gungnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not at all, I just want you to answer those questions as they are the subject at hand. If you want to talk about another civilization go open a thread about that particular civilization and I will discuss it with you.





> Indeed, it is precisely BECAUSE of the very scarcity of education reserved for the christian church that makes your argument a total joke.



This is what was left when Barbarians came through and when they settled down they took it for their own uses. As said previously this culminated in the surpassing of the Church in the Italian Renaissance. Back to the Scriptorium, those monastic institutions faded as people began opening their own bookshops. I'm not saying the Church was the best, just that it was the actual conduit of preservation.









			
				Shogun said:
			
		

> Gungnir said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*

Sure, but who actually did this for our current Civilization, Western Civilization.






			Tell me, genius, how did christianity save the JEWS?  Their civilization predates your pony by thousands of years.
		
Click to expand...


Just what do the Khazar-Idumeans have to do with Western Civilization?






			Why, and we even have some still roaming around today!  So, how thankful should they be for being "saved" by western europes black death dogma?
		
Click to expand...


Ask George Soros and Michael Chertoff.






			Indeed, what could the church have done?  destroyed their culture like every other example of christian involvement with non-christians comes to mind.
		
Click to expand...


Sounds good to me.






			Indeed, it's not speculation to call shennanigans on your opinon that civilization would simply not be were it not for christianty.  If you want to fall back on the whole "b-b-but I didn't mean everyone when I said civ - just europe" then so be it.  It remains laughable that christianity "saved" anything given it's history of death, illiteracy and squalor.
		
Click to expand...


Until you provide some thing that actually was a conduit for skill set preservation for our current Civilization (that's Western Civilization to you Monkey) which rivaled the Church, you're just looking for a reason to bash the Church.






			BARBARIANS STILL HAD A CIVILIZATION TOO.  They did not wander the fields grazing like animals.
		
Click to expand...


The razzia culture worked out so well for the Bedouin didn't it?






			Again, this is why you refuse to acknowledge teh druid CIVILIZATION before being ransacked by Rome.
		
Click to expand...


The Celts weren't Barbarians; heathens, yes. It doesn't really matter how glorious a civilization they had when it ceased to exist.






			Did it fit your Shoe wearing standard?[/quote
]
Monkey, you have an odd shoe fetish.






			But, then here you are making excuses for the fucking inquisistion, black death and crusades, NOT TO MENTION every other cultural interaction where christains were busy destroying CIVIZATIONS rather than "preserving" them. Spare me your goofy double standard.
		
Click to expand...


When it comes to whatever promotes my civilization or my people over another for our benefit--there is only one standard, only one metric. Meet Darwin.






			Indeed, now how many of those versions were complete and reflective of what we know as the bible today.. instead of scribed notes from the guy translating the latin and hebrew?  Further, how widespread were these editions READ?  Does this even REMOTELY reflect the civil interaction that was going on REGARDLESS between humans depite the dogma?  Of course not.. But, please, continue trying to pat your faith on it's back.
		
Click to expand...


Wrong conclusion. This shows that the Barbarians had settled and were taking the skillset from the Church. You would have realized the connection had you comprehended the Scriptorium article.








			AGAIN, I'll go ahead and take block text reference from a man who had a wee bit closer scope of reference than some internet bozo looking to crown his faith with one more bullshit accolade.  Trust me, dude.. hoping that a "citation needed" line discounts the premise of Gibbon's conclusions is both laughable and transparent.
		
Click to expand...


I'm just hoping you can actually back up what you say.






			Please, do continue to throw stones at intellectual dishonesty though.
		
Click to expand...


I prefer the Rack personally. Nothing like a good stretch.






			ok dude.. YOU go ahead and believe that i'm lying to you.
		
Click to expand...


That was already proved to my satisfaction. This is now about you actually getting text to back up the level of condemnation which you claim a man actually stated.





So now you bring on the quotes, at least you have begun to do something right.






"That public virtue which among the ancients was denominated patriotism, is derived from a strong sense of our own interest in the preservation and prosperity of the free government of which we are members. Such a sentiment, which had rendered the legions of the republic almost invincible, could make but a very feeble impression on the mercenary servants of a despotic prince; and it became necessary to supply that defect by other motives, of a different, but not less forcible nature; honour and religion." Chapter 1



Best of Gibbon's DECLINE & FALL

Click to expand...


Well see my full quote above. In this instance Gibbon was referring to the situation that as the Roman soldier ceased to be at the least an enfranchised citizen who served for public virtue but any commoner and mercenary, the Empire had to foster some sense of service and this was created by a religion of valor and honor. 








			The rise of a city, which swelled into an Empire, may deserve, as a singular prodigy, the reflection of a philosophic mind. But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians.



Gibbon: General Observations

Click to expand...


And all of those preceding Emperors who relaxed the "military government" or those legions which "oppressed the freedom of the Republic"?






			As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear, without surprise or scandal, that the introduction, or at least the abuse, of Christianity had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of the military spirit were buried in the cloister; a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes, who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and the more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody, and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country.





Gibbon: General Observations

Click to expand...


And how does "some influence on the decline and fall" equate to a belief that the failure of Rome was explicitly the fault of Christians.?






			
				Shogun said:
			
		




			
				Gungnir said:
			
		


			To this you replied that you were quoting Gibbon's words. Since you were quoting an uncited summary of Gibbon's writings, you were not quoting Gibbon's words. Thus you are a liar.
		
Click to expand...


fine, bitch.  Read above.  Gibbons very own words.  I hope this little charade buys you a couple hours of internet reputation or something.  NOW, TELL me how Gibbons is not directly faulting christianity with the fall of rome.
		
Click to expand...


Still you can't get something to support yourself with. Gibbon certainly includes it as a list of faults but never lists it as any more damaging than the already existing conditions. In fact, I am still waiting for you to show proof that Christianity in Rome was more detrimental than:

Octavian not codifying rules of succession for the Emperorhood;

the appointment of Commodus as Emperor;

the coming to power of the Severan Dynasty;

Caracalla's giving citizenship to all freemen in the Empire;

the continual Barbarian migration into Europe;

the increased centralization of power to the Emperorhood;

the tetrarchy;

the use of slave labor over the steam engine;

increasing use of foreign mercenaries and granting of lands to them;

increasing trouble with Asiatic upstarts and powers.











			
				Shogun said:
			
		




			
				Gungnir said:
			
		


			Nor did anything in that uncited passage, coppied block of text, or entire article attribute to Gibbon that Christianity was the primary reason for Rome's fall.
		
Click to expand...




HA!



indeed..



and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine



SURE is ambiguous!
		
Click to expand...


To bad the passage refers to the military discipline. Rome had another 130 years to blunder on, in that amount of time the United State of America became the master of this Hemisphere and nearly the other. And that includes destroying half of the country in a terrible civil war.






			Did you hope I WOULDNT dig up the man's actual words?  Scroll up homey.
		
Click to expand...


I hoped that you could actually back up your claims. Sadly, you can't. Oh, and scroll up Monkey, I spanked your ass on your first quote.










			not that I mind.. since, clearly, i've been running laps around you for pages now.
		
Click to expand...


There are people in the Special Olympics that run laps better than you.








			Again, if THIS weak shit is what you hope will keep you from having to avoid Gibbons then you must really be red in the face right about now, eh?
		
Click to expand...


Speaking of weak shit, Monkey, I just smacked down your appeal to authority again.










			Hey, make ANOTHER excuse for ANOTHER stupid assertion of yours, dude.  It's cool.  I think we've seen enough to follow your pattern here.  Feel free to edit whatever you find necessary though.  Clearly, i post according to your itinerary!
		
Click to expand...


If you can't bother to read what you're posting to don't reply. But on the issue, since it takes you several post after my two edited post to invent some accusation, I think we've seen enough to follow your pattern here. Especially since you have several outstanding uncited claims. Oh and I smacked you down repeatedly on issues from the Fall of the Roman Empire, to your weirdo shoe fetish, to evolution, to unicorns, to grammar. So Monkey, sit down and start thinking about how to get your clenched fist out of the coconut because I''ve got the fava beans simmering on the stove.






			BIG WORDS from a guy hoping I won't reply until the following morning, dude.  Plenty of editing and redaction time, right?
		
Click to expand...


Since each edit was seven minutes after the post and for mechanical errors with tags, you don't have a leg to stand on or a tail to hang from Monkey.






			Hey, I probably wont reply for another 24 hours so make sure you sweep up your posts as necessary!  Hey, that window might even be enough time to read a chapter or two of Gibbons!
		
Click to expand...


Should it worry you? If I edit a post after you've posted call bullshit, but since I haven't you don't have a thing to worry about. If I change my opinion as you say, then surely that is a boon to you. But I just as much expect to be blamed for admitting to shooting down a UFO at Roswell and screwing up your Checkbook when it comes to a poster as dishonest and brain addled as yourself, Monkey.






			Apparently, you need to replace your Sarcasm battery.
		
Click to expand...


I wasn't being sarcastic.






			My point, that you seemed to miss, spoke of Cortez's preservation of civilization depsite having destroyed one.  You know, being a christian from western europe one might have figured that his presence would be like mana from heaven instead of a cultural black death.
		
Click to expand...


Who of my people should care what he wrought on a bunch of human sacrificing cannibals? He did alright in advancing our people and OUR civilization.





Monkey, once again, you have failed.
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## editec (Jul 5, 2008)

Shogun said:


> ...exactly my point about the role christianity played in the downfall of rome as described by Gibbons. Say, how can christianity save civilization if it couldn't save one of the earliest examples of human civilization?


 
I am not arging that Christianity SAVED civilization.

 I have repeatedly said the statement is ridiculous, and something only someone with a passing familiarity with history would think even makes sense.  

I am merely suggesting that the statement that Chritianity caused the downfall of Rome is also a  preposterous assertion, and that too is a statement that only someone with a passing familiarity with history of the Roman Empire would think makes sense.  

And no I am NOT impressed if one takes a single sentence out of Gibbons' tome and misconstrues his meaning from that sentence to imply that he was saying Christianity_ caused_ the downfall of Rome, either.

Gibbons' intentions were not to say that Rome fell because of Constintine or of Christianity, either.

Rome was on its way down long before Constitine was even born.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 5, 2008)

I suggest you go back and remember exactly WHY Gibbons's Fall of Rome theory was controversial then.  If his decipher of christianity's role was merely a footnote it wouldn't have become THE factor that his writings are remembered for.  You might as well suggest that natural selection was only a tiny, insignificant aspect of Darwin's theory of evolution.


----------

