Is christianity really that bad? Or was?

[The Archregimancy]

Boy, I don't usually get things quite that off. I should stick to my specialty (modern history).

There's no shame in being pwned by The Archregimancy.

Sigged (maybe slightly egotistically)

Edit: Maybe not; thought better of it - slightly too egotistical. Thanks, though

[H N Fiddlebottoms VIII]

Insipred some great art, helped burn some witches, founded some hospitals, went on crusades...

I guess it's just about what you value most, really.

And the Crusades were what dragged Europe out of the dark ages, because those mean Muslims were finally forced to share their copies of Aristotle. It is the same basic conflict that has played out in University systems for decades, Student A has checked out all the materials related to Person B to write his term paper, leaving the rest of the class without resources. So they invade Student A's dorm, set the building on fire, escape with the books and have a Renaissance, by which I mean they get drunk and run around campus naked.

[Beingthebest]

So yeah Religion is a joke, watch the movie Zeit Geist and form your own opinion. I mean the bible has a good message, so do other holy books. but most of them are fiction. At least people behave themselves though because they think they will burn in hell.

[Wilgrove]

OK. So according to family guy (Yes I know. But they're normally spot on with that kind of stuff.) So Christianity caused the dark ages and stopped the advance of technology right in its tracks right? Tell me your thoughts/rants/insults/mehs/explanations because I don't know much on this subject. So, start ranting NSG!

Actually yea, I could buy that. I mean this was the time when Galileo said the earth was not the center of the galaxy/universe, and the Church punished him for it. This was also the time when people didn't rely on thoughts and reasoning but instead rely on The Bible. So, if the Dark Ages hasn't happened, then yea I think it'd be safe to say we'd be further along when it comes to advances in technology and other areas.

[Libertarian Governance]

Not actually. They destroyed every trace of Greek and roman classical civilization.

Newsflash - The Greeks were Christian.

The only reason we know of those great stories today are due to the muslims.

I'm sure you have a good reason for discounting the contribution of the (Christian, not to belabor the point) Byzantine Empire in preserving classical knowledge. Right?

Classical Greece as in Alexander the 3rd the great. Byzantium was one of the main cultures burning everything they could find. Nah, Christians of modern times have done better

[The Archregimancy]

Classical Greece as in Alexander the 3rd the great. Byzantium was one of the main cultures burning everything they could find. Nah, Christians of modern times have done better

I call bollocks. Please share your source.

[Andaluciae]

OK. So according to family guy...

Ahhhhhhhhhh...there's the problem.

Probably, post-Roman population decentralization as a result of disease and the destabilization of agriculture by climatic change had more to do with the decrease in the development of ideas during the Middle Ages. Technological development kept well apace during the era (as it tends to do during "dark" ages). The development of the Printing Press, Gunpowder, advanced Masonry, the Mouldboard plough and advanced shipbuilding were achievements of the Middle Ages. I'd hardly call it a time of stagnant technology.

[Andaluciae]

OK. So according to family guy (Yes I know. But they're normally spot on with that kind of stuff.) So Christianity caused the dark ages and stopped the advance of technology right in its tracks right? Tell me your thoughts/rants/insults/mehs/explanations because I don't know much on this subject. So, start ranting NSG!

Actually yea, I could buy that. I mean this was the time when Galileo said the earth was not the center of the galaxy/universe, and the Church punished him for it. This was also the time when people didn't rely on thoughts and reasoning but instead rely on The Bible. So, if the Dark Ages hasn't happened, then yea I think it'd be safe to say we'd be further along when it comes to advances in technology and other areas.

Actually, the persecution of Galileo Galilei occurred well after the end of the Middle Ages. Over a century separated the "end" of that era from said persecution. Even his predecessor, Copernicus, carried out his work during the schismatic period of the Reformation.

[Yootopia]

So yeah Religion is a joke, watch the movie Zeit Geist and form your own opinion.

Good call, although I would personally suggest that people form their own opinions hot off the back of watching the Passion of Christ.

[Wanderjar]

OK. So according to family guy (Yes I know. But they're normally spot on with that kind of stuff.) So Christianity caused the dark ages and stopped the advance of technology right in its tracks right? Tell me your thoughts/rants/insults/mehs/explanations because I don't know much on this subject. So, start ranting NSG!

I don't so much blame the religion as the institutions. I'm a very religious guy but I hate organized religion, I think its evil. I don't need some priest/pastor telling me what to feel and how to believe, thats dangerous and only breeds idiocy. Sure, some people on this forum will say I'm an idiot for believing in God, and I think that such a comment is ignorant (I don't care whether they believe or not, but they should respect my right to). In short...religion itself isn't inherently evil. Just the people doing the worshipping

[The Archregimancy]

I think the problem lies much deeper, with the first real emperor of the Roman Republic, Augustus. Romans were as nervous with the word Monarch as rigth-winged conservationists with communism. So Augustus had to do everything possible to look like a ordinary roman. Due to this façade of a roman republic there was no real heir to the emperor throne, the people of Rome simply knew who to choose, almost always someone close to the previous emperor as he could choose who to place in which position.

This system worked fine until 300 years, then the dynasty fell and there wasn't anyone to follow, Rome became chaotic with no real emperor to lead. Senators picked their own emperor, then armies picked their own emperor until you have 35 emperors in 1 year. Finally a new system came but that didn't seem to be working either. Then finally Constantine came who saw Jesus in a vision and became an unofficial Christian giving massive amounts of land to the Church.

Would augustus or the dynasty had an actual heir then the crisis could have never existed and Constantine would never be in power to make Christianity a state religion.

Your understanding of the Roman Principate is confused.

The Western Roman Empire was largely non-dynastic, at least in the sense of sons succeeding fathers (highly infrequent) - though succession by adopted sons was not unknown. Initially this seems to be the same point you're trying to make in your first paragraph, but your second paragraph reference to a 'dynasty falling' makes no sense given the available chronologies.

The last emperor of Augustus' Julio-Claudian dynasty was Nero, in AD68.

The last emperor of the largely adoptive (though related by marriage) Antonine family was Commodus, in AD192.

The Severan 'dynasty' ends in 235 with the death of Alexander Severus, which precipitates the Crisis of the Third Century.

If by '300 years later' you're actually trying to refer to the fall of Diocletian's Tetrarchy (though your reference to '35 emperors in a year' seems to confuse the collapse of the Tetrarchy with the Crisis of the Third Century), then the problem here wasn't uncertainty over whom should succeed, but rather the failure of various claimants to follow the previously agreed upon adoptive system of succession. Since the wars of the Tetrarchy were followed by Constantine founding his own dynasty, and being succeeded by his three sons, uncertainty over the succession isn't really the issue '300 years later'.

It was indeed a crucial issue in the near-anarchy of the third century between the death of Alexander Severus in 235 and the accession of Aurelian in 270, but not so much in the events following the abdication of Diocletian in 305 - at least not in the sense you imply of competing senatorial and military centres of power. The last emperors raised to the purple by the Senate were in fact Pupienus and Balbus in 238 (the 'Year of the Six Emperors'), at the beginning of the third-century crisis.

[Flameswroth]

I think there's a difference between saying the Dark Ages were caused by anything and saying that the Dark Ages is the name given to a natural stagnation in progression. I am more inclined to believe the latter.

However, if they WERE caused by Christianity in any way I am grateful to them. Those Dark Ages, and lore revolving around them that developed later, have provided an abundance of material for the fantasy genre of entertainment in the forms of movies, video games, and table-top RPG's. This pleases me greatly.

[Rhodmhire]

Visigoths assraping Rome caused the Dark Ages.

I wish you were my History teacher.

Anyways no, Christianity like any other religion has the great, great, great plausibility to be contorted in meaning and distorted in message--or as New Kereptica put it, assraped--by its followers.

Christianity is a religion based in part off of repentance to Jesus Christ, a man who was by Biblical standards the essence of perfect humanity, with no sin. A key goal, not necessarily the goal by some perspectives, but a goal of Christianity is to live life somewhat like Christ to spread his Message and unite man through him.

Henceforth, man, being imperfect and full of sin, has a seemingly implausible and somewhat illogical task at hand: living up in some way to perfection and bringing peace by living up to standards of perfection, repenting to cleanse one's self of sin that destroys said perfection and peace to obtain peace and, indefinitely, salvation.

Perfection and peace being two very vague terms up for a vast spectrum of interpretation, man has the great tendency, as I said, to contort meanings and messages that are to be delivered by living up to Christ--again--the essence of perfect humanity.

In short, people fuck up. A lot. They ain't perfect. They ain't peaceful.

Religion is often in some way intended to bring about a sense of peace with perfection/peace as a base.

(Note, I don't know every religious group's core belief(s), therefore the "often" and "in some way" are thrown in there. Disclaimer in non-infernally small text ftw.)

Therefore, people fuck up religion and religious beliefs/foundations. A lot.

They ain't what the base of religion is often intended to be, or at least in the case of what you wish to be interpreted--Christianity.

The true core of Christianity is this:

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Love your God, love your man.

That's as deep as you can get with the core, and even something as basic, simple, and honestly non-harmful to man can be twisted into doing such horrid things that one can't even fathom how, nor why.

Often times, simply because man himself is imperfect and unable to live up to these two simple tasks.

If people would tone it down a bit, have more open minds, be less critical, and be more willing to learn new perspectives and interpretations, we wouldn't be in a lot of messes with Christianity being somewhat a relevant and prominent root.

I don't really think Christianity is the problem, my friend.

In the end, religion really isn't the problem.

Man is.

As usual.

Wow, I haven't written anything half this long on the forum in ages, probably full of errors and that, but that's my $0.02.

I'd give you more, but I'm broke.

[Zatarack]

^Superb.

So yeah Religion is a joke, watch the movie Zeit Geist and form your own opinion.

Good god I hope you're joking.

[HairyHares]

You also had the Black Plague which wiped out a large amount of the population , helped cause the Dark Ages quite a bit . Also helped spread Christianity they at least came up with an explanation and some hope which is pretty good if everyone around you is dropping dead .

[Yootopia]

You also had the Black Plague which wiped out a large amount of the population , helped cause the Dark Ages quite a bit .

In the mid-14th century?

[Zatarack]

I think he meant the Plague of Justinian. Still not the cause of the dark ages.

[Pevisopolis]

[response to title]

The Religion of Christianity itself, no. Quite a few practicers of Christianity, Yes.

[Tybra]

Your understanding of the Roman Principate is confused.

The Western Roman Empire was largely non-dynastic, at least in the sense of sons succeeding fathers (highly infrequent) - though succession by adopted sons was not unknown.

Although succession was often not through direct relation (father-son) the following emperor was not uncommon the close if not part of the Imperial family, hence the name dynasty.

Initially this seems to be the same point you're trying to make in your first paragraph, but your second paragraph reference to a 'dynasty falling' makes no sense given the available chronologies.

The last emperor of Augustus' Julio-Claudian dynasty was Nero, in AD68.

You do have a point there, yes there was Nero who was then end of the Julio dynasty, I admit I forgot. Although the adoptive age can also be deducted to Augustus (augustus Tiberius.)

Another interesting aspect was Augustus age, he became so old (in roman standard) many people forgot how Rome was before A., hence one central ruler was already embedded into the minds of the roman public.

The last emperor of the largely adoptive (though related by marriage) Antonine family was Commodus, in AD192.

The Severan 'dynasty' ends in 235 with the death of Alexander Severus, which precipitates the Crisis of the Third Century.

That is questionable, one could say it already started with Aurelius, the ‘Father’ of Commodus (before anyone brings this up yes, the guy from the gladiator movie). Although rome had in the past fought expansion battles and their military was solely focussed on such a manner ( large force but heavily concentrated.) In the time of the philosopher emperor there was stagnation of the borders, instead of expansion the Romans now fought a border protection battles.

Personally however I believe the fundamental flaw within augustus’s way of obtaining power and passing on this power which we now refer to as emperor mainly that there were no actual rules to the ascension of power causing the late roman Crisis.

If by '300 years later' you're actually trying to refer to the fall of Diocletian's Tetrarchy (though your reference to '35 emperors in a year' seems to confuse the collapse of the Tetrarchy with the Crisis of the Third Century), then the problem here wasn't uncertainty over whom should succeed, but rather the failure of various claimants to follow the previously agreed upon adoptive system of succession. Since the wars of the Tetrarchy were followed by Constantine founding his own dynasty, and being succeeded by his three sons, uncertainty over the succession isn't really the issue '300 years later'.

Actually I was mentioning the crisis in the 3rd century, with 300 years later I was thinking from Augustus inertial ascension to power in 23 bc (or 30 bc).

On a side note I find the East-West split during the Tetrarchy quite interesting as it somewhat resembles the division made up by Augustus to promote himself during the triumvirate.

It was indeed a crucial issue in the near-anarchy of the third century between the death of Alexander Severus in 235 and the accession of Aurelian in 270, but not so much in the events following the abdication of Diocletian in 305 - at least not in the sense you imply of competing senatorial and military centres of power. The last emperors raised to the purple by the Senate were in fact Pupienus and Balbus in 238 (the 'Year of the Six Emperors'), at the beginning of the third-century crisis.

Well it isn’t always easy to say, many generals proclaimed themselves, or rather their armies proclaimed them, to emperor. The sources we have, coins for example show that there even was an emperor who ruled for but a few days.

Although Augustus was not entirely to blame he was partlially at fault. There were however several other factors which also played a role in the Crisis from which the tetrarchy developed out of which Constatine rose.

As such one could say that would Augustus have not become sole ruler of Rome the crisis would not happen. No crisis would mean that there would not have been a Tetrarchy. And so Constantine could never conquered all of rome and make Christianity the state religion.

[Angleter]

I thought it was the Muslims that were the major technological power in the dark ages.

During the early medieval period they were but then the western christian nations surpassed them.

Mostly due to the formers Isolationism.
Imagine if the khan didn't die so early and continued his conquest of Europe?

You either mean one of the following two things:

a. The Khalifahs, not the Khan. They did die, but it had little effect on the spread of Islam. Also the Umayyad conquest of Europe ground to a halt at Tours in 732 AD, pushing the Umayyads back to Spain.

b. The Mongol Khans, specifically Ögedei Khan, in 1241, which did stop the Mongol advance into Europe. However, they were themselves Tibetan Buddhists, and it seems as though the Mongols in various regions accepted the local religion (Yuan Empire Buddhist-Confucianist, Chagatai, Ilkhanate and Golden Horde Islam). The most likely result would be a more powerful and more united Christian Europe.

[Robarya]

So yeah Religion is a joke, watch the movie Zeit Geist and form your own opinion. I mean the bible has a good message, so do other holy books. but most of them are fiction. At least people behave themselves though because they think they will burn in hell.

Much of what is said in Zeitgeist is true, but then Zeitgeist --and conspiracy theorists in general, for that matter-- exaggerate every minor aspect, aswell as being heavily biased in the first place. For instance, Christianity was a good tool to keep order, but in what way is that just negative? Try to see the other side of the coin too. You don't have to be religious to be ethical, but religion has certainly promoted ethical behavior through the ages.

[Zatarack]

So yeah Religion is a joke, watch the movie Zeit Geist and form your own opinion. I mean the bible has a good message, so do other holy books. but most of them are fiction. At least people behave themselves though because they think they will burn in hell.

Much of what is said in Zeitgeist is true, but then Zeitgeist --and conspiracy theorists in general, for that matter-- exaggerate every minor aspect, aswell as being heavily biased in the first place. For instance, Christianity was a good tool to keep order, but in what way is that just negative? Try to see the other side of the coin too. You don't have to be religious to be ethical, but religion has certainly promoted ethical behavior through the ages.

What? Zeitgeist is concentrated bull.

[Robarya]

To answer the original question: No, Christianity --and religion overall for that matter-- isn't/wasn't as bad as "aggressive" Atheists make it sound. These Atheists tend to only focus on what is perceived as negative aspects in the religion's history, and like childs --and religion too, ironically-- assume that the human is born pure, and absolutely *couldn't* have done these things if it wasn't for religion.

Much of what is said in Zeitgeist is true, but then Zeitgeist --and conspiracy theorists in general, for that matter-- exaggerate every minor aspect, aswell as being heavily biased in the first place. For instance, Christianity was a good tool to keep order, but in what way is that just negative? Try to see the other side of the coin too. You don't have to be religious to be ethical, but religion has certainly promoted ethical behavior through the ages.

What? Zeitgeist is concentrated bull.

Care to elaborate on what specific parts? Because it is a conspiracy theory, doesn't mean its entire content is false.

[Zatarack]

Here's some criticism of it.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-25#feature

[Robarya]

Here's some criticism of it.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-02-25#feature

Thanks for the link. I'm going to have a look into it later this evening.

And like I said, I do think that there's lots of exaggerations & faults in Zeitgeist, but some of its information is nevertheless correct (which makes the entire story appear more legitimate to those that are a bit more dogmatic.) Religion being an useful tool to keep order is of course true, and it has been pragmatically used by kings too, because what naturally happens when you have most of the population in agreement is that there's less tension and reason for conflict; there's nothing dark or sinister about that. One could argue that Liberalism is similar to religion, because it too is used as a tool for unity, albeit it works in a different way.