Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Stoppelmann]

And you may be wise, but not very smart.

You laud Western society and just discount all the rest. It's just Christian happy-clapping. And your preaching about the benefits brought by Christianity is an extreme over-simplification. Christianity resulted in the collapse of Roman civilisation and the destruction of much of the greatest human art and culture seen in the west and Middle East up until that time. The collapse of Rome was a disaster for civilization. Classical civilization was on the cusp of giving birth to science. But it was to be still-born. Christianity plunged Europe into centuries of darkness, ignorance and superstition, and then into centuries more of conquest, the destruction of civilizations and cultures in the New World, the enslavement of millions of Africans, endless wars of religion ... Christianity was a disaster that we only began to emerge from with the Enlightenment and the birth of modern science which is still resisted by crazy Christian fundamentalists. There, how's that for over-simplification?

Christianity? You can have it. I'm sticking with my evolved Golden Rule that predated all your religious' craziness and mayhem.

I see that you have absolutely nothing - really nothing - to say about all the points I made. Yours is a hurrah! smartness that is only out to get approval from your peers.

[Lagayascienza]

You accuse me of having nothing to say. That's unkind, obviously untrue, and therefore unfair. What I don't do is use every post I make as an excuse for a long-winded rehashing of Chistian apologetics while ignoring all other factors that may be germane to an issue. Apparently, you have the time for that sort of thing. I don't have time to read it.

[Stoppelmann]

I don't have time to read it.

It does pose the question concerning why you are then here. And if you don't interact by reading what other minds say, when do you learn anything? The assumption that you already know what other people have to say is the reason we are in the situation we are in.

The topics I wrote about were about society rather than religion, because religion is just a part of society and reflects in many ways what kind of society we live in. But if you say you have no time to read ... poor you, although you do have time to answer me ... strange that!

[Lagayascienza]

Oh, I read alright, plenty of time for that. But I can sniff christian apologetics very quickly and don't need to read much of it because it's all the same. So I can brush it off like gnat and move onto more interesting posts. We got into this situation because of your demeaning comment "You are smart but not very wise". You got into a tizz because you didn't like my rather mild comeback. But that's your problem not mine.

[Stoppelmann]

We got into this situation because of your demeaning comment "You are smart but not very wise".

I actually wrote "You are very smart, but not wise." So I wasn't quite as demeaning as you claim, and if you look at my answers, which are taken from personal experience and differential in perspective, there was no buzz ... after all, I am a pensioner with time on my hands and a lot of experience.

Oh, I'm glad you have obviously found some time. Use it wisely!

[Lagayascienza]

It was a smart-ass, condescending and pompous comment and that's all there is to it. After I read it, do you think I ought to have had much interest in reading the rest of your lengthy post? I don't see why I should have. I use my time very wisely, thank you. I, too, am retired. In my twilight years as they say. So I have to ration my time here to get other stuff done that gives meaning to my life. Therefore, I usually keep my posts short. If they sound trite to some, that's too bad.

[Stoppelmann]

I, too, am retired. In my twilight years as they say. So I have to ration my time here to get other stuff done that gives meaning to my life.

Oh well, I suppose that everyone has a hobby, like slagging off the church and proposing a simplistic view of history ...

I actually use my time to try and understand what really happened in history, and found it to be very complex. It was probably down to my history teachers in England and Germany, one who explained how communal life in medieval England looked, and another who explained the complexities of the Weimarer Republic, that made me look further afield. For example, Orwell was a teacher of how poverty felt like, and how ideologies twisted the minds of their adherents. But it was personal conversations with older people, as well as with my Muslim staff that taught me to differentiate between what historians write and the personal experience of participants. It was Tom Holland who showed me how Greece and Rome were not the prime sources of modern society, but that in fact many aspects of those societies had to be overcome to get to where we are today. He also showed how the decadence of the Romans brought their empire down, and that in many cases, Christianity picked up the baton, and enabled civilisation to continue, albeit at a different pace. Examples can be found in British history, when virtually overnight the Romans left the country but their structures remained.

But perhaps you have no time for all that. It has taken me a lot of time and money to find the sources, read the books and have the conversations, so if you have different pressing issues and have to "get other stuff done," you might find it time consuming.

[Lagayascienza]

Do you ever, just occasionally, try to write concisely and without a condescending tone?

Holland was simply wrong. Christianity was just one, but a very important factor in the destruction of Roman civilisation. So much knowledge was lost. It was not for want of trying by the christians who wanted to destroy it completely, but some works of literature (usually fragmentary) and some visual art from the classical period did survive and was emulated centuries later in the west. I, too, have read the books and have studied the history. And what you say is just Christian apologetics. Again. And if you want to talk about "decadence" we need look no further than the church. Its popes and princes were as rotten as they come. And the churches abuses have continued down into the modern times - the sexual abuse of children and the church's attempts to silence them is scandalous and cruel.

You come across as totally one-eyed with your christian/Western agenda and not as an impartial scholar. Christianity is but one, and not the most ancient, of the world's current theistic traditions. But it is the most mired in corruption, decadence and bloodshed.

Anyway, it's useless me pointing these truths out to you. You just launch straight back into another round of pompous, condescending christian apologetics. It' so tedious. So, unless you are prepared to at least to try to see things from another POV, it's not worth discussing.

[Stoppelmann]

Christianity was just one, but a very important factor in the destruction of Roman civilisation. So much knowledge was lost. It was not for want of trying by the christians who wanted to destroy it completely, but some works of literature (usually fragmentary) and some visual art from the classical period did survive and was emulated centuries later in the west.

It is an oversimplification to attribute the destruction of Roman civilization to Christianity. The decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire was a multifaceted process that took place over several centuries. It involved economic, political, military, and social factors. The rise of Christianity coincided with this decline but was not necessarily the prime cause of it. Instead, corruption and mismanagement in the Roman bureaucracy and government contributed to the empire's decline, with bureaucrats and officials seeking personal gain at the expense of the state.

Additionally, the Roman Empire began to face economic challenges, causing high taxation, inflation, debasement of currency, and economic inequality. The empire's vast size and the cost of maintaining a large military were also significant financial burdens. The Empire also experienced a series of weak and ineffective leaders and there were frequent changes in leadership, often through assassination or military coups, which led to a lack of stability and governance. The Roman Empire was also divided into the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, with the latter being more stable and economically prosperous, whereas the Western Empire had administrative and logistical challenges.

The Empire faced external threats from various barbarian groups, such as the Visigoths, Vandals, and Huns. The Roman military struggled to defend the empire's vast borders, and military defeats weakened the empire's ability to protect itself. As a result, Roman legions were gradually withdrawn from places like Britain, and Christian clerics started to play a larger role. They were not only involved in religious matters, but also in education and administration of society during this time.

While there were instances of destruction of classical knowledge, there were also efforts to preserve it within Christian circles. Classical art and literature continued to exert a significant influence on Western culture in the centuries that followed the fall of the Roman Empire. Of course, there were instances of religious zeal leading to the destruction of certain classical texts and artworks, particularly those perceived as pagan or heretical, no one would deny this, but not all Christians advocated for or engaged in such activities.

On the contrary, it was Christians and Muslims, but particularly monks and scholars, who played a crucial role in preserving classical knowledge. Monastic scriptoria were instrumental in copying and preserving classical texts, including works of ancient philosophy, science, and literature. Consider also figures like St. Augustine and St. Jerome, who engaged with classical thought and integrated it into Christian theology. And despite some destruction, classical art and literature continued to influence Western culture throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. The works that survived, often in fragmentary form, had a profound impact on later Western intellectual and artistic traditions.

The pressure from barbarian invasions and migrations played a significant role in the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The sacking of Rome by the Visigoths in 410 CE and the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE were critical events in this process. That is why it's important to consider the historical context and various perspectives when discussing these complex historical topics.

[Lagayascienza]

There were economic, climatic, military and many other aspects to the fall of Rome. But chief among them was the cultural destructiveness of Christianity and it's insipid doctrines which sapped the classical stoicism of the Roman people, destroyed their sense of who they were and caused them to forget the greatness of their history. I could provide lots of quotes by learned historians, I could cite a long list of references, but it would all be lost on you. You're only interested in christian apologetics. And the eye watering pomposity and condescension of whatever you say would make hard to see, much less read. So why waste my time?

[Stoppelmann]

There were economic, climatic, military and many other aspects to the fall of Rome. But chief among them was the cultural destructiveness of Christianity and it's insipid doctrines which sapped the classical stoicism of the Roman people, destroyed their sense of who they were and caused them to forget the greatness of their history. I could provide lots of quotes by learned historians, I could cite a long list of references, but it would all be lost on you. You're only interested in christian apologetics. And the eye watering pomposity and condescension of whatever you say would make hard to see, much less read. So why waste my time?

There is no conclusive proof to support this assertion, and though some critics of Christianity, yourself included, argue that its influence led to a decline in Roman cultural values, you can’t avoid the fact that many other factors, such as economic, political, and military challenges, played significant roles and that the decline occurred over centuries. The influence of Christianity was multifaceted as well, and it was not universally destructive to classical culture or identity, so it is a matter of historical interpretation rather than established proof.

The truth is that over time, cultures evolve and change. New ideas, values, and belief systems can emerge, which may lead to shifts in the prevailing philosophical and ethical outlook. Some early Christian thinkers, like St. Augustine, integrated elements of Stoicism into Christian theology, while others, of course, critiqued Stoic ideas, which had a different ethical and moral framework. And as the empire faced challenges, including political instability and external threats, this could have impacted the prevailing philosophical outlook of its citizens.

The thing is, I’m not even sympathetic with the Roman interpretation of the Gospels, but history is about facts, and what you have stated is a prejudiced opinion – as would be the quotes you provide … if you can.

[Lagayascienza]

No, it's no good, you still don't get it. I've repeatedly said there were other factors at play. Anyway, I'm done reading pompous, condescending christian apologetics. Let's leave it there.