Christianity... the dark age was there fault and we could be doing cool shit around other stars by now is they didet set back scientific discovery by 600 years or so.. the only good think that came out of Christianity is the movie Dogma..
What do you think is the greatest epic fail for humanity?
- Thread starter jacobschndr
- Start date
Na I'm with you here. The Crusades were largely political in the intent of its 'major players' simply because Jerusalem was a pretty important trade point, and the papacy greatly desired to extend its reach further east.boholikeu said:
Al Qaeda and other terrorists? I actually live here in the Middle East and I can say, whole heartedly, that they are simply afraid of change and certain western ideals. Essentially, they are afraid that if their own people should pick up on these 'evil' western ideas such as democracy and freedom of religion, their own power will eventually fade away. That is why they attack and just generally cause a ruckus.
The wiping out of the Native Americans? Granted, religion did play a part here, but as always, it was more of an excuse as opposed to something else. Generally when you have new societies meet, the stronger and more advanced one takes advantage of the other one, and through greed and lust eventually strike at them maliciously.
The oddly named 'Wars of Religion' of the, I believe, 17th century? Pretty much almost solely political. German princes converted to Protestantism to try and become autonomous. There was actually a period here where, for decades, the French and Swedish went around pillaging and murdering the Germans for NO REASON WHATSOEVER.
The stopping of progress? Well, many ancient texts throughout the Dark Ages were preserved by clergymen. During the Renaissance, many philosophers and such (Petrarch comes to mind here) were actually intensely religious, though that may have been a cultural aspect more than anything.
Of course, now days it could be argued that religion, in the WEST, is actually stopping progress in certain areas, yes.
And really, the whole "the Church stopped progress for hundreds of years!!!" only applies to the West. Take pre-Islamic Arabia. Largely nomadic, splintered into small groups of tribes and cities, and, in the contemporary sense mind you, fairly barbaric in their practices. Once Islam starts to spread, and the Abbasid Empire is formed, Baghdad becomes a city of Enlightenment. Really, if it had not been destroyed the Mongols, the Middle East would be a -very- different place. They theorized evolution in plants, learned the circumference of the world, learned about the heliocentric cycle, made advances in medicine and math, and not to mention astronomy.. It was the Renaissance, well, BEFORE the Renaissance.
Then there is of course India, where most of the people are still largely spiritual and religious. Yes, mock the country if you must, but it is making strides in technology and education as well.
This is not all to say that religion is a universally good force..God no. It has been a very -bad- thing at times, and has certainly affected certain societies in a negative matter. I would certainly say that certain atheists have it right in that aspect. I would argue though, that if religion never started up, we would have an equal force that would cause many issues that we see today. Humanity is just a very war-hungry race, and no matter what we do, there will ALWAYS be people who view their answers as the only answers, and their way of life the CORRECT way of life.
I agree with this. Apart from the deaths religion has caused, you can also speak of the ways it has retarded our technological progress. Up until only recently, most radical new ideas contradictory to what the priesthood decided were trampled, often along with the person who came up with the idea.gee666 said:
The Crusades were in response to Muslims invading and overtaking Jerusalem and then forbidding any non-Muslims from entering its walls.
One can not simply dismiss the religious fervour and rhetoric that surrounded the entire thing as being secondary.
Also, religion is quite rightly decried. Few things have been as stagnating and inhibiting on society than religion. The only things that have had the same effect have operated in a matter indistinguishable to religion - economic and social philosophies. They had quite tangible gods - state leaders or political personalities - as opposed to noncorporeal, supernatural entities. Their doctine was issued through the 'party', which really was very much the same as a theocratic state issuing state laws through the church.
Political Philosophies and Religion have the same in common in that they are weaker the greater informed and more heavily involved the common man is. Universal Sufferage shattered monarchies and dictatorial regimes while widespread access to scripture and the allowance for subjective, personal interpretation severely weakened the hold religion had on the population.
The greatest example of how closely allied the two are rests in North Korea. A once secular political philosophy has now become the basis for the world's most awkward theocratic regime.
One can not simply dismiss the religious fervour and rhetoric that surrounded the entire thing as being secondary.
Also, religion is quite rightly decried. Few things have been as stagnating and inhibiting on society than religion. The only things that have had the same effect have operated in a matter indistinguishable to religion - economic and social philosophies. They had quite tangible gods - state leaders or political personalities - as opposed to noncorporeal, supernatural entities. Their doctine was issued through the 'party', which really was very much the same as a theocratic state issuing state laws through the church.
Political Philosophies and Religion have the same in common in that they are weaker the greater informed and more heavily involved the common man is. Universal Sufferage shattered monarchies and dictatorial regimes while widespread access to scripture and the allowance for subjective, personal interpretation severely weakened the hold religion had on the population.
The greatest example of how closely allied the two are rests in North Korea. A once secular political philosophy has now become the basis for the world's most awkward theocratic regime.
Because at that point the Roman Empire was anything but good. Let's face it - it needed some rejuvenation(too bad it didn't got back up).Toaster Hunter said:
During the aforementioned Dark Ages most of the scientists were priests.Discon said:
Rule of Thumb: If someone is telling you something and this something is either radical or paints things black/white, than he is probably misleading you.
I see you aren't serious about this argument. Sorry to waste your time.similar.squirrel said:
You are right. Many, if not most, seemingly "religious disputes" are just covers for simple human greed. But my point is that, the institutionalization of religion (I hate typing that word. So many letters) actually ALLOWS this tactic to be used OVER and OVER and OVER again. THAT'S what's bad.boholikeu said:
I don't think Faith is bad either. Believe whatever you WANT to believe. I honestly don't care. If you use your faith to harm others, you will be prosecuted like anyone else. But when a group uses it's combined sense of Faith (aka Religion) as an excuse for evil practices.....that's a no-no.
Faith should be personal. Not an institution. Hence Religion is bad. Faith is not.
Im not challenging you in anger, or shouting you down. I think that for the most part, you are correct. Religion WAS a neccesary device to keep us from whole-hearted anarchy in the middle ages (fear of Hell), but we DO, as a civilisation, need to stop looking to religion to provide answers or counsell us as we move into the 21st century,Saelune said:
Hmmmm, where does it say this in the bible? About it being the ultimate truth in science?icame said:I thought it was supposed to be a book of ultimate truths? If it is then shouldn't everything it in be correct? Shouldn't every teaching be perfect? Shouldn't there be no plot holes, and nothing that goes against the laws of our universe (Science)? If this book is so full of truth how can anything in it need reevaluation? If the rules it sets forth can simply be changed when it is required what is the point of believing in it at all, but thats just my thinking I suppose.Anti Nudist Cupcake said:Atheists read the bible wrong (assuming they even read some of it), it wasn't meant to be a book of science at all, allot of the stories can be seen as merely symbolic and not literal occurrences. It was meant to teach faith through the examples it gives and PEOPLE were used to write it, they saw things happen and interpreted it in their own primitive way (it was a primitive time) and wrote it down to teach the lessons of faith, not science. Science we can pretty much figure out for ourselves. There will be plot holes, sure but that is either because we haven't studied it well or didn't make the right conclusions or simply because of the fact that the bible has been written by humans who only wrote what they saw, which left some flaws in the writing and then got further flawed when it was rewritten and reinterpreted a hundred times over and from one language to a different language each time.icame said:Really? I thought most atheists don't believe in god because of the scientific impossibilities (Not to mention plot holes the size of a battleship), in the bible, and because many of the teachings are rubbish (Ex. Homosexuality is wrong.) At least, that is why me and the atheists I know do >.> Doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to not believe in something because a lot of people that practice a religion are ignorant.Anti Nudist Cupcake said:You...Icehearted said:
It's just surprising to see anybody write that... I thought we were in a world divided between "Christians" and Atheists, Christians who throw every verse in the bible at gays or atheists and only show ignorance and hate (they are either hypocrites or morons), and athiests who believe God is rubbish simply because of the flaws of the people that worship him...
I thought someone who sees past this, someone like you, didn't exist, I was wrong thankfully.
Peace to everyone, no matter their sexual orientation or beliefs, that will be all.
Whether or not the "homosexuality is wrong" writing was part of this series of disastrous rewritings is for the reader to decide, and whatever you decide, you can't go judging or hating others for doing something you interpreted as wrong, it's not your place to judge them, they need to sort themselves out and according to true Christian teachings (according to my opinion) you can only care for people, let God judge them. Also, you don't go to hell for being homosexual, and it is the opinion of some that the ACT of homosexual sex is the sin, not being homosexual.
I myself personally think that the scriptures on homosexuality desperately need reevaluation because the writer of one of the bible scriptures that I know of that wrote it as a sin was listing it amongst other sins and probably didn't really understand homosexuality and was threatened by it and thus interpreted it as sin.
Allot of what I say could be wrong, I'm not an expert at debating and I can't always explain things properly.
Also, you might not have a need for faith and that's fine and really not my business but this is just what I think.
I also have only noticed people calling the stories metaphors only when it has been proved to either be impossible or never happened at all, but I could be wrong.
I need to check that.
And yes, we can reevaluate it. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17
And men have made it flawed and it was written to teach FAITH, everything it talks about is on the topic of FAITH so if it says "all truth" then it is the truth of faith which is the secret to the deeper purpose of the universe (in our belief) so yes, it is in a way the ultimate truth.