Givethanks
Superstar
Religion isn't the problem, people are the problem and I'm not even religious like that.
Do you believe that Christianity is needed for society to function at peak levels?
- Thread starter Contrarian
- Start date
Voice of Reason
Veteran
no
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,630
- Reputation
- 8,094
- Daps
- 121,493
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Who said I believed any of them?
Outlaw
New Hope For the HaveNotz
You’re being an apologist for it
null
...
Dafunkdoc_Unlimited
Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,630
- Reputation
- 8,094
- Daps
- 121,493
- Reppin
- The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Fillerguy
Veteran
What are "peak levels"? We've seen christian majority societies operate on a variety of levels.
While Christian nations were at constant war for nearly 1000 years, the most stable nations and the ones pumping out scientific innovations, were Muslim or Hindu nations.
By the 1600s, that changed. Christian nations were on top, namely because they got better at killing and conquering non Christians (they had practice) Is this a peak level?
Or how about the 1800s, European Christians completely dominated global affairs. The first modern world powers were Christian...no other religion came close, and really hasn't since. These European Christian nations would go on to start some of the deadliest, per casualty, wars in Human history. Eventually, they'll produce the deadliest weapons Humans have ever created. All while furthering scientific advancement. Is that peak a level?
Or how about 400- 1200? Many Christians were being massacred by either pagans, other Christians or other religious groups. Mass starvation and plague was common. Yet Christianity was a growing religion and its influence helped stabilize and unite many previously warring/uncivilized regions. This set the foundations of modern society. Encouraged scholarly study. Reintroduced philosophy to the public. However most Christians were illerate and clung to superstition fed to them by their regions version of Christianity. Eventually the Chrurch would kill off most of these heresies. Is this a peak level?
While Christian nations were at constant war for nearly 1000 years, the most stable nations and the ones pumping out scientific innovations, were Muslim or Hindu nations.
By the 1600s, that changed. Christian nations were on top, namely because they got better at killing and conquering non Christians (they had practice) Is this a peak level?
Or how about the 1800s, European Christians completely dominated global affairs. The first modern world powers were Christian...no other religion came close, and really hasn't since. These European Christian nations would go on to start some of the deadliest, per casualty, wars in Human history. Eventually, they'll produce the deadliest weapons Humans have ever created. All while furthering scientific advancement. Is that peak a level?
Or how about 400- 1200? Many Christians were being massacred by either pagans, other Christians or other religious groups. Mass starvation and plague was common. Yet Christianity was a growing religion and its influence helped stabilize and unite many previously warring/uncivilized regions. This set the foundations of modern society. Encouraged scholarly study. Reintroduced philosophy to the public. However most Christians were illerate and clung to superstition fed to them by their regions version of Christianity. Eventually the Chrurch would kill off most of these heresies. Is this a peak level?
I think we can still tune in breh. Just gotta lose the distractions and focus with accuracy
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
$cam-U-Well_Jack$on
Superstar
Absolutely not.
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
You dumb niccas have access to the internet and books ..
And still follow a religion that was literally used as a tool to enslave your people, rape your people and take everything from your people?
Just dumb .. and sad....
fukk no, we don't need the white man's religion
The irony is that you have access to this internet and books, yet you still believe that christianity was used to enslave our ancestors
Breh, St. Augustine didn't even believe those things and he was born in the year 354. If you're not a fundamentalist, then you stop treating the obvious metaphors and mythological stories (first 10 chapters of Genesis, Noah, Job, and Jesus's parables for the ones most obviously told in a mythological format rather than a historical format) as if they're scientific reality.
Augustine knew 1700 years ago that Genesis wasn't meant to be taken literally in that way. He didn't believe in a 6-day creation, he thought that the natural world developed through instantaneous creation followed by gradual change, and he was able to realize that literal interpretations of Scripture as science were not the point of the passage:
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
“Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [1 Timothy 1.7].”
And he points out that the point of Scripture was never to describe specifics of physical reality, because those have nothing to do with following God.
"It is likewise commonly asked what we may believe about the form and shape of the heavens according to the Scriptures, for many contend much about these matters. But with superior prudence our authors have forborne to speak of this, as in no way furthering the student with respect to a blessed life-and, more important still, as taking up much of that time which should be spent in holy exercises. What is it to me whether heaven, like a sphere surrounds the earth on all sides as a mass balanced in the center of the universe, or whether like a dish it merely covers and overcasts the earth? Belief in Scripture is urged rather for the reason we have often mentioned; that is, in order that no one, through ignorance of divine passages, finding anything in our Bibles or hearing anything cited from them of such a nature as may seem to oppose manifest conclusions, should be induced to suspect their truth when they teach, relate, and deliver more profitable matters. Hence let it be said briefly, touching the form of heaven, that our authors knew the truth but the Holy Spirit did not desire that men should learn things that are useful to no one for salvation. . . ."
Both of those passages are taken from Augustine's commentatry, "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis", where he points out that interpreting Genesis like a fundamentalist makes no sense if you understand religious scriptures at all. And he was writing that in the 4th century!
What are you making that up based on? Do you think there weren't atheists in Galileo's time? Do you think that he was brainwashed and couldn't fathom other possibilities? Do you think he didn't critically evaluate Scripture on his own?
I'd wager that Galileo knew more about both Scripture and astronomy than you do. So what magic knowledge do you have that he doesn't which causes you to be wiser than he?
Galileo got persecuted because he got into personal disputes with Pope Urban VIII. Galileo wasn't saying much of anything that Copernicus hadn't already said 70 years earlier, and Copernicus's research was full-time SPONSORED by the church. Copernicus's book was literally dedicated to Pope Paul III. The dispute was a political issue, not a scientific one.
Ironically, Galileo (whose research was also sponsored by the Pope) wasn't originally argued against because he opposed anything in the Bible, but because he disagreed with Aristotle's cosmology, which the Church astronomers officially followed (Aristotle wasn't even a Christian). The Church's official astronomers checked his observations and largely agreed with him, but some people stayed obstinate, and Galileo could be a bit of a jerk in disagreements and tended to get personal and on people's bad side, so he created some major enemies. Those enemies started turning to Scriptural disagreement rather than Aristotelian cosmology so they could paint Galileo as a heretic and not just scientifically wrong. Even though some church officials as high up as cardinals were sympathetic to Galileo, the issue blew up, and Galileo accepted a judgement that he wouldn't be punished if he stopped talking about the ideas.
About 20 years later, a new pope was in charge, Pope Urban VIII, and he continued to sponsor Galileo's work with church funds. Pope Urban VIII gave Galileo permission to publish the Copernican theory again just so long as he treated it as a hypothesis. But when Galileo published a major book defending Copernicus's ideas in 1632, he named the main characters in the book in a manner that was seen as mocking the Pope: the characters were a Copernican scholar that Galileo names "Salviati", an impartial but intelligent scholar that Galileo names "Sagredo", and an idiotic Aristotelian scholar that Galileo names "Simplicio" ("Simpleton"). Galileo took arguments that Pope Urban III had made about cosmology and put them in the mouth of "Simpleton". Pope Urban III saw that he was being depicted as a fool, and then put Galileo on trial for having gone against his previous agreement not to talk about the theory. He was found guilty and forced to stay at his own countryside villa under house arrest (not killed or tortured or even put into any sort of common prison, as is often depicted).
Basically, if Galileo had just been more politically savvy and not pissed so many people off with derogatory personal attacks, he would have been able to keep publishing on Copernicanism with zero issues and the support of the Church, just like Copernicus had.
If you are a fundamentalist and don't understand how history and myth work, then yes.
Why do you think all these brilliant scientists believed in a God that didn't make logical sense? Do you consider yourself dramatically more intelligent and logical than them?
If you believe that any Christian author was a "goat herder" or that anything in Christianity is "plagiarized", you are really showing your ass.
It's amazing to watch people who know very little on a subject suddenly run into a discussion and start talking with a superiority complex solely because they picked a side.
ReasonableMatic
................................
Last edited:
