Mohammod and Jesus. Would you do it?

[darthbob88]

Ghetto Edit: Along with the importance of good works and clarity in speech, make sure that the Bible includes lessons on the importance of tolerance towards differing viewpoints. Between all this, there should be no place for fundamentalism as we know it to crop up.

[Invictus ChiKen]

And your "new and improved" Christianity would die out very rapidly.

Wasn't there a disccussion on this board not long ago showing that from an evolutionary point of view religions like Christianity and Islam are VERY adapt at surving?

[darthbob88]

And your "new and improved" Christianity would die out very rapidly.

Wasn't there a disccussion on this board not long ago showing that from an evolutionary point of view religions like Christianity and Islam are VERY adapt at surving?

I believe so, yes, and you're probably right. It would still be as good an idea as communism and eugenics. And every bit as practical.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Even if the Church did not exist, something else will take its place. Some other religion that has since gone extinct.

[Darth Wong]

David Gerrold dealt with this particular question in his time-travel novel, The Man Who Folded Himself. At one point, his protagonist, Dan Eakins, was on an assassination kick —knocking off various villains from history to try to make a better world. One of his victims was Jesus. Went into the desert after him, and of course the once-and-future King of Kings never comes back. But the world Eakins returns to is a rather different one than any of the other Earths he'd been to in his time-hopping. The languages are almost completely different, the technology is somewhat more primitive, the society is totally unrecognisable. He realises that, for good or ill, the Church shaped the world he came from and decides that a Christ-less world is too alien for him to try to exist in. So he goes back and unkills Jesus by convincing his earlier self not to do the deed.

Did he really believe that Jesus was that critical to the success of the idea? It was Paul who made Christianity a success, not Jesus. He could have used any martyr. If I were going to go back in time and kill someone because of his impact on religious practice, it would be Paul.

It isn't the celebrity who makes himself famous; it's his agent.

[Zor]

Dispite the history and my dislike of both religions, i don't know what would arise in two milenia of its absence in both political and religious senses. Its possible that Bhuddism might spread into europe in the place of Abrahamitic religion and judaism would probably be assimilated out of existance, but by pulling the trigger could easily be stopping/setting back the Industrial revolution leaving most of us as serfs living under a bunch of nobles that make offerings to one of several combinations of Norse and Roman pantheons that had fermented for a few years with the high points of our lives being levied into fuedal armies to fight each other with matchlocks and bayonets in the petty squabbles of our feudal nations.

Zor

[Darth Wong]

Why the fuck is everyone assuming that technological development would be retarded by the disappearance of Christianity? Is there ANY reason for this assumption?

[mr friendly guy]

One would have thought given that church did its damnest to restrict knowledge that technology may have advanced further. Now a lot of people would say that great scientists eg Newton were Christian, but so what?

Was their Christianity actually responsible for helping them, or even inspiring them into scientific thought? You will be convincing trying to say Star Trek inspired modern scientists to go into science.

Its more accurate to say that humanity advanced inspite of the church rather than because of it.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think the question is what would keep the classics around after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, especially with the collapse of the central bureaucracy in the West. The East well, not much progress was achieved until the Muslims came round and worked out some algebra.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

One would have thought given that church did its damnest to restrict knowledge that technology may have advanced further. Now a lot of people would say that great scientists eg Newton were Christian, but so what?

Was their Christianity actually responsible for helping them, or even inspiring them into scientific thought? You will be convincing trying to say Star Trek inspired modern scientists to go into science.

Its more accurate to say that humanity advanced inspite of the church rather than because of it.

Well, the Church was a patron for some scientists if it furthered their cause, and of course people like Galileo came up with a theory that didn't work with what they thought the universe ought to be and well, you have what that burning. Also, the Church did set up a number of universities which still stand. Not least in the early days, monks were in the business of collecting and copying books before the print press. The Church was rather obstructionist at times.

As to whether the bible was an inspiration for anything, then the answer is No.

[Baal]

David Gerrold dealt with this particular question in his time-travel novel, The Man Who Folded Himself. At one point, his protagonist, Dan Eakins, was on an assassination kick —knocking off various villains from history to try to make a better world. One of his victims was Jesus. Went into the desert after him, and of course the once-and-future King of Kings never comes back. But the world Eakins returns to is a rather different one than any of the other Earths he'd been to in his time-hopping. The languages are almost completely different, the technology is somewhat more primitive, the society is totally unrecognisable. He realises that, for good or ill, the Church shaped the world he came from and decides that a Christ-less world is too alien for him to try to exist in. So he goes back and unkills Jesus by convincing his earlier self not to do the deed.

Did he really believe that Jesus was that critical to the success of the idea? It was Paul who made Christianity a success, not Jesus. He could have used any martyr. If I were going to go back in time and kill someone because of his impact on religious practice, it would be Paul.

It isn't the celebrity who makes himself famous; it's his agent.

Maybe. A agent without a celebrity is just an agent. He needs someone to promote. We do not know if Paul would have accomplished much in life if he didnt have Jesus to latch onto. Maybe he would have latched onto something else, maybe he would have ended up a drunk farmer that screwed his goat as often as he screwed his wife.


If we assume that at least a few things (the non-miracle) stuff from the Bible happened then killing Jesus will accomplish something.

If we assume that the Bible is all cock and bull then there is no Jesus to kill and Paul becomes the target for the bullet.

[Baal]

Why the fuck is everyone assuming that technological development would be retarded by the disappearance of Christianity? Is there ANY reason for this assumption?

Because they are complete fucking morons.

Christianity and its love of DOGMA hated technology.

Who burned every classical text they got their hands on? The Church.

Who opposed the creation of the Printing Press? The Church.

IF nothing had ever happened to break the hold of the Medieval Church on Europe the continent would have remained a backwater piece of shit until the Central Asians, Turks, or Middle Eastern Muslims had completely overrun the place.

[Baal]

I think the question is what would keep the classics around after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, especially with the collapse of the central bureaucracy in the West. The East well, not much progress was achieved until the Muslims came round and worked out some algebra.

Read some fucking history. The Church burned HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of classical texts when it got the chance.

When the Church took over the city of Rome there were over 100 public libraries holding several hundred thousand texts. Those texts are ALL gone.

The Bishop of Alexandria under orders of the Pope burned the Library of Alexandria with over 250,000 texts.

When Catholics conquored Cordoba in Spain from the Muslims over 400,000 classical and muslim texts were destroyed.


What we have left is a pathetic fraction of the history we could have if not for the Church.

[Phantasee]

From what I have read, apparently at the time, lots of people expected the Messiah to show up, and since Jesus is Greek for Joshua, and Christ is Greek for Messiah, lots of people were naming their kid Joshua in the hopes that he would be the Messiah. So really, Joshua the Messiah was a common name, or at least Joshua was.

Not like it'd be hard to find another guy with the same name.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think the question is what would keep the classics around after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, especially with the collapse of the central bureaucracy in the West. The East well, not much progress was achieved until the Muslims came round and worked out some algebra.

Read some fucking history. The Church burned HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of classical texts when it got the chance.

When the Church took over the city of Rome there were over 100 public libraries holding several hundred thousand texts. Those texts are ALL gone.

The Bishop of Alexandria under orders of the Pope burned the Library of Alexandria with over 250,000 texts.

When Catholics conquored Cordoba in Spain from the Muslims over 400,000 classical and muslim texts were destroyed.


What we have left is a pathetic fraction of the history we could have if not for the Church.

Isn't the Bishop, or rather the Patriarch of Alexandria aligned with the Byzantine Empire and does not take orders from the Pope? Moreover, the burning took place when the territory was under Byzantine control.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Otherwise, I admit the Church went overboard.

[Darth Wong]

Isn't the Bishop, or rather the Patriarch of Alexandria aligned with the Byzantine Empire and does not take orders from the Pope? Moreover, the burning took place when the territory was under Byzantine control.

The Byzantines were also Christian. This is a thoroughly irrelevant red-herring nitpick rebuttal.

[Baal]

Isn't the Bishop, or rather the Patriarch of Alexandria aligned with the Byzantine Empire and does not take orders from the Pope? Moreover, the burning took place when the territory was under Byzantine control.

The Byzantines were also Christian. This is a thoroughly irrelevant red-herring nitpick rebuttal.

He is also wrong. The Bishop reported to the Roman Emperor Theodosius the First who was Emperor of a United Roman Empire, after his death the Empire permanently split into West and East.

At this period in time there was no Byzantine Empire.

Theo is also the Emperor credited with making Christianity the official religion of the Empire ending a millienium of Roman tolerance of religious diversity.


Maybe you should do some reading before you spout shit off Nolder.

[Ariphaos]

There were, if I recall correctly, some thirteen Godmen, including -another- one born in Bethlehem, of all places.

Kill Jesus and someone else takes his place. Kill -all- of them and you still have Dionysus and Mithra to contend with. In order to stop Catholicism with Another Name (ie Mithraism) from forming, you actually need to wipe out the various cults on which its mysticism is based.

Christianity and Hinduism got so large primarily due to their wholesale absorption of other mythologies, reinterpreting them in their own light. Christianity was not the only one like this - it's just the version that 'won'.

If any one person 'caused' Christianity, it would be Paul.

Similarly with Mohammed - Unitarianism was extremely strong in Arabia, and I also suspect he was more a symptom than a cause.

[General Zod]

There were, if I recall correctly, some thirteen Godmen, including -another- one born in Bethlehem, of all places.

Kill Jesus and someone else takes his place. Kill -all- of them and you still have Dionysus and Mithra to contend with. In order to stop Catholicism with Another Name (ie Mithraism) from forming, you actually need to wipe out the various cults on which its mysticism is based.

Christianity and Hinduism got so large primarily due to their wholesale absorption of other mythologies, reinterpreting them in their own light. Christianity was not the only one like this - it's just the version that 'won'.

If any one person 'caused' Christianity, it would be Paul.

Similarly with Mohammed - Unitarianism was extremely strong in Arabia, and I also suspect he was more a symptom than a cause.

Emperor Constantine probably had a considerable deal more influence in spreading Christianity than Peter ever did.

[Zor]

Why the fuck is everyone assuming that technological development would be retarded by the disappearance of Christianity? Is there ANY reason for this assumption?

It might not, there is a decent chance we might be accelerated in europe, or possibly have it started up elsewere like Japan and Korea and spreading into china. However, both christianity and Islam played a big role in the political and social history of the world. If you cut it out, you could very well set into motion a delayence of social and technological progress that could set us back a few centuries. Really, if we wacked the two (as if wacking christ would not prevent islam from rising anyway), we would be altering human history of a massive level.

Zor

[NecronLord]

Read some fucking history.
[...]
The Bishop of Alexandria under orders of the Pope burned the Library of Alexandria with over 250,000 texts.

I'm pretty sure the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria has never been definatively dated, with dates ranging from Ceaser, attacking Ptolemy, through to the Muslim conquest of Egypt. Theophilus' "destruction" of the Library, while a good candidate, possibly even the best and most likely, should not be taken as the only candidate.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Isn't the Bishop, or rather the Patriarch of Alexandria aligned with the Byzantine Empire and does not take orders from the Pope? Moreover, the burning took place when the territory was under Byzantine control.

The Byzantines were also Christian. This is a thoroughly irrelevant red-herring nitpick rebuttal.

He is also wrong. The Bishop reported to the Roman Emperor Theodosius the First who was Emperor of a United Roman Empire, after his death the Empire permanently split into West and East.

At this period in time there was no Byzantine Empire.

Theo is also the Emperor credited with making Christianity the official religion of the Empire ending a millienium of Roman tolerance of religious diversity.


Maybe you should do some reading before you spout shit off Nolder.

Look, I have read a fair bit of history on this, and the only mistake I admit is that I do not know much about the circumstances around the burning of Alexandria, and even the online wiki mentions that some burning might have taken place under some damn Roman Emperor or the Muslims. In fact, there seemed to have been multiple burnings.

East West whatever, the Byzantine Empire is just a figurative term conjured up by some revisionist historian (I believe it was Gibbons' fault. Him and his analysis which was flawed in many ways) and by and large, the people there regard themselves Roman even with the collapse of the western administration and by and large, they never even considered themselves some "Eastern Roman Empire" but merely "Roman". It's little wonder they were even pissed when some damn upstart for a Pope christened Charlemagne's empire "Holy Roman Empire".

In any case, apologies for derailing the thread.

[Baal]

The Byzantines were also Christian. This is a thoroughly irrelevant red-herring nitpick rebuttal.

He is also wrong. The Bishop reported to the Roman Emperor Theodosius the First who was Emperor of a United Roman Empire, after his death the Empire permanently split into West and East.

At this period in time there was no Byzantine Empire.

Theo is also the Emperor credited with making Christianity the official religion of the Empire ending a millienium of Roman tolerance of religious diversity.


Maybe you should do some reading before you spout shit off Nolder.

Look, I have read a fair bit of history on this, and the only mistake I admit is that I do not know much about the circumstances around the burning of Alexandria, and even the online wiki mentions that some burning might have taken place under some damn Roman Emperor or the Muslims. In fact, there seemed to have been multiple burnings.

East West whatever, the Byzantine Empire is just a figurative term conjured up by some revisionist historian (I believe it was Gibbons' fault. Him and his analysis which was flawed in many ways) and by and large, the people there regard themselves Roman even with the collapse of the western administration and by and large, they never even considered themselves some "Eastern Roman Empire" but merely "Roman". It's little wonder they were even pissed when some damn upstart for a Pope christened Charlemagne's empire "Holy Roman Empire".

In any case, apologies for derailing the thread.

Gibbon did a far better job than 99% of the modern historians do when they speak on the Roman Empire.

As for your cover for your mistake. You tried to hide the fact that it was an organised effort by Christianity to destroy everything and anything related to the Classical World with exceptional emphasis on anything religious.

Ancient Christians make the Nazis look like 9 year old amateurs when it came to book burning. We will never know how much knowledge and how far back we were set by their dogmatic hatred of everything not their own.

[Baal]

Read some fucking history.
[...]
The Bishop of Alexandria under orders of the Pope burned the Library of Alexandria with over 250,000 texts.

I'm pretty sure the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria has never been definatively dated, with dates ranging from Ceaser, attacking Ptolemy, through to the Muslim conquest of Egypt. Theophilus' "destruction" of the Library, while a good candidate, possibly even the best and most likely, should not be taken as the only candidate.

No it has not. But there are three main targets.

The first is Caesar. He burned the Egyptian fleet, fleets are in harbors, books in libraries are not located near the harbor. At worst some dockside warehouses with papyrus stored in them was burned. Blaming Caesar is little more than a cover themself lie perpetuated primarily by Christians to hide what they did.

The second was the Bishop who was under orders to destroy everything related to any other religion. So he had power and motive to destroy the library.

The last option really are the Muslim invaders but by then it is pretty well decided that there was little to no library left for the muslims to burn.