Mohammod and Jesus. Would you do it?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

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.

I admit my mistake.

[aerius]

I'm not sure, but I'll challenge both of them to a game of Roshombo. I'm getting the first and only turn.

[Teleros]

Don't think I'd kill them myself - better the devil you know and all that - although I admit with Mohammed I'd be sorely tempted. To go ahead I'd have to be certain the new future would be a better one.

[Baal]

Don't think I'd kill them myself - better the devil you know and all that - although I admit with Mohammed I'd be sorely tempted. To go ahead I'd have to be certain the new future would be a better one.

Well you could use a bullet on Mo and see what happens. If things turn out worse due to someone else then take that guy out with second bullet. Repeat a third time if needed.

[Teleros]

Ah well if you can go back and warn yourself or keep killing the buggers then it's another matter .

[NecronLord]

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.

I love the quote attached to the Muslim one. Something to the effect of "If this knowledge agrees with the Qu'ran, we don't need it, and if it doesn't, it should be destroyed, therefore, burn it." Fundie mindset to a T.

[Lord Pounder]

Given human nature i don't think killing Jesus or Mohamed would make much difference. There are plenty of wacko's waiting to take their places and we could end up with something worse.

[wolveraptor]

Regardless of whether or not Christianity had spread, Rome would've fallen. And like it or not, the Church did preserve at least some of the knowledge accumulated before the Dark Ages, even if they opposed progress later on. Without some organized bureaucracy that survived the fall of Rome similar to the Catholic church, Europe may have had to start from scratch...

...which may have precluded the existance of a European colonial period hundreds of years later. Which may have stopped Africa and the Middle East from turning into a hellhole and a shithole respectively. Hell, it sounds like it might be a better world even if technology in the West was set back a hundred years. The entire focus of the world would've been shifted East. The dominant language sure as hell wouldn't be English. It'd probably be Arabic, Chinese, or Hindi.

It's also important to note that around the time of the rise of Christianity, some great (and of course, rich) Hellenic thinkers even ventured to reject the Roman pantheon. Atheism may have become acceptable much earlier, or at least some form of free-thinking. Even if it weren't, there'd at least be more tolerance in the world, if only because polytheistic paganism tends to be very localized. When you travel outside of Rome, you honor the local gods. Most people accepted the existence of other gods besides their own.*

This all assumes that disorganized, polytheistic paganism continues to thrive in Europe when Christianity fails to usurp it.

*Interesting side track: Judaism is a non-localized religion partly because of the failure the Assyrians to sack the city. The Jews were convinced that the most powerful monarch of the age was stopped by direct intervention from the LORD. When the Babylonians picked up where the Assyrians left off, it was too late. The Jews were no longer tied to the Temple of David. When it was destroyed, the prevailing interpretation was that God was punishing them, not that their God was impotent against the gods of the Babylonians.

[Darth Wong]

I think it could be said that the nature of Christianity is probably more a reflection of Rome than of Jesus. Its expansionist "great commission to assimilate all creeds under our banner" attitude is very Roman. And any survival of classical-era documentation was not so much due to Christianity as it was due to roman culture in general. Why do you think Catholicism retained many pieces of Greco-Roman art and literature even though every other pagan belief system was slated for total destruction? Because of Christianity? Or because it was Rome?

[wolveraptor]

I agree, but without the creation of actual churches and monastaries (which for some reason, some barbarians were hesitant to sack and destroy), how would anything have been saved?

On the other hand, Roman temples might still have been there had the Christians not demanded their removal. And there's no apparent reason why barbarians would've paid more respect to Roman Catholic churches than Roman Pagan churches.

[sketerpot]

Did anyone else, upon seeing the thread title, think this thread was about Mohammed/Jesus slash fanfic? I came to stare in horrified fascination at Einhanderesque erotic writing, but instead I got some serious alternate history speculation.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I'd shoot the both of them, the Pedophile and the Apocolypse Theorist.

[TheLemur]

I'd shoot Jesus, and the ripple effect would prevent Mohammed from ever being born in the first place. Without Christianity/Islam in the picture, religion would probably have continued much as it always did- an assortment of two-bit cults and various gods you might or might not believe in. And more importantly, there wouldn't have been a large, central church to take power after Rome fell and keep Western civilization tied up for a thousand years.

[Santorum]

If Jesus was truly the son of God, then I wouldn't be able to shoot him. If he was not God, then he was just a man with good PR.

BTW, I'm a bit confused at people thinking the Church had some massive conspiracy to destroy all knowledge. The past wan't like the Di Vinci Code. There were no papal ninjas seeking to hold back man because it was fun.

The Church Fathers were classical scholars themselves. Why would they censor themselves? Look, education is a luxury. Who had the ability to spend all day thinking fairly useless thoughts? The rich or the clergy, or both.

The Church gave us plenty of worthwhile inventions. Who do you think started the Renaissance? Erasmus wasn't an atheist; there were no atheists.

[Rye]

BTW, I'm a bit confused at people thinking the Church had some massive conspiracy to destroy all knowledge. The past wan't like the Di Vinci Code. There were no papal ninjas seeking to hold back man because it was fun.

Yes, that whole heliocentrism thing was just imaginary, honest.

The Church gave us plenty of worthwhile inventions. Who do you think started the Renaissance? Erasmus wasn't an atheist; there were no atheists.

Not too sure about that one. There have always been doubters and atheists. It stands to reason there'd be some involved somewhere, even if they weren't overt about it.

[The Grim Squeaker]

The delay of technological advance would almost certainly happen (As others have said, the Church helped preserve society after the fall of Rome and Latin allowed "international" development even if it did retard technological and social progress once the alternative was not barbarianism).

Still I see technology as developing in Europe/Eurasia regardless, the geological arrangements are too convenient and a century or three more aren't much in the long term.

Derailment aside, I most certainly would shoot Joshua (Oh, sorry you call him Jesus ) Christ, if only due to the fact that doing so would save millions from direct genocide and pogroms wrought precisely because of Jesus being Jesus (The Jews). Never-mind the tens of millions who were slaughtered in the names of Christianity and (to a lesser extent) Islam, though the development of a monotheistic trans-borders deity was not only likely but a highly hardy ideology (As was said, Jesus was just one of a few hundred cults in Israel, and in the words of a Musical "You Jews make Messiahs by the cart-load" Jesus Christ Super-star).

[Metatwaddle]

Am I being pedantic by suggesting that killing Jesus would probably invoke a paradox that would destroy me and make me unable to go back in time and kill him? Not that I'm directly descended from Jesus or anything, so it's not a pure grandfather paradox, but if not for the Christian religion I highly doubt that I'd be here.

[Covenant]

Am I being pedantic by suggesting that killing Jesus would probably invoke a paradox that would destroy me and make me unable to go back in time and kill him? Not that I'm directly descended from Jesus or anything, so it's not a pure grandfather paradox, but if not for the Christian religion I highly doubt that I'd be here.

It depends on your model of time travel, the OP is using one that would allow you to do this. Perhaps God itself is real and decides to undo some shit, and sends you to pick one, or both, he doesn't care, he's got Golf with Buddha at twelve and still has that damn 8th day to make and fix leap year.

If I could, I wouldn't, really, unless I retain my time travel abilities to observe the future. I'd also want more bullets. I think a world where Pagan Pantheons survive as the dominant religious force, and Monotheism never really takes off would do better, merely because a Pantheonic bunch are so much less cosmic and amazing. They usually have aspects, and participate in things, get born, and die, and so forth. In essence, they're so human that they're so easy to discard once we hit Enlightenment and science, and they can fade away and only resurface in Epic films and the occasional Superhero comic book.

However, Hinduism really throws a wrench into this thought-process. I'm not sure how to explain it's powers of survival. Maybe sheer inertia. And they're certainly no more peaceful.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

An old thread I dug up: What if Jesus never existed?

Personally, I think the article should have been re-titled, "What if Paul had never existed", but whatever.

Anyways, there may have been a dozen prophets around Palestine back in Jesus' time, but I highly doubt that many of them were as nice as the one we got was was. I mean, the Church itself is a vile institution, but I believe it probably would have been commensurately worse if rather than a prophet espousing love, peace and charity he wanted discipline, revolution and war to bring the light of the Chosen People to the world. Or maybe it just wouldn't be as hypocritical.

[Darth Wong]

If Jesus was truly the son of God, then I wouldn't be able to shoot him.

What the fuck are you talking about? Even according to the Christians' own fairy tales, the Romans were able to crucify him with no problems.

BTW, I'm a bit confused at people thinking the Church had some massive conspiracy to destroy all knowledge. The past wan't like the Di Vinci Code. There were no papal ninjas seeking to hold back man because it was fun.

So any historical sources that describe the Roman Catholic church destroying pagan cultural records and icons are false? On what authority do you base this claim?

The Church Fathers were classical scholars themselves. Why would they censor themselves? Look, education is a luxury. Who had the ability to spend all day thinking fairly useless thoughts? The rich or the clergy, or both.

Nice logic, fucktard. They did not censor themselves; they censored any knowledge that offended their belief system.

The Church gave us plenty of worthwhile inventions. Who do you think started the Renaissance? Erasmus wasn't an atheist; there were no atheists.

There have always been atheists. In periods of high religiosity, they know enough to keep their mouths shut about it. And if you honestly can't see the correlation between the Church losing its grip on western society and the accelerating development of science in recent centuries, that's your problem because the correlation is there anyway.

PS. Interesting choice of username. Which parts of the Rick Santorum homophobic religious asstard agenda do you support?

[Jadeite]

I'd shoot neither. Mohammad would be tempting, but not worth the risk.

[Santorum]

What the fuck are you talking about? Even according to the Christians' own fairy tales, the Romans were able to crucify him with no problems.

Yes, because he wanted them too. If he was God, then He would want to be killed in the manner He wanted, rather than by how I wanted. Otherwise, he's just a man.

So any historical sources that describe the Roman Catholic church destroying pagan cultural records and icons are false? On what authority do you base this claim?

Well, pretty much every history book written in the past century. The myth that the Catholic church has oppressed knowledge is a populist myth. There is plenty to mock the Church about, but this is not one of them.

Nice logic, fucktard. They did not censor themselves; they censored any knowledge that offended their belief system.

Except they didn't. Even the Index Librorum Prohibitorum allowed classical texts to be used due to their usefulness as examples of grammar.

Perhaps you should look at other things that hurt the knowledge base in Europe during the early medieval period. Things like depopulation, disruption of trade, decentralization, and a focus on survival, rather than knowledge.

If you have examples of a systemic conspiracy to purge all scientific knowledge in the Western world, then you would be quite famous. However, since there are no texts currentyl supporting your claim, I'd say your chances are slim. Swearing won't make your claim any stronger.

There have always been atheists. In periods of high religiosity, they know enough to keep their mouths shut about it.

Yeah, except your wrong. I used to beleive the same thing. It makes sense that there would be people who did not believe in God. Except every single source I've read, even those that hate God, still admit to the existence of God. Your stating that they "kept their mouths shut" is asking me to prove a negative. I can only use what has been written.

And if you honestly can't see the correlation between the Church losing its grip on western society and the accelerating development of science in recent centuries, that's your problem because the correlation is there anyway.

Where did I say that? Point out in my post where I made that claim. I agree with you that increased knowledge has led to a downturn in religion.

PS. Interesting choice of username. Which parts of the Rick Santorum homophobic religious asstard agenda do you support?

Quite the opposite. I don't support his agenda at all. I like the quote from Kerrey that said, "Santorum, that's Latin for asshole." It was amusing to me.

No, for the record, I'm actually undecided when it comes to wheterh or not God exists. I have seen to existence of God, but I can't discount the possibility that a higher power might exist.

Oh, and I am ambivalent about any kind of discrimination. I just don't care what a person's race, gender, sexual orientation is. I hate all people equally.

[Santorum]

I should clarify. The no atheists bit extends to the Enlightenment. My post stands from antiquity through the Renaissance and the Reformation.

[mr friendly guy]

Yes, because he wanted them too. If he was God, then He would want to be killed in the manner He wanted, rather than by how I wanted. Otherwise, he's just a man.

You know, if you are trying to show that Jesus can withstand crucificion if he wanted to, you can't start off with the assumption that this is true. You have to demonstrate it. Otherwise you are using the same circular reasoning Christian apologists do.

I just saw this in parting shots.

It turned out that Santorum was Bob Gausington. A teacher who fucks up history, not to mention logic and is also racist. Not to mention his grammar sucks. Come on. Its "you are" wrong or "you're" wrong, not "your" wrong dumbass.

No wonder he was going on about how teachers require protection from sacking. What he really meant was, he needed protection from sacking. How it must gall him that we don't just accept his bullshit without challenging it, which is most probably how he expects students to behave.

Well Mr Teacher Boy, you fail. Now go to the back of the class.

[Darth Wong]

If you have examples of a systemic conspiracy to purge all scientific knowledge in the Western world, then you would be quite famous. However, since there are no texts currentyl supporting your claim, I'd say your chances are slim. Swearing won't make your claim any stronger.

Notice how he takes "pagan" and replaces it with "scientific knowledge" in his rebuttal, even though there was no scientific method until very recently and we were talking about the heyday of the church which was much earlier. I wonder if he honestly thinks people won't catch these kinds of dishonest evasive little games he plays. He probably does; he does not seem like someone who is accustomed to actually dealing with a debate.

There have always been atheists. In periods of high religiosity, they know enough to keep their mouths shut about it.

Yeah, except your wrong. I used to beleive the same thing. It makes sense that there would be people who did not believe in God. Except every single source I've read, even those that hate God, still admit to the existence of God. Your stating that they "kept their mouths shut" is asking me to prove a negative. I can only use what has been written.

What an ignorant fucktard. There are quotes dating all the way back to Ancient Rome where people like Cicero say that they profess to worship in public, but don't believe in private. The very notion of 100% of the people believing anything is preposterous on its face. Do people like this really think they can substantiate a preposterous notion like "there were no atheists" in the past simply by stating it as if they're authorities? Does he think that people suddenly started talking about atheism during the enlightenment because the fundamental nature of people changed, or because they could finally speak up about it?