Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2009-12-12 01:07pm

I would hesitate to call him a troll: he actively tries to argue, even if he relies on dishonest basis and distortion to defend his side. If anything, he's a one-hit wonder: someone who is interested in debating only one topic (not forum topic, but conversation topic), possibly for the sake of his own ego or possibly because he has appointed himself as the defender of catholicism everywhere.

Ruben · Post by **Ruben** » 2009-12-12 04:25pm

It puts thinks in perspective and how nice of you to ignore my points. Answer them or shut up.

Honestly, I don't even care, whether or not certain Christians wanted to be martyred or not is really not relevent to the conversation.

Holy Strawman, batman.

You greatly implied that they deserved to die. It would be like someone saying " yeah the Nazis were bad, but those Jews were greedy little bastards. So, we can hardly blame the nazis for hating them".

You are an idiot who knows jack about the cathars.

The cathars most certainly did encourage suicide, since they believed human life was a prison.

A) It is strategy
B) Yes, you are wrong.
c) Source your claims. Do so. Immediately.

I sourced all my claims in the coliseum. You haven't sourced any of your claims.

Only said so by christian writers and very much questionable. In any case, the pope had no real authority to argue in front of Attila, thereby committing treason.

Even if I'm wrong on this point, it really is a very minor part of my argument. Furthermore, it can't really be proven what exactly happened with the Pope.

Who cares if it was treason?

Source for that? Or an argument in favor of it?

I posted all of that in the coliseum.

It was burned by a christian mob in a little well known riot called the destruction of the Serapeion in 398.

Yes, but it was not officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church.

Yeah, I am sure the grants given to Clovis to the church, the continued state of power they derives had nothing to do with the conversion.

Still a biased interpretation, not a fact.

Because:
a) The moorish invasion was little more than a scouting force, nothing serious.

Are you serious? The Moores had already conquered Spain, and were ravaging southern France. Where is your source to back up that they were only a minor scout force? Have you ever heard of the battle of Tours? You keep asking me to give sources, where are yours exactly?

The force at Constantinople numbered in the tens of thousands and had over 2000 ships. You really think Martel's victory matters in that? Fact is, the arabs would have steamrolled the west had the Byzantines not been always there to stop them.

Firstly, the arabs in spain, and the moores in mooroco were not related. I don't doubt that the Byzntines won an extremely important victory as well, but that doesn't degrade the victory at tours. There are plenty of historians who recognize the importance of the battle of tours.

Because it was the best civilized country at that time and your whole line was that the church protected civilization. Somehow, I doubt weakening and waging an aggressive policy against the most civilized country at all does wonders for civilization.

Who says "The Church" waged an aggressive policy against the Byzantines. Any way, the eastern empire had attempted to conquer the west a few times as well.

Really? I must have missed the memo in our department. Maybe I'll ask my colleagues about that.

Charlemagne laid the foundation in so far as you can say that any preceding nation laid the foundation for the next in history.

This is simply obtuse. Of course Charlamagnes empire lead the way for future Germany and France.

Because it had nothing to do with the church, you idiot.

If the church didn't preserve order, the banks would never have come about.

Source?

Ever heard of the great schism?

Important Facts about the Great Schism of 1054 - split between the Eastern and Western Christian Churches
The Great Schism of 1054 was the split between the Eastern and Western Christian Churches. In 1054, relations between the Greek speaking Eastern of the Byzantine empire and the Latin speaking Western traditions within the Christian Church reached a terminal crisis. This crisis led to the separation between the Eastern and Western churches and is referred to as the Great Schism of 1054. The Christian Church split along doctrinal, theological, linguistic, political, and geographic lines. The split, the Great Schism of 1054, led to the development of the modern Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/the-great-schism.htm

Up until then it was all one church.

Only in a limited way and they did not make it available to the public until events forced them to. Nothing would have prevented them setting up schools in the 10th or 9th century, but they would not.

The Romans didn't have Universal education either.

Only in a limited manner and his latin does not measure up to Catull.

Thomas Aquinas is majorly influenced by ancient philosiphers. To the point that certain bishops at the time thought he was a heretic.

No, of course it is not valuable, anything more than the bible is. Hey, you don't mind if i destroy all bibles, church documents, liturgy books, do you? How idiotic do you have to be to not recognize those books were dammed important and that many people would kill to have them today?

The point is it not relevent to the development of western civilization. Who cares if we know what the Roman worship services were like?

Finally, who made you arbiter to decide that a religion, which existed for far longer than christianity did, was not valuable?

They are only valuable on a sentimental level. On a practical level they are not really important.

BS. Or otherwise I await your explanation for why the vast majority of ancient historians is lost, like the majority of the works of Ammianus Marcellinus, Eunapios etc.

We still have Tacitus and Josephus.

Prove it.

Name it.

How the Irish Saved Civilization
by Thomas Cahill

Medieval Monasticism as Preserver of Western Civilization
By Emanuel L. Paparella

Sure they could. They could always excommunicate him.

Apparently you don't have any understanding of how Catholicism works. When the Magisterum makes a binding decree on all Christians it is considered infallible dogma. If you ignore infallible dogma, you are excommunicated automatically. There is no requirement for the Pope to send you a letter. If the king of Spain continued to enslave natives after this decree, he would have been ipso facto excommunicated.

Or..wait, are you saying the church was powerless? How does that square with the powerful defender of civilization theory?

They were not powerless, but that doesn't mean they had the ability to dictate every policy to a nation, especially not an Empire like Spain or Portugal.

So...as the king never got excommunicated, the church was either powerless or in favor of slavery.

The king was excommunicated. Your exaggerating church power. They had great influence, but that doesn't mean they had power over everything.

Not in the time of the latin kingdom, they were not, which WAS THE ENTIRE ESSENCE OF MY POST.

What was the Churches role in this?

No, this is your ignorance of medieval diplomacy showing. If you contrast it with other letters, it is just a bog-standard letter asking for help.

The fact is, Alexius requested help, the Crusades were the response. Whether that was what Alexius actually wanted or not is irrelevent.

Because the church did nothing to stop its allies from screwing over the Byzantines. Nice try, though.

How exactly was the Church supposed to control the actions of armies thousands of miles away from them? Contrary to common opinion, the Catholic Church does not possess a long-rang mind controlling device.

Because they are biased in favor of christianity? Do I have to spell everything out for you?

Weren't you the one who accused me of attacking the source, not the argument, earlier?

So if I were to burn one of the best universities in the history of mankind this is somehow not suppression of science?

One isolated incident does not prove a systematic suppression of science.

We can start with Hypatia and then make our way all over to Damasius.

Hypatia was killed by a christian mob, not an officially sanctioned persecution.

Paulus Orosius, a christian source, writes:

Quote:
Today there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen, and, when these temples were plundered, these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our time, which, indeed, is a true statement.

Even if there were copies, nothing can excuse the destruction of cultural treasures that had been existing for hundreds of years. What is your excuse for the destruction of the great temples?

Your quote didn't prove that the works were scientific. The great temples were, once again, not scientific institutions. You have yet show any evidence for a "systematic" suppression of science. I say systematic because that is what you need to show in order to prove that the Church, as an institution, suppressed science. So far, all you have shown is that a few christian mobs, or a few christian leaders, burnt some books or destroyed some temples.

Quote:
Condom Use
According to Wawer, increased condom use also might be " offsetting other high-risk behaviors" in the district (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/24). In 1994, about 10% of men reported that they consistently used condoms with nonmarital partners, compared with 50% in 2003. Reported condom use among women in the same age group increased from 2% to 28% in 2003 (Washington Post, 2/24). However, Uganda "[o]minously" is "in the midst of an acute condom shortage" after the government determined that condoms provided by an unnamed foreign supplier were "substandard," according to the Chronicle. The government currently is reviewing the condom quality control standards of all its suppliers, including the United States. According to Wawer, the shortage has reduced the availability of condoms in the country by 50% and driven up the cost to consumers (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/24).

Reaction
The study's findings suggest that Uganda's "much-lauded success" in reducing its HIV prevalence has "little to do with" the abstinence and monogamy programs emphasized by the Bush administration under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, Reuters reports (Fox, Reuters, 2/24).

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/B76E0FA9 ... BB379A.as

I don't know why you brought up the bush administration. The Bush administration was not involved until 2000. The success first began in 1988-1992, before wide spread condom promotion as has been repeatedly shown and is exactly what Dr. Green said.

admit that I can't cite direct evidence that Catholicism directly interferes with anti-AIDS movements, but it doesn't take much brains to realise that when you have high-ranking clergymen telling lies like the above, they are not helping.

As for Uganda: one of the reasons why the program was succesful, was raising awareness. If you raise awareness that there is a problem, rather than outright deny it like some countries did beforehand, people will realise they have to be careful. It was Uganda's success that it was able to curb infection rates for a while, not the RCC's. It was the Uganda government that set out to say: we're gonna stop AIDS, even if that means that we have to tell people to use condoms. Which is why the "C" is in ABC.

[/quote][/quote]

Exactly, you don't have any evidence what so ever. So the charge is, quite frankly, lame. The only evidence you have is a few comments made by a few clergymen. We don't know if these comments were taken out of context. Even if they weren't, its doubtful that many people actually hear, or even care, about what these people are saying.

I never said that it was the Catholic Churche's influence that saved Uganda. My point was that if the Catholic Church were as big as a problem as you claim, Uganda's success would have been impossible, since the Church has a great deal of influence there.

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2009-12-12 05:14pm

Ruben wrote:
It puts thinks in perspective and how nice of you to ignore my points. Answer them or shut up.
Honestly, I don't even care, whether or not certain Christians wanted to be martyred or not is really not relevent to the conversation.

Why bring it up then? Oh wait, clearly you thought it was relevant.

You greatly implied that they deserved to die. It would be like someone saying " yeah the Nazis were bad, but those Jews were greedy little bastards. So, we can hardly blame the nazis for hating them".

Are you a little blind child who can't read? Nowhere did I ever endorsed the murder of christians, neither implied nor written.

You are an idiot who knows jack about the cathars.
The cathars most certainly did encourage suicide, since they believed human life was a prison.

And I repeat - you know jack about the cathars. They were no suicide cult, no matter how much you try to paint them as such.

A) It is strategy
B) Yes, you are wrong.
c) Source your claims. Do so. Immediately.
I sourced all my claims in the coliseum. You haven't sourced any of your claims.

I don't have to source my claims as you are making the arguments, you dishonest idiot. You sourced nothing besides wikipedia (and than not even real sections, but rather complete articles. I am not digging through mountains of text to find sections that might or might not prove what you said.

In any case, wikipedia is worth nothing. You can try naming real sources.

Only said so by christian writers and very much questionable. In any case, the pope had no real authority to argue in front of Attila, thereby committing treason.
Even if I'm wrong on this point, it really is a very minor part of my argument. Furthermore, it can't really be proven what exactly happened with the Pope.

The argument however is not in your favor and it was not a minor part of your argument. It was the first starting point of your "the church defended civilization" spiel.

Who cares if it was treason?

As it would have undercut the authority of the state struggling to survive, I think this is very much relavant.

Source for that? Or an argument in favor of it?
I posted all of that in the coliseum.

Then it should be a trivial matter to repost it here, should it not? Oh wait, you do not have a case.

It was burned by a christian mob in a little well known riot called the destruction of the Serapeion in 398.
Yes, but it was not officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church.

The catholic church made the guy who did it a saint. It produced propagandic text heralding this as a great feat. It was endorsed and claimed as part of church heritage. Furthermore, it is not the only action taken by the church in order to destroy pagan temples and show christianity had triumphed. Look up the island of Phile. In 421, according to christian sources, they destroyed the temple of Caelestis in Carthage and transformed it into a cemetary.

The force at Constantinople numbered in the tens of thousands and had over 2000 ships. You really think Martel's victory matters in that? Fact is, the arabs would have steamrolled the west had the Byzantines not been always there to stop them.
Firstly, the arabs in spain, and the moores in mooroco were not related. I don't doubt that the Byzntines won an extremely important victory as well, but that doesn't degrade the victory at tours. There are plenty of historians who recognize the importance of the battle of tours.

Cite them. NOW. Direct quotations.

Because it was the best civilized country at that time and your whole line was that the church protected civilization. Somehow, I doubt weakening and waging an aggressive policy against the most civilized country at all does wonders for civilization.
Who says "The Church" waged an aggressive policy against the Byzantines.

The popes sure did, even inviting in a foreign pretender with no rights to the throne and making him emperor.

This is simply obtuse. Of course Charlamagnes empire lead the way for future Germany and France.

Because you say so?

Because it had nothing to do with the church, you idiot.
If the church didn't preserve order, the banks would never have come about.

The church was not protecting the italian cities. The church was not paying for the trade. The church was not, in any way, responsible for the conduct of the Italian cities and their governments. The church was not responsible for the wealth and riches of the Indian east and it sure as hell was not responsible for the arabian and byzantine trade routes.

So explain to me why it was responsible for this again?

Source?
Ever heard of the great schism?

That makes the Byzantines catholic...how? In case you missed it, the catholic church is the younger of the churches, with rome not even being on the radar of church metropolitans until the seventh and eight century. So you might as well say that until the great schism and until charlemagne, the catholic church was not the senior church at all. The orthodox church was, indeed being the older and far more renowned of the two at that time.

Only in a limited way and they did not make it available to the public until events forced them to. Nothing would have prevented them setting up schools in the 10th or 9th century, but they would not.
The Romans didn't have Universal education either.

Strawmen. They did however have far better literacy rates and Byzantium had a far higher level of culture anyway.

Only in a limited manner and his latin does not measure up to Catull.
Thomas Aquinas is majorly influenced by ancient philosiphers. To the point that certain bishops at the time thought he was a heretic.

Ladies and gentlemen, here we have another example - we do not answer the point, no, certainly not, but we rather say something completely unrelated.

No, of course it is not valuable, anything more than the bible is. Hey, you don't mind if i destroy all bibles, church documents, liturgy books, do you? How idiotic do you have to be to not recognize those books were dammed important and that many people would kill to have them today?
The point is it not relevent to the development of western civilization. Who cares if we know what the Roman worship services were like?

Did you just say roman religion was not relevant to the development of western civilization?

Do you know how many sections of the bible are directly copied from Roman religion? For example, the miracles of Jesus are directly copied from the acts of the roman emperor Vespasian. The saturnalia are our christmas and the birth of Jesus is a direct (if rather bad) copy of the birth of Mithras.

Finally, who made you arbiter to decide that a religion, which existed for far longer than christianity did, was not valuable?
They are only valuable on a sentimental level. On a practical level they are not really important.

Why not?

BS. Or otherwise I await your explanation for why the vast majority of ancient historians is lost, like the majority of the works of Ammianus Marcellinus, Eunapios etc.
We still have Tacitus and Josephus.

Idiot. We only have parts of their work and we do not know how much either of them wrote. In any case, you can only come up with two writers in response to the charge that the church did not protect the ancient writers?

Prove it.

I can't watch youtube from work. But of course, you can summarize the arguments in brief form.

Name it.
How the Irish Saved Civilization
by Thomas Cahill

Medieval Monasticism as Preserver of Western Civilization
By Emanuel L. Paparella

Direct cites. Now.

Sure they could. They could always excommunicate him.
Apparently you don't have any understanding of how Catholicism works. When the Magisterum makes a binding decree on all Christians it is considered infallible dogma. If you ignore infallible dogma, you are excommunicated automatically. There is no requirement for the Pope to send you a letter. If the king of Spain continued to enslave natives after this decree, he would have been ipso facto excommunicated.

BS. The king received communion and the last rites. How could that be if he was ipso facto excommunicated? How could he have received holy standards from the pope? How could he have been named defender of the faith?

So...as the king never got excommunicated, the church was either powerless or in favor of slavery.
The king was excommunicated.

EVIDENCE THAT ANY KING OF SPAIN WAS EVER EXCOMMUNICATED.

Not in the time of the latin kingdom, they were not, which WAS THE ENTIRE ESSENCE OF MY POST.
What was the Churches role in this?

Are you fucking dense? They appointed bishops and helped administer the territories, and provided forces to the latin kingdom.

No, this is your ignorance of medieval diplomacy showing. If you contrast it with other letters, it is just a bog-standard letter asking for help.
The fact is, Alexius requested help, the Crusades were the response. Whether that was what Alexius actually wanted or not is irrelevent.

So if your house is on fire and I proceed to flood the area with a huge river, the fact that you drowned is irrelevant because I put out the fire?

So if I were to burn one of the best universities in the history of mankind this is somehow not suppression of science?
One isolated incident does not prove a systematic suppression of science.

It was not an isolated incident, you dolt. See above.

We can start with Hypatia and then make our way all over to Damasius.
Hypatia was killed by a christian mob, not an officially sanctioned persecution.

Hypatia was killed by monks spurred on by a christian priest. None of them were punished for it. In fact, the leader of the mob became an important church figure.

Paulus Orosius, a christian source, writes:

Quote:
Today there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen, and, when these temples were plundered, these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our time, which, indeed, is a true statement.

Even if there were copies, nothing can excuse the destruction of cultural treasures that had been existing for hundreds of years. What is your excuse for the destruction of the great temples?
Your quote didn't prove that the works were scientific.

Did you just honestly claim the library at Alexandria did not contain works of science and was not a collection of "all the knowledge known to man"? Did you just honestly say that? You honestly have no idea how science worked back then, do you?

The great temples were, once again, not scientific institutions.

[/quote]
Sure they were. The Serapeum was the centerpiece of higher education in Alexandria.

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2009-12-12 05:41pm

Just to comment on the Crusades thing: If the Crusades were a response to a plea of help, what was then the deal with Jerusalem and the propaganda that Christian pilgrims were not allowed the visit Jesus's (supposed) crypt?

Exactly, you don't have any evidence what so ever. So the charge is, quite frankly, lame. The only evidence you have is a few comments made by a few clergymen. We don't know if these comments were taken out of context. Even if they weren't, its doubtful that many people actually hear, or even care, about what these people are saying.

Who needs drugs when they can drink what you do?

These are high-ranking clergymen. The fact that the Church is opposed to modern sex education and any form of contraception is well-established. Humane Viate outright states it. To think that the opinion of these people do not matter is ridicolous.

But you know what? Show me a counter-example. Show me an example of clergymen going around, telling people to use a condom if they have sex.

Oh, wait, then those people would be speaking against the very doctrine! They would be advocating an act that is contrary to humane vitae and "the truth about human sexuality" (ironically written by men who never had sex in their lives).

I don't know why you brought up the bush administration. The Bush administration was not involved until 2000. The success first began in 1988-1992, before wide spread condom promotion as has been repeatedly shown and is exactly what Dr. Green said.

I might believe you if you had not previously outright misquoted Green. And really, get a better source than a lone researcher.

Why I brought up the Bush administration? I didn't, smart ass. It was in the source and I do not temper with my quotes unless I note so.

As for Uganda: the RCC would not dare to directly interfere with Uganda's ABC program (not that it would need to: "abstinence" was part of the program). It is its very dogma that is the problem and counter-productive. The RCC knows what it is doing but of course finds its celibate's fantasy of family and sexuality more important than genuine human suffering.

Ruben · Post by **Ruben** » 2009-12-12 08:06pm

These are high-ranking clergymen. The fact that the Church is opposed to modern sex education and any form of contraception is well-established. Humane Viate outright states it. To think that the opinion of these people do not matter is ridicolous.

What is your point? Nobody cares what these individual clergy think. Yes the Church is opposed to contraception, but that does not mean that their opposition is a problem in the fight against aids. The issue we were discussing was the medically inaccurate statements being made by a few members of catholic clergy. I have yet to see you show where the Pope has said anything inaccurate about condoms. The church has only ruled on the morality for the individual who uses a condom. I don't have a problem with this.

But you know what? Show me a counter-example. Show me an example of clergymen going around, telling people to use a condom if they have sex.

There is no requirement for the Catholic clergy to condone condoms at all. That was not my point. There is no problem with the church believing that condoms are immoral. The point you were trying to make was that the church's opposition is making aids worse, which there is no evidence for.

I might believe you if you had not previously outright misquoted Green. And really, get a better source than a lone researcher.

Hold on, so I'm misquoting him, but at the same time he's unreliable? So which is it? Is he unreliable, or am I misquoting him? If I'm misquoting him, you shouldn't have a problem with the source. If he's unreliable, I must not be misquoting him, or you would agree with what he's saying.

As for Uganda: the RCC would not dare to directly interfere with Uganda's ABC program (not that it would need to: "abstinence" was part of the program).

ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU JUST CONCEDED MY POINT!!

It is its very dogma that is the problem and counter-productive. The RCC knows what it is doing but of course finds its celibate's fantasy of family and sexuality more important than genuine human suffering.

Its counter-productive, but there is no evidence that it is counter-productive? Hmm.

Why bring it up then? Oh wait, clearly you thought it was relevant.

I brought it up because you brought it up.

Why bring it up then? Oh wait, clearly you thought it was relevant.

So what was your point then? Why did you even bring it up?

And I repeat - you know jack about the cathars. They were no suicide cult, no matter how much you try to paint them as such.

Ever heard of the "Endura"?

In any case, wikipedia is worth nothing. You can try naming real sources.

The argument however is not in your favor and it was not a minor part of your argument. It was the first starting point of your "the church defended civilization" spiel.

It was part of the argument, but not the essence of it.

The catholic church made the guy who did it a saint. It produced propagandic text heralding this as a great feat. It was endorsed and claimed as part of church heritage. Furthermore, it is not the only action taken by the church in order to destroy pagan temples and show christianity had triumphed. Look up the island of Phile. In 421, according to christian sources, they destroyed the temple of Caelestis in Carthage and transformed it into a cemetary.

This is a claim, cite sources.

Any way, you keep bringing up temple burnings which is not the slightest bit relevant to science.

As for the saint, he is only a saint in the Greek orthodox church.

Cite them. NOW. Direct quotations.

The history channel apparently thought it was important.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5itBgiz3 ... 2&index=36[/youtube]

William E. Watson thought it was a significant battle.

“ There is clearly some justification for ranking Tours-Poitiers among the most significant events in Frankish history when one considers the result of the battle in light of the remarkable record of the successful establishment by Muslims of Islamic political and cultural dominance along the entire eastern and southern rim of the former Christian, Roman world. The rapid Muslim conquest of Palestine, Syria, Egypt and the North African coast all the way to Morocco in the seventh century resulted in the permanent imposition by force of Islamic culture onto a previously Christian and largely non-Arab base. The Visigothic kingdom fell to Muslim conquerors in a single battle on the Rio Barbate in 711, and the Hispanic Christian population took seven long centuries to regain control of the Iberian peninsula. The Reconquista, of course, was completed in 1492, only months before Columbus received official backing for his fateful voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Had Charles Martel suffered at Tours-Poitiers the fate of King Roderick at the Rio Barbate, it is doubtful that a "do-nothing" sovereign of the Merovingian realm could have later succeeded where his talented major domus had failed. Indeed, as Charles was the progenitor of the Carolingian line of Frankish rulers and grandfather of Charlemagne, one can even say with a degree of certainty that the subsequent history of the West would have proceeded along vastly different currents had ‘Abd ar-Rahman been victorious at Tours-Poitiers in 732."

^ Watson, William, E. (1993). The Battle of Tours-Poitiers Revisited. Providence: Studies in Western Civilization v.2 n.1.

The popes sure did, even inviting in a foreign pretender with no rights to the throne and making him emperor.

This is a claim, cite sources please. Which emperor? What was the significants? What was the context?

Because you say so?

The franks became the french. The holy roman empire eventually became Germany. That's why its considered the second Reich.

The church was not protecting the italian cities. The church was not paying for the trade. The church was not, in any way, responsible for the conduct of the Italian cities and their governments. The church was not responsible for the wealth and riches of the Indian east and it sure as hell was not responsible for the arabian and byzantine trade routes.

So explain to me why it was responsible for this again?

I was talking about the political manuvering of the church during the dark ages.

That makes the Byzantines catholic...how? In case you missed it, the catholic church is the younger of the churches, with rome not even being on the radar of church metropolitans until the seventh and eight century. So you might as well say that until the great schism and until charlemagne, the catholic church was not the senior church at all. The orthodox church was, indeed being the older and far more renowned of the two at that time.

What the orthodox is older than the Roman church? What? The Roman Church has been around since the first century. It was founded by Paul.

Strawmen. They did however have far better literacy rates and Byzantium had a far higher level of culture anyway.

They had better literacy because they had economic stability and an empire that made up a quarter of the world.

Ladies and gentlemen, here we have another example - we do not answer the point, no, certainly not, but we rather say something completely unrelated.

What are you talking about? You said that Thomas Aquinas only had limited access to the classical work. I answered that charge.

Do you know how many sections of the bible are directly copied from Roman religion? For example, the miracles of Jesus are directly copied from the acts of the roman emperor Vespasian. The saturnalia are our christmas and the birth of Jesus is a direct (if rather bad) copy of the birth of Mithras.

Non of the bible is "directly" quoted from Roman paganism. Jesus is not based off Mithra. Yes Christmas is copied from saturnalia, but whats your point? A day is a day. Where are your sources by the way?

Why not?

What practical value do pagan rituals have?

Idiot. We only have parts of their work and we do not know how much either of them wrote. In any case, you can only come up with two writers in response to the charge that the church did not protect the ancient writers?

I could find more if I wanted to, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. Furthermore, I haven't seen you present any author who believe to the contrary.

I can't watch youtube from work. But of course, you can summarize the arguments in brief form.

Watch it when you get home.

Direct cites. Now.

No, you asked me to "name it"; I did that.

BS. The king received communion and the last rites. How could that be if he was ipso facto excommunicated? How could he have received holy standards from the pope? How could he have been named defender of the faith?

Which king are we talking about? Anyway, you realize that every European king supported slavery? Does it make sense to go out of your way to antagonize an empire that is doing nothing different than anyone else? No other European power at this time, christian or other wise, was doing anything about slavery. In fact, its pretty amazing that the church even condemned it at all, considering the climate.

The fact is, the church voiced their opinion on the matter, if they had not, you would have said they were "silent". Since they weren't silent, you just claim it wasn't good enough.

EVIDENCE THAT ANY KING OF SPAIN WAS EVER EXCOMMUNICATED.

The excommunication is automatic, it doesn't require the church to do anything. You can still received communion, but it is a sacrilege. A good example of an excommunicated Catholic who attends church, and takes communion, would be John Kerry, or Ted Kennedy.

Are you fucking dense? They appointed bishops and helped administer the territories, and provided forces to the latin kingdom.

I don't understand your point with the Latin Kingdom. Why wouldn't they appoint bishops?

So if your house is on fire and I proceed to flood the area with a huge river, the fact that you drowned is irrelevant because I put out the fire?

We were talking about the first crusade. The Byzantine empire faired just fine during the first crusade. The fourth crusade was the one that went badly for them.

It was not an isolated incident, you dolt. See above.

It was an isolated incident. Just because the church liked the emperor who did it doesn't disprove this fact, nor does temple burning prove anything. It was not specifically, at least, targeted at science, so, no this doesn't prove a systematic suppression of science.

Hypatia was killed by monks spurred on by a christian priest. None of them were punished for it. In fact, the leader of the mob became an important church figure.

Okay, so, it was a group of monks and a priest. In other words, it was an angry mob, that is not systematic persecution.

Did you just honestly claim the library at Alexandria did not contain works of science and was not a collection of "all the knowledge known to man"? Did you just honestly say that? You honestly have no idea how science worked back then, do you?

No, I just wanted you to prove that it was. Any how it was not burned specifically to destroy science.

Sure they were. The Serapeum was the centerpiece of higher education in Alexandria.

The Serapeum was still primarily a religious institution.

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2009-12-13 09:51am

What is your point? Nobody cares what these individual clergy think

Even if these are people in leadership position and with significant power? And that they were not punished for their opinion and lies?

Are you this fucking stupid?

If I join a bomb and weapon factory where I learn that the shift supervisor openly is member of a fascist party that advocates violently overthrowing the current government, with none of his superiors or ever questioning him on this (when it is clear that they know about it), and his inferiors nodding along, am I to believe that he's a lone, loud nutcase? Bullshit.

. I have yet to see you show where the Pope has said anything inaccurate about condoms

He pretty openly said that condoms are making AIDS problem worse.

And no, I don't fucking believe for a second that he's referring to Green. As far as I am concerned, Green is your little hand-authority that you love to misquote, because in an idiotic moment the man agreed with a sentence. Let me drag back the BBC interview with him:

William Crawley: You accept that condoms do work in other parts of the world, like the Western World, for example?

Edward Green: I do. And they should have a back-up role even in the generalised epidemics of Africa. I believe condoms should be made available to everyone. It should be, and as you say, the ABC strategy: Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom. Condoms may well have contributed to the prevalence decline in Uganda.

William Crawley: That's a serious ideological difference between yourself and the Pope. He doesn't think that condoms should be used, even in the case of married Catholic couples where one of the partners is HIV-positive.

Edward Green: Yes, well, I don't agree with that. And, I have said that I am not a Catholic, and I am not talking about condoms in any sort of moral-ethical sense. I am talking about what has been found to work and not work. So, yes, the article I mentioned by Hearst and Chen is very clear that condoms work in certain types of situations and certain sub-populations and condoms have had a positive national impact in certain concentrated epidemics. So, yes, I don't agree with the Pope across the board.

And that's why I don't see why Pope basing his opinion on Green. Green is advocating the use of contraceptives, he's merely advocating the use of complete education regarding sexuality and contraceptives. But you have distorted his findings and misquoting his work, to suit your position.

Yes the Church is opposed to contraception, but that does not mean that their opposition is a problem in the fight against aids.

Condemning condoms directly interferes with fighting AIDS, whether you like it or not. Condoms, when proper-quality and properly used, protect against HIV almost all the time. The alternative that the RCC proposes, that people should not have sex at all, is nothing more than a celibate man's fantasy. People will have sex, and if all people used condoms all the time they would not only prevent unwanted pregnancies, but also drastically lower the chances of infection.

There is no requirement for the Catholic clergy to condone condoms at all.

"The Truth about Human sexuality" does heavily imply that modern sex education should be avoided.

Hold on, so I'm misquoting him, but at the same time he's unreliable? So which is it?

For you? Both. You've both misquoted him and appealing to his authority.

If you are right about this, why don't you use some other source? After all,

ARE YOU SERIOUS? YOU JUST CONCEDED MY POINT!!

No, because the Church does it indirectly.

Its counter-productive, but there is no evidence that it is counter-productive? Hmm.

[/quote]

Abstin... you know what, let's not beat around the bush, shall we? Celibacy-for-all education is worthless and that is what the RCC is advocating.

Except that celibacy is worthless form of sexual behaviour as a generalised policy. People will have sex, whether celibate men living in their own little fantasy world like it or not. And when confronted with the choice of putting a layer of spandex/latex/whatever on your penis and/or inside your vagina or not have sex at all, people will opt with putting weird stuff on or in their gentiles. Because as sure as the sun shall set and rise, people will have sex and keep having sex, and the best you can hope for is to tell them how to have sex.

But of course, the RCC views contraceptives as immoral because celibate men who never had to raise a family by themselves or never had any sexual experience in their life (or at least deny that they did) think it is immoral. So, they lie instead.

Even Catholics are getting fed up with this shit: http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/condomPolicy.htm

What happens when religious leaders lie? People will not use condoms because they believe it has AIDS in it or that it will not work, and just have sex vanilla.

Ruben · Post by **Ruben** » 2009-12-13 01:24pm

Even if these are people in leadership position and with significant power? And that they were not punished for their opinion and lies?

Are you this fucking stupid?

If I join a bomb and weapon factory where I learn that the shift supervisor openly is member of a fascist party that advocates violently overthrowing the current government, with none of his superiors or ever questioning him on this (when it is clear that they know about it), and his inferiors nodding along, am I to believe that he's a lone, loud nutcase? Bullshit.

I don't know that the Pope does know about these statements. The statement in question was something that a cardinal said in an interview that was published in the BBC and the Guardian. I don't really think the Pope watches, or reads, either of those. We also don't know whether or not those statements were out of context.

He pretty openly said that condoms are making AIDS problem worse.

No, here is what he actually said.

“if there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behaviour], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it"

I don't see a problem with this statement.

And no, I don't fucking believe for a second that he's referring to Green. As far as I am concerned, Green is your little hand-authority that you love to misquote, because in an idiotic moment the man agreed with a sentence. Let me drag back the BBC interview with him:

I never said he referred to Green, but Edward Green referred to him.

On your interview, again, I never said that Green agreed with the Pope on everything.

And that's why I don't see why Pope basing his opinion on Green. Green is advocating the use of contraceptives, he's merely advocating the use of complete education regarding sexuality and contraceptives. But you have distorted his findings and misquoting his work, to suit your position.

I don't think I did distort his findings. I said that he said that condoms were not the "primary" cause for success.

Condemning condoms directly interferes with fighting AIDS, whether you like it or not. Condoms, when proper-quality and properly used, protect against HIV almost all the time. The alternative that the RCC proposes, that people should not have sex at all, is nothing more than a celibate man's fantasy. People will have sex, and if all people used condoms all the time they would not only prevent unwanted pregnancies, but also drastically lower the chances of infection.

Once again, we have already covered this ground. Aids rates are average, or below average, in Catholic nations. If the Church's opposition was a problem, the aids rates would be higher. So far, all we have is your say so to prove that the Church's position is a problem, no hard evidence.

As for this being a "celibate mans fantasy", that's not true, there are protestant ministers who are married, and do have sex, who would agree with the Pope.

"The Truth about Human sexuality" does heavily imply that modern sex education should be avoided.

That depends on which "modern sex education" we're talking about. The decree that you brought up only condemned education that teaches condoms to children. I don't know about you, but I don't think 8 and 9 year old kids should learn how to wear condoms.

For you? Both. You've both misquoted him and appealing to his authority.

I don't think I have misquoted him. I think you have misquoted me.

No, because the Church does it indirectly.

What are you talking about? How exactly did the Church "indirectly" prevent aids success in Uganda? We already showed that it did not.

Except that celibacy is worthless form of sexual behaviour as a generalised policy. People will have sex, whether celibate men living in their own little fantasy world like it or not. And when confronted with the choice of putting a layer of spandex/latex/whatever on your penis and/or inside your vagina or not have sex at all, people will opt with putting weird stuff on or in their gentiles. Because as sure as the sun shall set and rise, people will have sex and keep having sex, and the best you can hope for is to tell them how to have sex.

The difference here, is that you are talking about widespread Government programs, where as the Church is only referring to individual morality.

But of course, the RCC views contraceptives as immoral because celibate men who never had to raise a family by themselves or never had any sexual experience in their life (or at least deny that they did) think it is immoral. So, they lie instead.

Only a few of them "lied". I'm not sure if "lie" is the right word for it, because they might actually have believed what they said. You got to understand that the guy who made the most controversial comments, Cardinal Tujilo, is like 80 years old.

What happens when religious leaders lie? People will not use condoms because they believe it has AIDS in it or that it will not work, and just have sex vanilla.

Yet, there is no proof for this.

Lastly, why would someone who would not listen to the Church on premarital sex, listen to the Church on condoms?

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2009-12-13 02:47pm

I don't know that the Pope does know about these statements. The statement in question was something that a cardinal said in an interview that was published in the BBC and the Guardian. I don't really think the Pope watches, or reads, either of those. We also don't know whether or not those statements were out of context.

Go ahead to my second link, there are some other quotes from other leaders.

And you have not answered anything with this response, just by trying to deny responsibility of quoted leaders.

No, here is what he actually said.

“if there is no human dimension, if Africans do not help [by responsible behaviour], the problem cannot be overcome by the distribution of prophylactics: on the contrary, they increase it"

I don't see a problem with this statement.

First off, you changed the quote. Second off, the Pope in this statement rejects condoms and continues to do so.

Let's look at a Reuters article on this, shall we?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLH936617._CH_.2400

"It (AIDS) cannot be overcome by the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem," he said in response to a question about the Church's widely contested position against the use of condoms.

Yes, Reuters adds its own little tag, but it is a quite different quote. And notice that he condemns condoms as a whole, just as he should according to doctrine.

Even if this quote is not 100% accurate, you would need to show a quote where he does the opposite: where he does not blame condoms for the spread of AIDS.

Several medical journals and scientists have spoken out against his comment:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLI43220920090318

"My reaction is that this represents a major step backwards in terms of global health education, is entirely counter-productive, and is likely to lead to increases in HIV infection in Africa and elsewhere," said Prof Quentin Sattentau, Professor of Immunology at Britain's Oxford University.

"There is a large body of published evidence demonstrating that condom use reduces the risk of acquiring HIV infection, but does not lead to increased sexual activity," he said.

"Modern development cooperation must give access to the means for family planning to the poorest of the poor. And the use of condoms is especially part of that," Germany's health and development ministers said in a joint statement.

"Anything else would be irresponsible," they added.

I never said he referred to Green, but Edward Green referred to him.

On your interview, again, I never said that Green agreed with the Pope on everything.

No, but you tried to justify the Pope's position that stems purely from defence to doctrine with Green's unrelated work.

I don't think I did distort his findings. I said that he said that condoms were not the "primary" cause for success.

And who and when did someone here say that condoms were the primary cause of success?

Once again, we have already covered this ground. Aids rates are average, or below average, in Catholic nations. If the Church's opposition was a problem, the aids rates would be higher.

Or condom availability would not reduce infection rates because religious leaders tell people not to use the condoms. And that has happened.

As for this being a "celibate mans fantasy", that's not true, there are protestant ministers who are married, and do have sex, who would agree with the Pope.

Emphasis added.

Protestant ministers who are not members of the Catholic church. What they do is irrelevant to the discussion.

"Humanea Vitatae" and "The Truth about Human Sexuality" was written by celibate men.

That depends on which "modern sex education" we're talking about. The decree that you brought up only condemned education that teaches condoms to children. I don't know about you, but I don't think 8 and 9 year old kids should learn how to wear condoms.

Idiot. Do you honestly think that the document meant that 8-9 year olds should not be taught but 12-14 year olds should be?

Let's look at that little piece of fantasy once again shall we?

139. Another abuse occurs whenever sex education is given to children by teaching them all the intimate details of genital relationships, even in a graphic way. Today this is often motivated by wanting to provide education for "safe sex", above all in relation to the spread of AIDS. In this situation, parents must also reject the promotion of so-called "safe sex" or "safer sex", a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS. Parents must insist on continence outside marriage and fidelity in marriage as the only true and secure education for the prevention of this contagious disease.

And just to clarify, the document also specifies that when adolescence is reach, education on sexuality should only take place in "only in conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Church", that is, sex is evil and all sperms are fucking sacred.

Finally, so what if 8-9 year olds learn how to use a condom? They were also taught why and when to use a condom, as well as to what happens. That's what modern sex education means. 8-9 years old are not sexually mature, they are more likely to put it on car antennas than on their dicks (or in their vaginas, if female condoms are also distributed).

The exact age also varies: sometimes its at 12-14, sometimes its more than that. The best period is right before adolescence, so children would come and understand what happens to their bodies in the coming years and what sex is.

I don't think I have misquoted him. I think you have misquoted me.

In the old thread, you have rapidly misquoted what he means and what he advocates. This was duly pointed out, but you continue to refer to him with an appeal of authority.

Only a few of them "lied". I'm not sure if "lie" is the right word for it, because they might actually have believed what they said. You got to understand that the guy who made the most controversial comments, Cardinal Tujilo, is like 80 years old.

[/quote]

So he was senile? How apologetic. I am unaware of his statement being redacted, but you'll say that the word of a high-ranking catholic clergyman doesn't matter because he was possibly senile.

What about the countless other priests, what about the missionaries that tell that they put AIDS into the condoms?

Yet, there is no proof for this.

Lastly, why would someone who would not listen to the Church on premarital sex, listen to the Church on condoms?
[/qote]

Because humans are irrational. They need to have sex due to billion-years-old instinct, and if they are Catholics, they'll only later feel guilty about it. They confess, make x-number of hail marries or whatever, then do it again. They feel less guilty about it if they don't use a condom, because using a condom is an additional sin.

The fact that there is still a significant level of AIDS at all in Catholic majority countries, including in Congo where the disease originated, shows that people will have sex. Doing it without a condom only makes it more dangerous, a fact that catholic missionaries do not comprehend and so you don't as well.

Ruben · Post by **Ruben** » 2009-12-13 03:49pm

Go ahead to my second link, there are some other quotes from other leaders.

And you have not answered anything with this response, just by trying to deny responsibility of quoted leaders.

No, I don't deny that some other clergy have said some controversial things, I deny that they are having the kind of impact that you claim they are having.

First off, you changed the quote. Second off, the Pope in this statement rejects condoms and continues to do so.

No, mine was the word for word quote of Benedict XVI. The article you quoted changed the quote. here is the actual transcript.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/bened ... ew_en.html

Yes, Reuters adds its own little tag, but it is a quite different quote. And notice that he condemns condoms as a whole, just as he should according to doctrine.

Once again, your rehashing old tired arguments, and completely missing the point. There is no doctrine that says that condoms are "ineffective". There is a doctrine that says that they are immoral.

Several medical journals and scientists have spoken out against his comment:

No, they condemned what the media portrayed as his comment, which was not actually what he said.

"My reaction is that this represents a major step backwards in terms of global health education, is entirely counter-productive, and is likely to lead to increases in HIV infection in Africa and elsewhere," said Prof Quentin Sattentau, Professor of Immunology at Britain's Oxford University.

This is simply speculation.

"There is a large body of published evidence demonstrating that condom use reduces the risk of acquiring HIV infection, but does not lead to increased sexual activity," he said.

This here shows that he did not actually understand what the Pope really said. The Pope didn't comment on whether or not condoms are effective in reducing the risk of contracting aids, he merely said that condoms won't work, if people don't stop fucking so damn much.

No, but you tried to justify the Pope's position that stems purely from defence to doctrine with Green's unrelated work.

Green certainly did say that he supported the Pope's comment. I'm not even going to post you a link, look it up.

And who and when did someone here say that condoms were the primary cause of success?

Well, when I said they were not the "primary" cause for success, people argued against me. Either way, Green does not just say that condoms were not the "primary" cause for success, he went so far as to say that abstinence and monogamy were more effective than condoms.

Or condom availability would not reduce infection rates because religious leaders tell people not to use the condoms. And that has happened.

Where has that happened?

Protestant ministers who are not members of the Catholic church. What they do is irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes they are. You're argument was that the Church is only opposed to condoms because they are celibate virgins. My point was that non-celibate people agree with them, so, your reasoning must be flawed. I would also add that Muslims are opposed to condoms as well. It seems to me, that condoms are opposed by Religions that recognize "natural law".

Idiot. Do you honestly think that the document meant that 8-9 year olds should not be taught but 12-14 year olds should be?

You realize that people actually do teach condoms to little kids? The Church here is condemning a very specific kind of sex Ed. They are condemning the kind of sex ed. that incorporates a morally relativistic view of sex, and incorporates pornographic images and language in their education of children, a form of education that is popular in the United States. They are not condemning the kind of education that was taught in Uganda.

And just to clarify, the document also specifies that when adolescence is reach, education on sexuality should only take place in "only in conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Church", that is, sex is evil and all sperms are fucking sacred.

What's wrong with that exactly?

Finally, so what if 8-9 year olds learn how to use a condom?

Teaching little kids how to have sex is simply demented.

In the old thread, you have rapidly misquoted what he means and what he advocates. This was duly pointed out, but you continue to refer to him with an appeal of authority.

Maybe I did, but I think we have already been over that.

So he was senile? How apologetic. I am unaware of his statement being redacted, but you'll say that the word of a high-ranking catholic clergyman doesn't matter because he was possibly senile.

I don't know if the statements have been repudiated or not. We don't even know if the Pope is aware of them.

What about the countless other priests, what about the missionaries that tell that they put AIDS into the condoms?

There is no evidence that these people exist. If they did exist, Uganda's program would have failed because Uganda is loaded with priests and missionaries. Which is the point you continue to miss.

Because humans are irrational. They need to have sex due to billion-years-old instinct, and if they are Catholics, they'll only later feel guilty about it. They confess, make x-number of hail marries or whatever, then do it again. They feel less guilty about it if they don't use a condom, because using a condom is an additional sin.

Firstly, we have already demonstrated that abstinence and monogamy were part of the success story, so, people apparently can control their urges. Secondly, condoms do not add an "additional" sin, I don't know where you got that from, the sin is in the sex itself.

The fact that there is still a significant level of AIDS at all in Catholic majority countries, including in Congo where the disease originated, shows that people will have sex. Doing it without a condom only makes it more dangerous, a fact that catholic missionaries do not comprehend and so you don't as well.

Countries where the church has more influence do not have any higher, and in fact have lower, aids rates than non-Catholic countries like Botswana and South Africa. Lastly, what missionaries are you talking about exactly?

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2009-12-13 04:12pm

Whatever Ruben. I don't have time to quote-hunt to prove something that is pretty widely-known (all except to you of course).

Ruben · Post by **Ruben** » 2009-12-13 04:21pm

Whatever Ruben. I don't have time to quote-hunt to prove something that is pretty widely-known (all except to you of course).

No it is not "widely-known" it is a conspiracy theory that is sold by people like Christopher Hitchens who want to discredit religion. It is not based on facts. It is common myth, nothing more.

Zixinus · Post by **Zixinus** » 2009-12-13 05:19pm

Every condom sold sends the buyer to acquire the AIDS virus.

Fr. Gerald Magera Iga, in a campaign urging condom sellers in Uganda to burn up their stocks [Comtex newswire, January 25, 1999].

Use of this product is harmful to health.

Condom warning label suggested by Mexico City Archbishop Norberto Rivera Carrera [La Jornada (Mexico), August 29, 1997].

W]idespread and indiscriminate promotion of condoms [is] an immoral and misguided weapon in our battle against HIV-AIDS. …[C]ondoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV-AIDS.

From the text of a statement issued by the bishops of South Africa following their semiannual meeting, where they considered a change in their official condoms policy in response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic [Karen DeYoung, “AIDS challenges religious leaders,” Washington Post, August 13, 2001].

And to close:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7014335.stm

Archbishop Chimoio told our reporter that abstention, not condoms, was the best way to fight HIV/Aids.

"Condoms are not sure because I know that there are two countries in Europe, they are making condoms with the virus on purpose," he alleged, refusing to name the countries.

Outright fucking lies. If high-ranking members are happy telling outright lies, why should I believe that missionaries will not change the truth for the benefit of what they believe to be doing good?

It was a matter of time until we heard the conspiracy theory. Theists and their need to be seen as oppressed.

Ruben · Post by **Ruben** » 2009-12-13 07:15pm

Fr. Gerald Magera Iga, in a campaign urging condom sellers in Uganda to burn up their stocks [Comtex newswire, January 25, 1999].

Once again, I never said that there aren't preiest and bishops who do these things, but I do deny that they are having a major impact. Take the quote above, for instance. This priest was from Uganda. If you remember, Uganda is the country that has had the most success fighting aids, so, obviously this priest is not having a very big impact.

Use of this product is harmful to health.

Condom warning label suggested by Mexico City Archbishop Norberto Rivera Carrera [La Jornada (Mexico), August 29, 1997].

It could harm your health, if it fails. Either way, Mexico didn't use this slogan, so, once again, no significant impact here.

W]idespread and indiscriminate promotion of condoms [is] an immoral and misguided weapon in our battle against HIV-AIDS. …[C]ondoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV-AIDS.

From the text of a statement issued by the bishops of South Africa following their semiannual meeting, where they considered a change in their official condoms policy in response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic [Karen DeYoung, “AIDS challenges religious leaders,” Washington Post, August 13, 2001].

That depends on what "widespread and indiscriminate" condom promotion actually means.

Archbishop Chimoio told our reporter that abstention, not condoms, was the best way to fight HIV/Aids.

"Condoms are not sure because I know that there are two countries in Europe, they are making condoms with the virus on purpose," he alleged, refusing to name the countries.

Once again, I never denied that some clergy are saying these things, but I do deny the impact you claim they are having.

Outright fucking lies. If high-ranking members are happy telling outright lies, why should I believe that missionaries will not change the truth for the benefit of what they believe to be doing good?

The job of a missionary is not to talk about sex, it is to convert people to the Catholic faith. I doubt missionaries even mention condoms.

If the missionaries were doing what you claim, then Uganda would never have been able to combat aids because Uganda is loaded with priests and missionaries, a point you have yet to address. All you have done is cherry pick a few quotes from a few random clergymen, and assumed they are having significant impact without any evidence.

It was a matter of time until we heard the conspiracy theory. Theists and their need to be seen as oppressed.

The conspiracy theory is "the church spreads lies about condoms as an official policy, and this policy is making aids worse". You have not presented any evidence to support this. You also over look that the only people who have access to these comments are people in the western media. I mean I would never have heard them unless I went on this forum, do you really think most African have access to this stuff?

The point is, if these statements were as widespread and dangerous as you claim, then we should see some significant impact, we don't. In fact, where the Church is most influential, the aids rates are either average, or below average.

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2009-12-14 10:49am

Ruben wrote:
And I repeat - you know jack about the cathars. They were no suicide cult, no matter how much you try to paint them as such.
Ever heard of the "Endura"?

Which was not a suicide cult, you idiot. It was a ritualistic fasting in order to speed death by people who were terminally ill.

In any case, wikipedia is worth nothing. You can try naming real sources.
No my sources were not wikipedia only, here are my sources.

1. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_ ... ll_of_rome
2. http://www.unrv.com/decline-of-empire/d ... empire.php
3. http://www.roman-colosseum.info/roman-e ... empire.htm
4. http://socyberty.com/history/did-christ ... an-empire/
5. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/Sec ... an-Empire-
6. Did-Christianity-play-a-role-.id-305402,articleId-8104.html
7. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/fa ... t_rome.htm
8. http://metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDe ... fault.aspx
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks
10. http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/hi ... italy.html
11. http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Pla ... oryid=ab74
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#A ... c_kingdoms
14. http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/West ... Tours.html
15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain#Muslim_Iberia
17. http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/bat ... /tours.htm
18. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5itBgiz3 ... xt_from=PL
19. http://www.lycos.com/info/carolingian-renaissance.html
20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_Renaissance
21. http://familyhistory1.homestead.com/Charlemagne.html
22. http://www.boisestate.edu/courses/westc ... s/04.shtml
23. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne
24. http://www.britannica.com/facts/5/53904 ... on-of-work
25. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_monasticism
26. http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~dvess/i ... 4950.shtml
27. http://www.medieval-spell.com/Medieval- ... Monks.html
28. http://www.economictheories.org/2008/11 ... eries.html
29. http://www.enotes.com/classical-medieva ... literature
30. http://home.gwi.net/~rdorman/frilond/bac/writing.htm
31. http://metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDe ... fault.aspx
32. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcuin#Literary_influence
33. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Victor_III
34. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Boniface
35. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... n_overview
36. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
37. http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/B ... Mendel.php
38. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/s ... covich.htm
39. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Steno
40. http://www.companysj.com/v192/renaissance.htm
41. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_Kircher
42. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Riccioli
43. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12EXIST.HTM
44. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
45. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
46. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical ... f_Sciences
47. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Lana_de_Terzi
48. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_law
49. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0859206.html
50. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_a ... index.html
51. http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/ ... a22623.htm
52. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Vitoria
53. http://www.answers.com/topic/francisco-de-vitoria
54. http://books.google.com/books?id=uklB6A ... ns&f=false
55. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... ehle30-207
56. http://www.religion-cults.com/pope/communism.htm
57. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution ... _in_Poland

1. http://www.caritas.org/worldmap/asia/india.html
2. http://www.caritas.org/worldmap/mona/iran.html
3. http://www.caritas.org/worldmap/mona/egypt.html
4. http://www.caritas.org/worldmap/mona/syria.html
5. http://www.caritas.org/worldmap/mona/cyprus.html
6. http://www.caritas.org/worldmap/mona/jordan.html
7. http://www.caritas.org/worldmap/mona/morocco.html
8. http://www.caritas.org/worldmap/mona/libya.html
9. http://www.caritas.org/worldmap/mona/somalia.html
10. http://www.caritas.org/worldmap/mona/algeria.html
11. http://www.caritas.org/worldmap/asia/pakistan.html
12. http://www.caritas.org/worldmap/asia/index.html
13. http://blog.caritas.org/2009/01/14/gaza ... otiations/
14. http://www.cptryon.org/compassion/70/cath-ch.html
15. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm
16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicut_Judaeis
17. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg10/g10jprot.htm
18. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/i ... tjews.html
19. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/ent ... nocent_III
20. http://www.rdsinc.com/pdf/samples/sp691771.pdf
21. http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/le ... exius.html
22. http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/by ... mpire.html
23. http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture20b.html
24. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Pope_John_XII
25. http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture20b.html
26. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
27. http://www.medieval-life.net/education.htm
28. Koestler, Ref. 4, p. 448.
29. http://galileo.rice.edu/gal/urban.html
30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_de_Chauliac
31. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regiomontanus
32. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Vesalius
33. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Cesalpino
34. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... bFo753SA1g
35. http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index2 ... f=1&id=193
36. http://books.google.com/books?id=6pUFCr ... q=&f=false pg152
37. https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/ug.html
38. https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/by.html
39. https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/rw.html
40. https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/rp.html
41. https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/ao.html
42. https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/cg.html
43. https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/cg.html
44. https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/bc.html
45. https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/sf.html

I only cited wikipedia when it was a fact I considered common knowledge.

Yeah, and now I am asking you to back it up by real sources. Not wikipedia not youtube not some other BS site on the internet.

The catholic church made the guy who did it a saint. It produced propagandic text heralding this as a great feat. It was endorsed and claimed as part of church heritage. Furthermore, it is not the only action taken by the church in order to destroy pagan temples and show christianity had triumphed. Look up the island of Phile. In 421, according to christian sources, they destroyed the temple of Caelestis in Carthage and transformed it into a cemetary.
This is a claim, cite sources.

I already showed you the propagandic text with the picture of St. Theopil before. As for Philae:

A number of reliefs in the courtyard have been defaced and replaced with Coptic Christian crosses and a Christian altar was erected in the courtyard at about 500 AD. There were, in fact, several Christian churches here, including those dedicated to the Virgin Mary (usurping Isis) and Saint Stephen (usurping the position of Horus. There is also another inscription by Bishop Theodorus on the doorway of a room on the right of the hall in which he takes credit for his "good work" in defacing the ancient monument. A similar inscription records the "archaeological" expedition sent by Pope Gregory XVI of 1841 during which further ancient reliefs were no doubt destroyed.

From: here.

You can see the destruction here:

The victory inscription is on the bottom.

And you can also see the utter disregard for cultural values displayed by the christians here. Do you see how they defaced and destroyed these marvelous works of art?

Defenders of civilizations indeed.

Any way, you keep bringing up temple burnings which is not the slightest bit relevant to science.

Given that they held important libraries, it of course is.

Cite them. NOW. Direct quotations.
The history channel apparently thought it was important.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5itBgiz3 ... 2&index=36[/youtube]

William E. Watson thought it was a significant battle.

“ There is clearly some justification for ranking Tours-Poitiers among the most significant events in Frankish history when one considers the result of the battle in light of the remarkable record of the successful establishment by Muslims of Islamic political and cultural dominance along the entire eastern and southern rim of the former Christian, Roman world. The rapid Muslim conquest of Palestine, Syria, Egypt and the North African coast all the way to Morocco in the seventh century resulted in the permanent imposition by force of Islamic culture onto a previously Christian and largely non-Arab base. The Visigothic kingdom fell to Muslim conquerors in a single battle on the Rio Barbate in 711, and the Hispanic Christian population took seven long centuries to regain control of the Iberian peninsula. The Reconquista, of course, was completed in 1492, only months before Columbus received official backing for his fateful voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Had Charles Martel suffered at Tours-Poitiers the fate of King Roderick at the Rio Barbate, it is doubtful that a "do-nothing" sovereign of the Merovingian realm could have later succeeded where his talented major domus had failed. Indeed, as Charles was the progenitor of the Carolingian line of Frankish rulers and grandfather of Charlemagne, one can even say with a degree of certainty that the subsequent history of the West would have proceeded along vastly different currents had ‘Abd ar-Rahman been victorious at Tours-Poitiers in 732."

^ Watson, William, E. (1993). The Battle of Tours-Poitiers Revisited. Providence: Studies in Western Civilization v.2 n.1.

Yeah....it was a significant battle. It was however not the setback for the moors that christian propaganda had made it out to be. And the church had nothing to do with it.

The popes sure did, even inviting in a foreign pretender with no rights to the throne and making him emperor.
This is a claim, cite sources please. Which emperor? What was the significants? What was the context?

Charlemagne, you dolt.

Because you say so?
The franks became the french. The holy roman empire eventually became Germany. That's why its considered the second Reich.

The Byzantines eventually became the turks. Is Constantine supposed to be the forefather of Osman I?

I was talking about the political manuvering of the church during the dark ages.

Which was responsible for the rise of the trade in teh 12th century and the rise of the Italian cities...how exactly?

That makes the Byzantines catholic...how? In case you missed it, the catholic church is the younger of the churches, with rome not even being on the radar of church metropolitans until the seventh and eight century. So you might as well say that until the great schism and until charlemagne, the catholic church was not the senior church at all. The orthodox church was, indeed being the older and far more renowned of the two at that time.
What the orthodox is older than the Roman church? What? The Roman Church has been around since the first century. It was founded by Paul.

And the christian communities in the east are far older. Guess who Paul was prosecuting before he became a christian?

Strawmen. They did however have far better literacy rates and Byzantium had a far higher level of culture anyway.
They had better literacy because they had economic stability and an empire that made up a quarter of the world.

Concession accepted.

Ladies and gentlemen, here we have another example - we do not answer the point, no, certainly not, but we rather say something completely unrelated.
What are you talking about? You said that Thomas Aquinas only had limited access to the classical work. I answered that charge.

You did not, however keep pretending that you did.

Do you know how many sections of the bible are directly copied from Roman religion? For example, the miracles of Jesus are directly copied from the acts of the roman emperor Vespasian. The saturnalia are our christmas and the birth of Jesus is a direct (if rather bad) copy of the birth of Mithras.
Non of the bible is "directly" quoted from Roman paganism. Jesus is not based off Mithra. Yes Christmas is copied from saturnalia, but whats your point? A day is a day. Where are your sources by the way?

I said copied, not quoted. There is a differences.

But, okay:

Vespasian and Jesus:
Jesus is known to have healed the blind and the lame. At the time the Apostles wrote their stories, there were similar stories in circulation about the deeds of the emperor Vespasian. those were known to the christians, for we know they lived during that time and in the areas in which they were celebrated.

Sueton writes (Suet. Vesp. 7, 2-3):

7,2 Auctoritas et quasi maiestas quaedam ut scilicet inopinato et adhuc nouo principi deerat; haec quoque accessit. e plebe quidam luminibus orbatus, item alius debili crure sedentem pro tribunali pariter adierunt orantes opem ualitudini demonstratam a Serapide per quietem: restituturum oculos, si inspuisset; confirmaturum crus, si dignaretur calce contingere.
7,3 cum uix fides esset ullo modo rem successuram ideoque ne experiri quidem auderet, extremo hortantibus amicis palam pro contione utrumque temptauit, nec euentus defuit. per idem tempus Tegeae in Arc[h]adia instinctu uaticinantium effossa sunt sacrato loco uasa operis antiqui atque in iis assimilis Vespasiano imago.

Cass. Dio 65, 8, 1-7 also mentions the same, as does Tacitus, Historiae 4,81:

81 (1) Per eos menses quibus Vespasianus Alexandriae statos aestivis flatibus dies et certa maris opperiebatur, multa miracula evenere, quis caelestis favor et quaedam in
Vespasianum inclinatio numinum ostenderetur. e plebe Alexandrina quidam oculorum tabe notus genua eius advolvitur, remedium caecitatis exposcens gemitu, monitu Serapidis die, quem dedita superstitionibus gens ante alios colit; precabaturque principem, ut genas et oculorum orbes dignaretur respergere oris excremento. alius manum aegere eodem deo auctore, ut pede ac vestigio Caesaris calcaretur, orbat.
(3) igitur Vespasianus cuncta fortunae suae patere ratus nec quicquam ultra incredibile, laeto ipse vultu, erecta quae adstabat multitudine, iussa exequitur. statim conversa ad usum manus, ac caeco reluxit dies. utrumque qui interfuere nunc quoque memorant, postquam nullum mendacio pretium.

healing the blind and the lame through touch....nah, of course the christians were not influenced by this and did not copy it.

Mithras and Jesus:
“He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”
- Mithraic Communion (M. J. Vermaseren, Mithras, The Secret God)
“And as they were eating, Jesus, having taken bread, when he had blessed, broke [it], and gave [it] to them, and said, Take [this]: this is my body. And having taken [the] cup, when he had given thanks, he gave [it] to them, and they all drank out of it. And he said to them, This is my blood, that of the [new] covenant, that shed for many.”
- Mark 14:22-26

The birth of mithras has some similarities - Mithras is helped by shepherds, as is Jesus. Furthermore, the celebration of Sol Invictus/Mithras is on the 25th of December.

Furthermore, even the christians saw the similarities -
Justin the martyr:

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn

There was even a statement by St. Augustine regarding the similarites between the two cults, but I do not know them from my head.

Why not?
What practical value do pagan rituals have?

The same, if not more, practical value that christian rituals have.

Idiot. We only have parts of their work and we do not know how much either of them wrote. In any case, you can only come up with two writers in response to the charge that the church did not protect the ancient writers?
I could find more if I wanted to, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so.

Concession accepted - by your own admission the church did not aim to preserve the works of ancient writers.

Furthermore, I haven't seen you present any author who believe to the contrary.

I don't have to. I am not making the positive claim here.

I can't watch youtube from work. But of course, you can summarize the arguments in brief form.
Watch it when you get home.

I don't have internet at home. Now summarize the arguments, please.

Direct cites. Now.
No, you asked me to "name it"; I did that.

Cite them now, you evasive little prick.

BS. The king received communion and the last rites. How could that be if he was ipso facto excommunicated? How could he have received holy standards from the pope? How could he have been named defender of the faith?
Which king are we talking about? Anyway, you realize that every European king supported slavery? Does it make sense to go out of your way to antagonize an empire that is doing nothing different than anyone else? No other European power at this time, christian or other wise, was doing anything about slavery. In fact, its pretty amazing that the church even condemned it at all, considering the climate.

So he was not excommunicated and your earlier claim for the church actively trying to prohibit slavery was a lie.

Concession accepted.

The fact is, the church voiced their opinion on the matter, if they had not, you would have said they were "silent". Since they weren't silent, you just claim it wasn't good enough.

It was lip service, nothing more. The church did not care at all.

EVIDENCE THAT ANY KING OF SPAIN WAS EVER EXCOMMUNICATED.
The excommunication is automatic, it doesn't require the church to do anything. You can still received communion, but it is a sacrilege. A good example of an excommunicated Catholic who attends church, and takes communion, would be John Kerry, or Ted Kennedy.

I repeat: evidence that any king of spain was ever even slighted by the church for using slavery.

So if your house is on fire and I proceed to flood the area with a huge river, the fact that you drowned is irrelevant because I put out the fire?
We were talking about the first crusade. The Byzantine empire faired just fine during the first crusade. The fourth crusade was the one that went badly for them.

The first crusade required enormous logistical power by the Byzantines.

It was not an isolated incident, you dolt. See above.
It was an isolated incident. Just because the church liked the emperor who did it doesn't disprove this fact, nor does temple burning prove anything. It was not specifically, at least, targeted at science, so, no this doesn't prove a systematic suppression of science.

keep claiming that. Do I have to pull out the great laws that legalized this behaviour?

Hypatia was killed by monks spurred on by a christian priest. None of them were punished for it. In fact, the leader of the mob became an important church figure.
Okay, so, it was a group of monks and a priest. In other words, it was an angry mob, that is not systematic persecution.

Yeah, right. keep telling your that. No, the church did nothing. No, it was innocent. Oh...just the people the church consisted of were the ones killing them. Of course, because it were only the people doing it, no problem.

Did you just honestly claim the library at Alexandria did not contain works of science and was not a collection of "all the knowledge known to man"? Did you just honestly say that? You honestly have no idea how science worked back then, do you?
No, I just wanted you to prove that it was. Any how it was not burned specifically to destroy science.

Only to destroy pagan philosophies and libraries. In any case, it did destroy a great deal of science. If the church cared about that, they could have prevented such destructions.

Sure they were. The Serapeum was the centerpiece of higher education in Alexandria.
The Serapeum was still primarily a religious institution.

There was no difference back then between the two.

Ruben · Post by **Ruben** » 2009-12-14 04:50pm

Which was not a suicide cult, you idiot. It was a ritualistic fasting in order to speed death by people who were terminally ill.

I never said that they were a suicide cult, I said they encouraged suicide, which is factual.

Yeah, and now I am asking you to back it up by real sources. Not wikipedia not youtube not some other BS site on the internet.

Yeah, now your back tracking. At first, you said all my sources were wikipedia. You realized that was bullshit, so, now you've changed your argument to " they weren't wikipedia, but still not good enough for my tastes". If I cite books, your just going to say "I didn't cite enough books". If I cite enough books, your going to say "the books aren't reliable". If the books are reliable, your just going to say " I'm misquoting them". If I'm not misquoting them, your going to call me an "idiot" and then walk off. So, I'm not even going to waste my time. You have not proven my original sources to be inaccurate, so, until you do that, I'm not going to elaborate further.

I already showed you the propagandic text with the picture of St. Theopil before. As for Philae:

And you can also see the utter disregard for cultural values displayed by the christians here. Do you see how they defaced and destroyed these marvelous works of art?

Defenders of civilizations indeed.

So far, all the events that you have mentioned took place in the eastern Empire. By your own admission, The eastern Church was always separate from the Roman Church, so, under that reasoning, these events were ordered by the Orthodox Church, not the roman Church. I would remind you, as Zixinus himself pointed out, this debate is not about Christianity, but the Roman Catholic Church. All you have shown is that certain Christians destroyed libraries, temples etc.. You have not shown that the Roman Catholic Church condoned temple burning as an official, and systematic policy.

Yeah....it was a significant battle. It was however not the setback for the moors that christian propaganda had made it out to be. .

I'm sorry what? How can it be a significant battle if it didn't set back the moors? It must have set them back, or it wouldn't be significant. Even if it didn't, that still doesn't negate the argument above. Which stated that if the battle had not taken place that Frankish kingdom would not have developed as it had, and the later voyage of Columbus would not have taken place. Which was the essence of my argument.

And the church had nothing to do with it.

Here we go again, you realized that your original statement was incorrect, so, now your back tracking. As I mentioned before, Charles Martel was mentored by St. Boniface. It is also significant to mention the Frankish conversion to Christianity, which was important to the development of the kingdom that created Charles Martel.

Charlemagne, you dolt.

Wait... the Catholic conversion of Charlemagne proves that the Church wanted to conquer Byzantium how exactly?

The Byzantines eventually became the turks. Is Constantine supposed to be the forefather of Osman I?

No...but the Ottomans sure count as the successor of modern day turkey, duh. Actually, thank you for proving my point. The ottomans conquered turkey, which lead to the modern day country of Turkey. If they had not conquered turkey, turkey would be only half a country, with one half of it being Christian and the other Muslim. In the same way, if Charlemagne hadn't conquered what he did, Germany and France would look a lot different culturally and geographically today.

Which was responsible for the rise of the trade in teh 12th century and the rise of the Italian cities...how exactly?

Without the influence of the Church, and the people they converted, Italy would not have developed in the same way.

And the christian communities in the east are far older. Guess who Paul was prosecuting before he became a christian?

Well, this is more of a theological issue. Of course, I'm going to say that Peter was the first Pope, and that Jesus Christ was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church.

Concession accepted.

Wait, so how does this matter again? Since, after all, the Byzantines were the ones burning all the temples and libraries.

You did not, however keep pretending that you did.

Enlighten me as to what your charge actually was again? Was it that Byzantine scholars were better than western scholars? Fine, granted, but doesn't that shoot a hole in your "temple burning" argument, since, the Byzantines were the ones who burnt the temples?

I said copied, not quoted. There is a differences.

But, okay:

Vespasian and Jesus:
Jesus is known to have healed the blind and the lame. At the time the Apostles wrote their stories, there were similar stories in circulation about the deeds of the emperor Vespasian. those were known to the christians, for we know they lived during that time and in the areas in which they were celebrated.

Sueton writes (Suet. Vesp. 7, 2-3):

So... because they both healed blind people with their hands, its a copy? If that is your argument, that is, quite frankly, pretty lame, since I'm sure there are thousands of deities and holy people who claimed to have cured the blind. It doesn't prove that one was copied from the other.

On a side note, please translate your finding into English; I can't read Latin.

Mithras and Jesus:

I wish you hadn't gone here but since you did, I guess I'll humor you.

The birth of mithras has some similarities - Mithras is helped by shepherds, as is Jesus. Furthermore, the celebration of Sol Invictus/Mithras is on the 25th of December.

First off, Jesus was not born on December 25th, a fact that everyone, Christians included, recognizes. The Church only put the celebration on December 25th in order to compete with the Pagan holiday on the same day. Besides, the Eastern Church places, and has always placed, Christmas on Jan. 6th.

As for the supposed "similarities" between mithra's birth and that of Christ, I'll simply show you the actual Mithrain legend.

December 25th was Mithras's particular festival, when the advent of the new light and the god's birth were celebrated. This birth was in the nature of a miracle, the young Mithras being forced out of a rock as if by some hidden magic power. He is shown naked save for the Phrygian cap, holding dagger and torch in his uplifted hands. He is the new begetter of light (genitor luminis), born from the rock (deus genitor rupe natus), from a rock which gives birth (petra genetrix). Even at this stage he is equipped for his nature feats with bow and arrow, ready to perform the miracle of the striking of the rock or the miracle of the hunt. Just as the crypt of the Mithraeum is the symbol of the celestial vault, so the rock is the firmament from which light descends to earth. Sometimes, as at Dura-Europos, flames are shown shooting out from the rock's surface and even from the cap, which is often studded with stars and, like the vault of the Mithraic grotto, was regarded as a symbol of the celestial vault.

In the tenth yasht of the Avesta, the hymn for Mithras, the Persian god is described appearing in a golden glow on top of Hara Berezaiti, a mythological mountain later localised in the present-day Elburz, whence he looks out over the lands of the aryans. The theory that Mithras was descended from the union of Mother Earth and Ahuramazda does not bear examination; Mithras is saxigenus and sometimes he is shown stepping proudly out of the rock, as on a relief at St Aubin in France. The rock of Mithras's birth contains both light and fire; he who is born from the rock is thus a fiery god of light. This conception is almost certainly based on a very ancient tradition dating from the time when man first discovered that both light and fire could be produced by straking a flint. Mithras's birth is a cosmic event; he holds the globe in one hand from the moment of his birth (Fig. and touches with the other the circle of the zodiac; the gods of the four winds and the four elements are all present to honour Mithras, ruler of the cosmos. http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras2.php

I'm sorry, but was Christ born from a rock? Was Christ born as grown man? Was Christ descended from the spirit of mother Earth? I think not.

Oh, by the way, Christ's birth was not attended by shepherds.

“He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”

There is no evidence that Mithra ever said this, however, there is evidence for a divine meal. Here it is:

The sacred meal and the ascent to heaven

After the arduous bull-hunt and the miracle of the bull-slaying, Mithras completes his stay on earth by banqueting with Sol off the flesh of the bull. As already remarked, the paintings at Dura-Europos include two attendants dressed as torch-bearers who carry the dead bull on a pole slung between their shoulders.

Mithras and Sol on either side of an altar Mithras and Sol at the sacred meal Mithras and Sol Mithras in a chariot ascending into heaven
Fig. 23. Mithras and Sol on either side of an altar Fig. 24. Mithras and Sol at the sacred meal Fig. 25. Mithras and Sol Fig. 26. Mithras in a chariot ascending into heaven

The meal takes place in a cave where Mithras, in his Persian robes, reclines or sites with Sol behind a table; the relationship between the two gods is clearly a friendly one, as Mithras is sometimes seen with his arm round his companion's shoulder. The most usual expression discernible in these pictures, however, is one of profound religious feeling, which can be seen in all the representations of highly exalted events as, for example, in the painting at Dura-Europos (Fig. 25). The divine meal is more frequently portrayed than any other scene except the bull-slaying and sometimes the latter appears on the front of a relief which portrays the meal on its reverse. In such cases the relief was mounted on a pivot so that during the ceremonies the worshippers' attention could be drawn to one scene or the other by rotating the slab.

The meal can even be regarded as an event which takes place solely on a divine level between the two gods, Sol and Mithras. But the believers, according to certain texts, imitated the example of their deity during the ritual. Therefore certain representations are of a mixed nature, with the initiates themselves taking part in the meal as attendants on the gods; the example and imitation of the divine meal are woven into a single whole. A third variant of the scene represents initiates partaking of the meal alone.

In order to understand the ritual of this repast we must first consider the magnificent painting on the side wall behind the left-hand bench in the Aventine Mithraeum. This painting dates from A.D. 220. In a dark vaulted grotto, lit only by the golden glow of candlelight, Sol and Mithras are reclining on a couch; before them is a small table. Sol, clad in a long red garment with a yellow belt, holds a globe in his left hand and raises his right hand in a gesture of ardent enthusiasm; his long golden locks are surrounded by a rayed nimbus and he is gazing ecstatically upwards into the heavens. Mithras, in his red cloak and Phrygian cap, is sitting beside him and has put his right hand on Sol's shoulder. On each side stands an attendant; one of them keeps the gods provided with drink, the other, wearing a raven-mask, offers an oval plate with food; he is an initiate of the raven grade. Eight other young men, all Lions according to the inscriptions, bring gifts. They carry bread and a mixing-bowl, a cock and a bundle of tapers. Nowhere else is the Mithraic meal portrayed in such detail. The two gods have for a moment joined their earthly followers, who in their turn pay homage to their distinguished guests. In this way the divine presence is manifested while the initiates celebrate the mysteries and follow their example. The place once occupied by Mithras and Sol is now taken by their representatives, the Father of the Community and the Courier of the Sun, who during the solemnities would be wearing the same clothes as Mithras and Sol wore before them and are furnished with the same attributes. In the Santa Prisca Mithraeum a separate bench is made for these two persons to recline upon during the celebration of the meal. The lower grades, particularly the Ravens, are in attendance to supply them with food and drink. http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras4.php

As we can see, there is an enormous difference between this story and that of Jesus. For one thing, this meal is between two gods, not twelve apostles, and it is also not a last supper, and most importantly, Mithras never commanded his followers to do this in "memory" of him, nor did he ever say it was necessary for salvation. Also, the earliest evidence we have for this myth is from 220 AD, long after the rise of Christianity, so who's coping who exactly?

- Mithraic Communion (M. J. Vermaseren, Mithras, The Secret God)
“And as they were eating, Jesus, having taken bread, when he had blessed, broke [it], and gave [it] to them, and said, Take [this]: this is my body. And having taken [the] cup, when he had given thanks, he gave [it] to them, and they all drank out of it. And he said to them, This is my blood, that of the [new] covenant, that shed for many.”
- Mark 14:22-26

As for the sacred meal, let's take a look at how it was actually practiced.

On the reverse of the Mithraic relief from Heddernheim, Sol and Mithras are lying together behind the slain bull (Fig. 24). Elsewhere both gods or their followers are sometimes seen lying on the bull's skin, emphasising once again the magic power which they seek to extract from it. On the Konjic relief, the Raven and Lion, both wearing the masks of their grade, serve food and drink, (Fig. 5) which in these scenes consists of bread, fruit and sometimes fish. On the Heddernheim relief the attendants, dressed as torch-bearers, are offering baskets containing bread or fruit and Sol is handing his companion a bunch of grapes, a gift which Mithras regards with awe. A terra sigillata bowl found at Trier and probably used at the sacred meal shows how the attendant served the bread; at Dura-Europos we have already seen the gods receiving small pieces of meat skewered on a spit; in the representation of the repast in the Aventine Mithraeum a Lion is carrying a cake in a class dish. From the refuse-pits which are often discovered close to Mithraic sites the bones of bulls, boars, sheep, and birds have been found, and the natural deduction is that normally the bull's flesh was consumed and its blood drunk. However, if no bull was available or if the animal was too costly, one either had to be content with the flesh of other animals, generally smaller domesticated breeds, or else with bread and fish as substitutes for meat, and wine for blood. 'That bread and water were used in the mysteries by initiates of Mithras, that we know, or we can get to know,' writes Justin, one of the early Church Fathers. He is careful to use the word 'water' and not 'wine', although there is certain evidence for the use of wine. In the Mithraeum at Dura-Europos the expenses of the community are scratched on the walls, and at the head of the list come the charges for meat and wine. The bunch of grapes held in Sol's hand at Heddernheim points in the same direction (Fig. 24.). One of the attendants on a relief from Caetobriga in Portugal is emptying a jug into a large mixing-bowl, while the other has dropped his torch on the ground and is offering Sol a dish with what appear to be loaves of bread on it. http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras4.php

As we can see, the Mithrains had a cornucopia of different foods, and rituals that went along with their worship services. There is very little, if any, similarity between the practices of mithrains and those of Christians. I would also like to see if Mithrains believed that Mithra was present during these ceremonies, or not. By the way, this quote is from the same source that you quoted, and they accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

Lastly, I would mention that Mythra was never crucified, or resurrected.

After Mithras had accomplished his miraculous deeds he was said to have been carried up into the heavens in a chariot.

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; "and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood; "and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn

I think the burden of proof is on you to show that Mirthrain similarities predate Christianity, and not vice versa.

The same, if not more, practical value that christian rituals have.

Technically speaking, Christian practices don't have non-religious value either.

Concession accepted - by your own admission the church did not aim to preserve the works of ancient writers.

I did not concede the point, I merely refused to encourage your obtuse request, but since you continue to press the point, I guess I have not choice but to humor you.

Here is a list of works we know were preserved by Medieval monks.

1. Aristotle
2. Cicero
3. Lucan
4. Pliny
5. Pliny
6. Trogus Pompeius
7. Virgil
8. Horace
9. Martial
10. Ovid

The best know of those scholars of the Dark Ages was Alcuin, a polyglot theologian who worked closely with Charlemagne to restore study and scholarship in the whole of West-Central Europe. In describing the holdings of his library at York he mentions works by Aristotle, Cicero, Lucan, Pliny, Statius, Trogus Pompeius, Virgil. In his correspondence he mentions Horace, Ovid, Terence. And he was not alone. The abbot of Ferrieres (c. 805-862) Lupus quotes Cicero, Horace, Martial, Seutonius, and Virgil. The abbot of Fleury (c. 950-1104) demonstrated familiarity with Horace, Sallust, Terence, Virgil. http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/Artic ... fault.aspx

I don't have to. I am not making the positive claim here.

You've made plenty of positive claims, which you have given very minor sources.

I don't have internet at home. Now summarize the arguments, please.

Who doesn't have internet these days? Anyway, here are the arguments.

1. All ancient manuscripts, including ones from the medieval era and renaissance, contain errors and interpolations.

2. Most scholars view Josephuses passage as genuine after the interpolations are removed. More specifically:

4 regard the passge as entirly genuine.

6 accept the passage as mostly genuine.

20 regard it as reliable with some interpolations.

9 as reliable with several interpolations.

13 view it as totally unreliable.

In total, 41 scholars accept the passage, 13 don't accept it at all.

Source: Jewish scholar Louise Feldman

3. After the supposed interpolations are removed, the passage conveys the same meaning.

Interpolated version of Josephus:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

If we remove the sections that are considered most likely to be interpolations such as: "he was the Christ", "a teacher of me who receive the truth wit pleasure" etc. here is what we have.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works...He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles...And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him...And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

So, as we can see, if the passages are removed the passage still coveys the same basic meaning.

Cite them now, you evasive little prick.

Once again, you continue the same policy. If I say something, you say I don't have a source. If I have a source, you say I am misquoting it. I'm sure if do quote the book for you, you will just say that the book is unreliable, so I'm not going to waste my time. However, I have already cited a web page that summarizes the content of the book. Lastly, I can't quote the book since it is not available online, and I am most certainly not going to sit here coping from the pages.

So he was not excommunicated and your earlier claim for the church actively trying to prohibit slavery was a lie.

I never claimed that they actively tried to outlaw slavery. I did, however, claim that they ruled on the immorality of slavery.

It was lip service, nothing more. The church did not care at all.

The problem with this claim is that the Church had no motivation to provide a "lip service", slavery was an accepted part of society back then, why exactly would the Church declare it immoral if they didn't really believe this? There was nothing for the church to gain by condemning slavery, in fact, they risked alienating two of their best allies. Also, why would the Church all of a sudden be worried about their reputation on slavery when in the 14th century they had no problem condoning the slavery of the Portugese Empire?

On a side note, I wonder if you are as critical of the Founding Fathers of The United States as you are of the Catholic Church, since the Founding Fathers also tolerated slavery.

I repeat: evidence that any king of spain was ever even slighted by the church for using slavery.

Catholic theology dictates that if you violate any doctrine, you are automatically excommunicated without any need for the church to refuse access to churches, or send you an official declaration. This is what is called a Latae Sententiae. In fact, the Catholic church defines the declaration of excommunication as a declaration of a pre-existing condition, in other words, the catholic Church only "officially" excommunicates people to make a point. Here is the criteria for incurring said Excommunication:

* an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic;
* a person who throws away the consecrated Eucharistic species or takes and retains them for a sacrilegious purpose;
* a person who uses physical force against the Pope;
* a priest who absolves an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment (against sexual sins) except in danger of death;
* a bishop who ordains someone a bishop without a pontifical mandate, and the person who receives the ordination from him;
* a confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal of confession;
* a person who procures a completed abortion; and
* accomplices who are not named in a law prescribing latae sententiae excommunication but without whose assistance the violation of the law would not have been committed.

Various other persons incur excommunication latae sententiae by papal decree, including:

* a person who violates the secrecy of a papal election, or who interferes with it by means such as simony;
* a woman who simulates ordination as a priest or a bishop who simulates the ordination of a woman as a priest.

Some instances in which one incurs interdict latae sententiae include the following:

* using physical force against a bishop;
* attempting to preside at Eucharist, or giving sacramental absolution, when not a priest;
* falsely denouncing a confessor for soliciting a penitent to sin against the sixth commandment;[17] and
* a perpetually professed religious who attempts marriage.

# ^ a b "Can. 1314". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4V.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ "Can. 1331". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ "Excommunication". Catholic Encyclopedia. New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ "Can. 1332". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ "Can. 1333". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4X.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ "Cann. 1321-1330". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ "Can. 1364". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ "Can. 1367". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ a b "Can. 1370". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P53.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ a b "Can. 1378". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ "Can. 1382". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ "Can. 1388". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P54.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ "Can. 1398". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P57.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ "Can. 1329". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ John Paul II. "Universi Dominici Gregis". http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ ... is_en.html. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ Vatican says will excommunicate women priests | International | Reuters
# ^ "Can. 1390". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P55.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.
# ^ "Can. 1394". Code of Canon Law. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P56.HTM. Retrieved 2008-06-01.

The first crusade required enormous logistical power by the Byzantines.

Hardly the same thing as the analogy you made.

keep claiming that. Do I have to pull out the great laws that legalized this behaviour?

You still have yet to prove that the ROMAN Church enacted any suppression of science, since you were the one that insisted that they were always different churches. All you have shown is that a few emperors, who incidentally ruled in the eastern empire, ordered some of these things, and no merely "not condemning" the actions is not sufficient proof for a systematic suppression. You also continue to over look that these persecutions were not motivated by a desire to destroy science, but a desire to phase out paganism. Lastly, you continue to assert that these actions prove that the roman church was destroying necessary knowledge, but if that is true, how come the eastern empire, where all of this was taking place, continued to be an academic stronghold, as you yourself have said, while the Western Empire fell into a dark age?

just the people the church consisted of were the ones killing them. Of course, because it were only the people doing it, no problem.

Only to destroy pagan philosophies and libraries. In any case, it did destroy a great deal of science. If the church cared about that, they could have prevented such destructions.

There was no difference back then between the two.

[/quote]

This would be the old "all apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples" fallacy, all you have done is pointed out a few instances of mobs destroying temples and libraries and what not, and claiming that this was official church policy. If you can find me some Popes who advocated these things, then maybe you would have a point, but you haven't done that yet.

Anyway, you completely miss the point of my original argument, which was addressing the charge that there is a fundamental conflict between science and the church, a thesis you have not defended in the slightest. All you have shown is that some Christians indirectly destroyed science by oppressing pagans. "Indirectly" would be the operative word there. You have yet to show that the Church has ever enacted any widespread persecution of science itself, specifically for the purpose of suppressing scientific beliefs.

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2009-12-14 05:57pm

Ruben wrote:
Which was not a suicide cult, you idiot. It was a ritualistic fasting in order to speed death by people who were terminally ill.
I never said that they were a suicide cult, I said they encouraged suicide, which is factual.

Yeah, and used that to slander the whole cathar religion.

Yeah, and now I am asking you to back it up by real sources. Not wikipedia not youtube not some other BS site on the internet.
Yeah, now your back tracking. At first, you said all my sources were wikipedia. You realized that was bullshit, so, now you've changed your argument to " they weren't wikipedia, but still not good enough for my tastes". If I cite books your just going to say "I didn't cite enough books". If I cite enough books your going to say "the books aren't reliable". If the books are reliable, your just going to say " I'm misquoting them". If I'm not misquoting them your going to call me an "idiot" and then walk off. So, I'm not even going to waste my time. You have not proven my original sources to be inaccurate, so, until you do that, I'm not going to elaborate further.

Either prove your points or concede them. Merely just pointing at wikipedia and saying "but that is real proof" is nothing. Cite respectable authors.

So far, all the events that you have mentioned took place in the eastern Empire. By your own admission, The eastern Church was always separate from the Roman Church, so, under that reasoning, these events were ordered by the Orthodox Church, not the roman Church. I would remind you, as Zixinus himself pointed out, this debate is not about Christianity, but the Roman Catholic Church. All you have shown is that certain Christians destroyed libraries, temples etc.. You have not shown that the Roman Catholic Church condoned temple burning as an official, and systematic policy.

They were the same persons, you evasive little idiot. The same persons whom the catholics try to claim as their forefathers were destroyers of pagan temples, like St. Augustine. Heck, in the evidence I provided we see Bishops destroying temples. If Bishops are not the church, you can just go bugger off because apparently in fairy-la-la-land, the church is just the pope. And I never said the orthodox church was not the same at that time than the catholic church. What I was saying is that the orthodox church predates the catholic church, the RCC is an offshot of the orthodox church. Not the other way around.

Yeah....it was a significant battle. It was however not the setback for the moors that christian propaganda had made it out to be. .
I'm sorry what? How can it be a significant battle if it didn't set back the moors? It must have set them back, or it wouldn't be significant. Even if it didn't, that still doesn't negate the argument above. Which stated that if the battle had not taken place that Frankish kingdom would not have developed as it had, and the later voyage of Columbus would not have taken place. Which was the essence of my argument.

It was however not the setback for the moors that christian propaganda made it out to be. How the heck do you get "it was not a setback at all from that?"

Here we go again, you realized that your original statement was incorrect, so, now your back tracking. As I mentioned before, Charles Martel was mentored by St. Boniface. It is also significant to mention the Frankish conversion to Christianity, which was important to the development of the kingdom that created Charles Martel.

Prove that St. boniface was responsible for the victory at tours.

Charlemagne, you dolt.
Wait... the Catholic conversion of Charlemagne proves that the Church wanted to conquer Byzantium how exactly?

It proved that they crowned an illegitmate pretender. I did not say that they attacked Byzantium, I said that their policies weakened the Byzantines.

The Byzantines eventually became the turks. Is Constantine supposed to be the forefather of Osman I?
No...but the Ottomans sure count as the successor of modern day turkey, duh. Actually, thank you for proving my point. The ottomans conquered turkey, which lead to the modern day country of Turkey. If they had not conquered turkey, turkey would be only half a country, with one half of it being Christian and the other Muslim. In the same way, if Charlemagne hadn't conquered what he did, Germany and France would look a lot different culturally and geographically today.

In that sense, the Catholic church owes eternal thanks to Nero, for without him christianity would not be the same as today. Your argument has no basis in reality.

Which was responsible for the rise of the trade in teh 12th century and the rise of the Italian cities...how exactly?
Without the influence of the Church, and the people they converted, Italy would not have developed in the same way.

In that sense, the church also owes a lot of its existence to Nero. You are an idiot who does not understand the difference between direct and indirect causation. For example, if you committ a murder, would it be acceptable to punish your grandfather for it? After all, he is the cause for you existing.

And the christian communities in the east are far older. Guess who Paul was prosecuting before he became a christian?
Well, this is more of a theological issue. Of course, I'm going to say that Peter was the first Pope, and that Jesus Christ was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church.

It is a historical issue and you are wrong.

Wait, so how does this matter again? Since, after all, the Byzantines were the ones burning all the temples and libraries.

No, christian saints were.

You did not, however keep pretending that you did.
Enlighten me as to what your charge actually was again? Was i that Byzantine scholars were better then western scholars? Fine, granted, but doesn't that shoot a hole in your "temple burning" argument, since, the Byzantines were the ones who burnt the temples?

No, the Byzantines sure as hell did not burn their state libraries, you idiot and I doubt you could get that from my posts. But keep strawmanning.

So... because they both healed blind people with their hands, its a copy? If that is your argument, that is, quite frankly, pretty lame, since I'm sure there are thousands of deities and holy people who claimed to have cured the blind. It doesn't prove that one was copied from the other.

Not when it happens at the same time the apostles were writing? Not when the miracles are the same?

On a side note, please translate your finding into English; I can't read Latin.

Oh, that is priceless. Trying to argue about antiquity with me and not understanding Latin? What an idiot.

But I'll do a translation for you as soon as you post direct citations from scholars that prove your points.

Mithras and Jesus:

I wish you hadn't gone here but since you did, I guess I'll humor you.

Child, please go play in traffic.

The birth of mithras has some similarities - Mithras is helped by shepherds, as is Jesus. Furthermore, the celebration of Sol Invictus/Mithras is on the 25th of December.
First off, Jesus was not born on December 25th, a fact that everyone, Christians included, recognizes. The Church only put the celebration on December 25th in order to compete with the Pagan holiday on the same day. Besides, the Eastern Church places, and has always placed, Christmas on Jan. 6th.

As for the supposed "similarities" between mithra's birth and that of Christ, I'll simply show you the actual Mithrain legend.

December 25th was Mithras's particular festival, when the advent of the new light and the god's birth were celebrated. This birth was in the nature of a miracle, the young Mithras being forced out of a rock as if by some hidden magic power. He is shown naked save for the Phrygian cap, holding dagger and torch in his uplifted hands. He is the new begetter of light (genitor luminis), born from the rock (deus genitor rupe natus), from a rock which gives birth (petra genetrix). Even at this stage he is equipped for his nature feats with bow and arrow, ready to perform the miracle of the striking of the rock or the miracle of the hunt. Just as the crypt of the Mithraeum is the symbol of the celestial vault, so the rock is the firmament from which light descends to earth. Sometimes, as at Dura-Europos, flames are shown shooting out from the rock's surface and even from the cap, which is often studded with stars and, like the vault of the Mithraic grotto, was regarded as a symbol of the celestial vault.

In the tenth yasht of the Avesta, the hymn for Mithras, the Persian god is described appearing in a golden glow on top of Hara Berezaiti, a mythological mountain later localised in the present-day Elburz, whence he looks out over the lands of the aryans. The theory that Mithras was descended from the union of Mother Earth and Ahuramazda does not bear examination; Mithras is saxigenus and sometimes he is shown stepping proudly out of the rock, as on a relief at St Aubin in France. The rock of Mithras's birth contains both light and fire; he who is born from the rock is thus a fiery god of light. This conception is almost certainly based on a very ancient tradition dating from the time when man first discovered that both light and fire could be produced by straking a flint. Mithras's birth is a cosmic event; he holds the globe in one hand from the moment of his birth (Fig. and touches with the other the circle of the zodiac; the gods of the four winds and the four elements are all present to honour Mithras, ruler of the cosmos. http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras2.php
I'm sorry, but was Christ born from a rock? Was Christ born as grown man? Was Christ descended from the spirit of mother Earth? I think not.

Oh, that is rich, citing an internet page. But I'll accept your source, however - to be copied it does not have to be a 100% copy. So shut up. St. Augustine clearly thought the differences between the two religions were miniscule.

Oh, by the way, Christ's birth was not attended by shepherds.

Sure it was. The shepherds came to see the baby, forget it?

“He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”
There is no evidence that Mithra ever said this, however, there is evidence for a divine meal.

It is a direct quote from Prof. Vermaseren, M.J (1963). Mithras: The Secret God. There is also quite compelling evidence for Mithras having influence the ascension into heaven. The same, pp. 104-6.

Here it is:

The sacred meal and the ascent to heaven

After the arduous bull-hunt and the miracle of the bull-slaying, Mithras completes his stay on earth by banqueting with Sol off the flesh of the bull. As already remarked, the paintings at Dura-Europos include two attendants dressed as torch-bearers who carry the dead bull on a pole slung between their shoulders.

Mithras and Sol on either side of an altar Mithras and Sol at the sacred meal Mithras and Sol Mithras in a chariot ascending into heaven
Fig. 23. Mithras and Sol on either side of an altar Fig. 24. Mithras and Sol at the sacred meal Fig. 25. Mithras and Sol Fig. 26. Mithras in a chariot ascending into heaven

The meal takes place in a cave where Mithras, in his Persian robes, reclines or sites with Sol behind a table; the relationship between the two gods is clearly a friendly one, as Mithras is sometimes seen with his arm round his companion's shoulder. The most usual expression discernible in these pictures, however, is one of profound religious feeling, which can be seen in all the representations of highly exalted events as, for example, in the painting at Dura-Europos (Fig. 25). The divine meal is more frequently portrayed than any other scene except the bull-slaying and sometimes the latter appears on the front of a relief which portrays the meal on its reverse. In such cases the relief was mounted on a pivot so that during the ceremonies the worshippers' attention could be drawn to one scene or the other by rotating the slab.

The meal can even be regarded as an event which takes place solely on a divine level between the two gods, Sol and Mithras. But the believers, according to certain texts, imitated the example of their deity during the ritual. Therefore certain representations are of a mixed nature, with the initiates themselves taking part in the meal as attendants on the gods; the example and imitation of the divine meal are woven into a single whole. A third variant of the scene represents initiates partaking of the meal alone.

In order to understand the ritual of this repast we must first consider the magnificent painting on the side wall behind the left-hand bench in the Aventine Mithraeum. This painting dates from A.D. 220. In a dark vaulted grotto, lit only by the golden glow of candlelight, Sol and Mithras are reclining on a couch; before them is a small table. Sol, clad in a long red garment with a yellow belt, holds a globe in his left hand and raises his right hand in a gesture of ardent enthusiasm; his long golden locks are surrounded by a rayed nimbus and he is gazing ecstatically upwards into the heavens. Mithras, in his red cloak and Phrygian cap, is sitting beside him and has put his right hand on Sol's shoulder. On each side stands an attendant; one of them keeps the gods provided with drink, the other, wearing a raven-mask, offers an oval plate with food; he is an initiate of the raven grade. Eight other young men, all Lions according to the inscriptions, bring gifts. They carry bread and a mixing-bowl, a cock and a bundle of tapers. Nowhere else is the Mithraic meal portrayed in such detail. The two gods have for a moment joined their earthly followers, who in their turn pay homage to their distinguished guests. In this way the divine presence is manifested while the initiates celebrate the mysteries and follow their example. The place once occupied by Mithras and Sol is now taken by their representatives, the Father of the Community and the Courier of the Sun, who during the solemnities would be wearing the same clothes as Mithras and Sol wore before them and are furnished with the same attributes. In the Santa Prisca Mithraeum a separate bench is made for these two persons to recline upon during the celebration of the meal. The lower grades, particularly the Ravens, are in attendance to supply them with food and drink. http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras4.php

You are a liar. Your own source said:

When Christian artists needed to portray on their sarcophagi the soul's ascent to heaven in 'a chariot of fire, and horses of fire'. The inspiration for this theme was the extant representations of Mithras's ascent to heaven in a sun-chariot.

As we can see, the Mithrains had a cornucopia of different foods, and rituals that went along with their worship services. There is very little, if any, similarity between the practices of mithrains and those of Christians. I would also like to see if Mithrains believed that Mithra was present during these ceremonies, or not. By the way, this quote is from the same source that you quoted, and they accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

The overwhelmingly important things are still the blood. And you can forget about what you wrote being a quote - for you did not provide page numbers. So do so so that I can verify them.

I think the burden of proof is on you to show that Mirthrain similarities predate Christianity, and not vice versa.

Mithras existed in India since 1400 BC. From your own source:

These tablets contain the first recorded mention of the name 'Mithra', who, together with the Lord of Heaven, is invoked as the protector of a treaty between the Hatti (the Hittites) and their neighbours, the Mitanni. The date of the treaty is somewhere in the fourteenth century B.C...

The same, if not more, practical value that christian rituals have.
Technically speaking, Christian practices don't have non-religious value either.

So destroying them would be a boom to civilization?

Concession accepted - by your own admission the church did not aim to preserve the works of ancient writers.
I did not concede the point, I merely refused to encourage your obtuse request, but since you continue to press the point, I guess I have not choice but to humor you.

Here is a list of works we know were preserved by Medieval monks.

1. Aristotle
2. Cicero
3. Lucan
4. Pliny
5. Pliny
6. Trogus Pompeius
7. Virgil
8. Horace
9. Martial
10. Ovid

None of those were preserved completely. In any case, the true amount of works lost beggers belief, see "Fragmente griechischer historiker" for that.

The best know of those scholars of the Dark Ages was Alcuin, a polyglot theologian who worked closely with Charlemagne to restore study and scholarship in the whole of West-Central Europe. In describing the holdings of his library at York he mentions works by Aristotle, Cicero, Lucan, Pliny, Statius, Trogus Pompeius, Virgil. In his correspondence he mentions Horace, Ovid, Terence. And he was not alone. The abbot of Ferrieres (c. 805-862) Lupus quotes Cicero, Horace, Martial, Seutonius, and Virgil. The abbot of Fleury (c. 950-1104) demonstrated familiarity with Horace, Sallust, Terence, Virgil. http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/Artic ... fault.aspx

So...that proves he was very much acquinted with historical works how? Hate to break it to you, but a bachelor in ancient history should have read all these. So in short, all you have proven is that Aquinus was somehow the level of an undergrad these days, not a ringing endorsement.

Who doesn't have internet these days? Anyway, here are the arguments.

1. All ancient manuscripts, and ones from the medieval era and renaissance, cantain errors and interpolations.

2. Most scholars view Josephuses passage as genuine after the interpolations are removed. More specifically:

4 regard the passge as entirly genuine.

6 accept the passage as mostly genuine.

20 regard it as reliable with some interpolations.

9 as reliable with several interpolations.

13 view it as totally unreliable.

In total, 41 scholars accept the passage, 13 don't accept it at all.

Source: Jewish scholar Louise Feldman

3. After the supposed interpolations are removed, the passage convey the same meaning.

Interpolated version of josephus:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
If we remove the sections that are considered most likely to be interpolations such as: "he was the Christ", "a teacher of me who receive the truth wit pleasure" etc. here is what we have.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works...He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles...And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him...And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
So, as we can see, if the passages are removed the passage still coveys the same basic meaning.

Ah, I finally managed to see the youtube video. It is of course pure BS. Anyway, see the following, as you do love wikipedia so much: Link.

Howeever, I do you one better: See this, pg. 348 onwards.

So he was not excommunicated and your earlier claim for the church actively trying to prohibit slavery was a lie.
I never claimed that they actively tried to outlaw slavery. I did, however, claim that they ruled on the immorality of slavery.

it never cared for that when the crusaders did it, nor did it care for that when the spanish did it. Heck, even Popes owned slaves. You have no case.

On a side note, I wonder if you are as critical of the Founding Fathers of The United State as you are of the Catholic Church, since the Founding Fathers also tolerated slavery.

Of course. Why do you feel the need to bring them up?

I repeat: evidence that any king of spain was ever even slighted by the church for using slavery.
Catholic theology dictates that if you violate any doctrine, you are automatically excommunicated without any need for the church to refuse access to churches, or send you an official declaration. This is what is called a Latae Sententiae. In fact, the Catholic church defines the declaration of excommunication as a declaration of a pre-existing condition, in other words, the catholic Church only "officially" excommunicates people to make a point. Here is the criteria for incurring said Excommunication:

Which the Spanish king never incurred. You have no case.

keep claiming that. Do I have to pull out the great laws that legalized this behaviour?
You still have yet to prove that the ROMAN Church enacted any suppression of science, since you were the one that insisted that they were always different churches.

Proof that I did.

All you have shown is that a few emperors, who incidentally ruled in the eastern empire, ordered some of these things, and no merely "not condemning" the actions is not sufficient proof for a systematic suppression. You also continue to over look that these persecutions were not motivated by a desire to destroy science, but a desire to phase out paganism.

So you admit that the church were intolerant persecutors of anything that was not christian? And you claim they did humanity a service by destroying the pagans? Do you suffer from cognitive dissonance?

And if science and paganism was the same thing, heck yes did they try to destroy pagan science as well.

Lastly, you continue to assert that these actions prove that the roman church was destroying necessary knowledge, but if that is true, how come the eastern empire, where all of this was taking place, continued to be an academic stronghold, as you yourself have said, while the Western Empire fell into a dark age?

You do not know anything about the differences between the two halves of the empire, do you?

This would be the old "all apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples" fallacy, all you have done is pointed out a few instances of mobs destroying temples and libraries and what not, and claiming that this was official church policy. If you can find me some Popes who advocated these things, then maybe you would have a point, but you haven't done that yet.

Oh, right...suddenly saints are not enough. St. Augustine good enough for you? Ambrosius? John Chrysostemos? How about the fourth church council of Carthage?

Anyway, you completely miss the point of my original argument, which was addressing the charge that there is a fundamental conflict between science and the church, a thesis you have not defended in the slightest.

I do not have to as I never argued against your thesis, just your propagandizing of history.

Ruben · Post by **Ruben** » 2009-12-14 11:37pm

Yeah, and used that to slander the whole cathar religion.

I didn't say anything about the Cathars that wasn't factual.

Either prove your points or concede them. Merely just pointing at wikipedia and saying "but that is real proof" is nothing. Cite respectable authors.

As for science, I will give you major scholars of science who have praised the efforts of the Church.

had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics — all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189].

In The Beginnings of Western Science (1992), David Lindberg writes:

t must be emphatically stated that within this educational system the medieval master had a great deal of freedom. The stereotype of the Middle Ages pictures the professor as spineless and subservient, a slavish follower of Aristotle and the Church fathers (exactly how one could be a slavish follower of both, the stereotype does not explain), fearful of departing one iota from the demands of authority. There were broad theological limits, of course, but within those limits the medieval master had remarkable freedom of thought and expression; there was almost no doctrine, philosophical or theological, that was not submitted to minute scrutiny and criticism by scholars in the medieval university.

What made it possible for Western civilization to develop science and the social sciences in a way that no other civilization had ever done before? The answer, I am convinced, lies in a pervasive and deep-seated spirit of inquiry that was a natural consequence of the emphasis on reason that began in the Middle Ages. With the exception of revealed truths, reason was enthroned in medieval universities as the ultimate arbiter for most intellectual arguments and controversies. It was quite natural for scholars immersed in a university environment to employ reason to probe into subject areas that had not been explored before, as well as to discuss possibilities that had not previously been seriously entertained.

Edward C. Grant, history of science.

here are list of other books by Edward grant which support my thesis.

Grant, Edward “Late Medieval Thought, Copernicus and the Scientific Revolution” Journal of the History of Ideas 23:2 1962

Grant, Edward Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages Cambridge 1996

Grant, Edward God and Nature in the Middle Ages Cambridge 2001

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/ca ... 065116.pdf

The Roman Church gave more financial aid to the study of Astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late middle ages and into the enlightenment than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions." J.L. Heilbron- University of California at Berkeley. Author of "the sun in the Church" http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HEISUN.html

If you want to know where I am getting the majority of my sources from you can see that here:

Here is a pretty good lecture from him, for those of us who have access to Youtube.

Now, go ahead, attack the source not the argument. Claim I'm misquoting them, go ahead.

They were the same persons, you evasive little idiot. The same persons whom the catholics try to claim as their forefathers were destroyers of pagan temples, like St. Augustine.

Which pagan temples did St. Augustine destroy exactly?

And I never said the orthodox church was not the same at that time than the catholic church.

You implied it.

What I was saying is that the orthodox church predates the catholic church, the RCC is an offshot of the orthodox church. Not the other way around.

Yes, the eastern community predates the Roman community, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Roman Church's theology is wrong on the issue. Peter doesn't necessarily have to be in Rome in order to be the first Pope.

It was however not the setback for the moors that christian propaganda made it out to be. How the heck do you get "it was not a setback at all from that?"

Straw man, I never claimed it was.

Prove that St. boniface was responsible for the victory at tours.

Well, according to you, all the Catholic Church has to do is "not condemn something" to have a major role in it, so, under your own reasoning they did have a role in it.

It proved that they crowned an illegitmate pretender. I did not say that they attacked Byzantium, I said that their policies weakened the Byzantines.

You don't think they had any more reason to convert Charlemagne than weakening the Eastern Empire?

In that sense, the Catholic church owes eternal thanks to Nero, for without him christianity would not be the same as today. Your argument has no basis in reality.

Maybe not to Nero, but it does, however, owe eternal thanks to the Roman Empire.

You are an idiot who does not understand the difference between direct and indirect causation. For example, if you committ a murder, would it be acceptable to punish your grandfather for it? After all, he is the cause for you existing.

No, if you commit a murder you are not responsible for it, but if someone commits a murder, it is going to effect what happens in the future. Every event that occurs in that past influences the future, I don't understand why that is an unreasonable claim. I mean are you a historian, or what?

It is a historical issue and you are wrong.

No it isn't, because there is biblical evidence for the Papacy.

No, christian saints were.

No, the emperor Theodosius ordered the burning of the Temple. As for bishops burning the temple, they did so under order from the Emperor.

# ^ Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. 28.

No, the Byzantines sure as hell did not burn their state libraries, you idiot and I doubt you could get that from my posts. But keep strawmanning.

Once again, the emperor ordered the burning of the library, the Patriarch Theophilus complied with the orders. By the way, Theophilus is only a saint in Coptic eastern Orthodoxy, get your churches straight.

Not when it happens at the same time the apostles were writing? Not when the miracles are the same?

Again, this is speculative, since "curing the blind" is a pretty generic miracle that you could probably find in hundreds of myths at the time.

Oh, that is priceless. Trying to argue about antiquity with me and not understanding Latin? What an idiot.

One does not need an understanding of Latin to understand history, besides most of the work has been translated into English any way.

By the way, calling me an "idiot" doesn't make your argument any stronger.

Child, please go play in traffic.

Please, if you can't handle a little humor in a debate...

Oh, that is rich, citing an internet page. But I'll accept your source, however - to be copied it does not have to be a 100% copy. So shut up. St. Augustine clearly thought the differences between the two religions were miniscule.

Again, you continue to attack the source and not the argument. If you had actually read the site that I posted, you would realize that the sources are actually from archeological evidence. As for your statement that the similarities are not "100%", please, they are not even 10%, they are 5% at the very best. The christian saints only remarked on certain practices the Mithrains had, they did not, however, say that the two religions are identical. Besides, your reasoning that "because the two religions are similar, they must be copied" is, shall I say, childish?

Sure it was. The shepherds came to see the baby, forget it?

No, they didn't, read the bible. Shepherds are only present in nativity plays. In fact, shepherds only beheld the star in the fields.

It is a direct quote from Prof. Vermaseren, M.J (1963). Mithras: The Secret God. There is also quite compelling evidence for Mithras having influence the ascension into heaven. The same, pp. 104-6.

Here it is:

The quote I cited did not ever say that Mithras commanded his followers to "eat his flesh and drink his blood for salvation", so, I don't know what you mean by saying "here it is". As for your professor, I would like to see his actual evidence, not just his opinion. Besides, if his findings are accurate you should be able to find other professors that back him up, however, I do not believe his findings are the consensus opinion. If they are, please show that they are. Also, the book you quoted is from 1963, has his work been discredited since then?

You are a liar. Your own source said:

As we can see, the Mithrains had a cornucopia of different foods, and rituals that went along with their worship services. There is very little, if any, similarity between the practices of mithrains and those of Christians. I would also like to see if Mithrains believed that Mithra was present during these ceremonies, or not. By the way, this quote is from the same source that you quoted, and they accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.

That's not the same thing as what your saying, and sure I recognize that Christians use art work from other religions

The overwhelmingly important things are still the blood. And you can forget about what you wrote being a quote - for you did not provide page numbers. So do so so that I can verify them.

The "blood" that you mentioned, is not the slightest bit similar to the Christian blood. There is no evidence that the mithrains actually believed that it was the "blood of mithra", or that it was considered necessary for salvation. I also love how you gloss over that fact that mithra had all kinds of rituals associated with him, only one of which is blood. You also fail to mention that mithraism has had a history of borrowing form other religions, how do you know that Christianity copied mithra's rituals and not the other way around?

Mithras existed in India since 1400 BC. From your own source:

Yes, but we do not know if they had the same rituals and beliefs back then. I mean Mithra's name has changed before, how do we know if the rest of it didn't change?

So destroying them would be a boom to civilization?

No, but I do not contend that they provide any non-religious value to the world. By the way, when did I say that the destruction of pagan rituals sparked a "boom" in civilization?

So destroying them would be a boom to civilization?

This isn't really relevant, we don't have the full copies of any ancient work.

So...that proves he was very much acquinted with historical works how? Hate to break it to you, but a bachelor in ancient history should have read all these. So in short, all you have proven is that Aquinus was somehow the level of an undergrad these days, not a ringing endorsement.

I don't understand what your point is, so what if he had only an undergraduates education? When did I ever contend he was the best educated in the world?

Ah, I finally managed to see the youtube video. It is of course pure BS. Anyway, see the following, as you do love wikipedia so much: Link.

However, I do you one better: See this, pg. 348 onwards.

The sources you cited didn't refute what he said, he clearly stated that the majority of scholars regard it as authentic with interpolations and errors. That is the consensus. A minority believes it is completely forged.

^ See Louis H. Feldman, Josephus: A supplementary bibliography (New York, 1986) 618-619; 677.

it never cared for that when the crusaders did it, nor did it care for that when the spanish did it. Heck, even Popes owned slaves. You have no case.

Firstly, I already acknowledged that the Church supported slavery in the crusades, but they did, however, condemn the slavery of the Indians in the Americas in the Papal encyclical "sublimus Dei" by Pope Paul III. I don't doubt that Popes owned slaves, but they did, however, condemn racial slavery, and religious slavery in sublimus dei. There is a major difference between personal servants, or war slaves, and systematic slavery based on religion, or race.

Of course. Why do you feel the need to bring them up?

Really, so you mean to tell me that you would sit around rambling about how the founding fathers were so "evil" and intolerant because they tolerated slavery the same as you do with the Catholic Church? I think not.

The reason I brought this up, is because I think it represents a certain double standard that you, and some other people on this forum, have when reading history. You seem to want to look at the wrongs done by religious people, and use it to discredit their contributions to history, but with non-religious people you don't use the same reasoning. I bet you anything that you do not have the same contempt or critical view of the founding fathers that you have of Paul III.

Which the Spanish king never incurred. You have no case.

Yes he did. Sublimus Dei infallible ruled that racial, and religious, slavery was immoral. If from that point forward the King continued to practice it, he would have been in heresy, the first way to be automatically excommunicated.

Proof that I did.

No you did not.

So you admit that the church were intolerant persecutors of anything that was not christian?

I never denied that Christians persecuted pagans, I don't, however, agree that they destroyed "all that was non-christian", since we still have Aristotle, and the works of other pagan writers, that were preserved by the monks. Besides, you still have not shown that the Church as an official policy destroyed pagan temples. Yes, some emperors did, and some bishops, and some priests, but no it was not systematic. I mean, your claim would not even fit the U.N. definition of systematic.

And you claim they did humanity a service by destroying the pagans?

When did I ever say this?

And if science and paganism was the same thing, heck yes did they try to destroy pagan science as well.

This is like saying the holocaust was a "systematic persecution of the banking industry", since many Jews were bankers. The point is, they were not destroyed specifically to suppress science. Yes, many pagans were scientists, but not all scientists were pagan, nor were all pagans scientists.

You do not know anything about the differences between the two halves of the empire, do you?

Are you saying that the eastern Empire was not an academic strong hold?

Oh, right...suddenly saints are not enough. St. Augustine good enough for you? Ambrosius? John Chrysostemos? How about the fourth church council of Carthage?

Again, what temples did Augustine burn? Please cite a source for Ambrosius. yes St. John led a Christian mob to destroy a temple, but you fail to mention that the temple was already closed at that point.

Over the course of the fourth century, the majority of Ephesians did convert to Christianity. The pagan temples were declared closed by Theodosius I in 391.

In 401, the temple was finally destroyed by a Christian mob inspired by "golden-tongued" Saint John Chrysostom, who had recently come to Ephesus as its archbishop. Its marble stones were used in construction of other buildings, and some of the columns in Hagia Sophia originally belonged to the temple of Artemis.

John Freely, The Western Shores of Turkey: Discovering the Aegean and Mediterranean Coasts, 2004, p. 148.

So, in other words, no one was hurt, and no one was worshiping there, this should hardly disqualify him from saint hood. As for the council of Carthage, I would ask you to quote it to show exactly what you are talking about.

I do not have to as I never argued against your thesis, just your propagandizing of history.

So, basically, your entire argument is a straw man, since I never argued anything different than this.

Post by **Edi** » 2009-12-15 12:33am

Do you have anything to contribute besides lies and evasions, Ruben?

Ruben · Post by **Ruben** » 2009-12-15 10:40am

Do you have anything to contribute besides lies and evasions, Ruben?

Well, since I am not lying, or evading, yes.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2009-12-15 11:43am

Ruben wrote:
Thanas wrote:I do not have to as I never argued against your thesis, just your propagandizing of history.
So, basically, your entire argument is a straw man, since I never argued anything different than this.

I don't understand this point you are trying to make. In your coliseum debate you made a bunch of historical claims to show the positive effect of RCC. Now in this post-mortem Thanas started to point out where your thoughts/ideas differ from modern secular scholarly understanding of history and where you in some cases where factually wrong or had misunderstood the implications.
How can that be construed as a straw man? I mean you may disagree and argue his points regarding history but how could his entire approach be even remotely considered to be a logical fallacy?

Ruben · Post by **Ruben** » 2009-12-15 12:29pm

I don't understand this point you are trying to make. In your coliseum debate you made a bunch of historical claims to show the positive effect of RCC. Now in this post-mortem Thanas started to point out where your thoughts/ideas differ from modern secular scholarly understanding of history and where you in some cases where factually wrong or had misunderstood the implications.
How can that be construed as a straw man? I mean you may disagree and argue his points regarding history but how could his entire approach be even remotely considered to be a logical fallacy?

No, he has not actually attacked my argument, or my overall thesis, he has either nitpicked my takes on a few select historical events, or just brought up extra evidence that had nothing to do with my original claim in the first place. Case and point, when I was in the coliseum I argued that the Catholic Church was not the enemy of science, and, in fact, aided in the progress of science. Thanas responded by pointing out temple burnings, which had nothing to do with my original thesis. So, yes that line of argumentation is definitely a staw man.

As for me being "factually in error", the only place where he has shown me to be "factually in error", is in the case of the Atilla the Hun issue. As for "misunderstanding context", I believe you are referring to the battle of Tours, but I did not actually misunderstand the context, Thanas simply believed that I took it out of context, again, a straw man argument. I also would add that Thanas changed his position on Tours during the debate. He started out by saying it was not important at all, then changed his position to "the Battle of Tours, important, but not as important as the Pope thinks", when I never said it was as important as christian propaganda said it was.

On the issue of slavery, he did not refute that the catholic church condemned slavery, he just responded by saying "well they really didn't care, they were just giving a lip service", which is an absolutely opinionated position.

He also nitpicked at my take on Charlemagnes Empire leading the way for modern day Germany and France, Which, on this issue, I believe he is the one who is factually in error.

He did not, and has not, refuted my actual argument.

Edit: he has also nitpicked at my sources, claiming that I have never read any modern history books, and that no scholars support my claim, and that if I tried to publish any of this I would be "laughed at", when we have already proven that there are scholars, who are published, who support my claims in my last major post.

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2009-12-15 01:06pm

I'll not deal with wonder-boys pointless line-by-line sniping. Let us review boy wonder here:

Ruben broke several rules in this thread. His tactic of debate is to evade, then try to restate his position. He is a stubborn, pg-headed sophist with no regard for a honest debate.

Let us review his method of argument:

To anyone who has a good understanding of history, it should be known that the “coliseum”, that is to say the real coliseum, holds a special a place for Christians, and especially Catholics; for the coliseum was the ground where so many catholic saints gave their lives for the religion which they followed, and the God whom they loved. The coliseum was the place where Romans from all across the empire could go to see a Christian thrown to lions as a spectacle for amusement. Now, I too come before you as a man thrown to the lions; a man given over to the captors who seek to gnaw away at every fiber of his religious being, and those captors are none-other than the atheists. Yes, I too have been made into a spectacle for your amusement; a man of faith given over to die in an impossible fight to the death. Yet, there is one difference between this fight and the one took place nineteen-hundred years ago; this time, I have the ability to fight back, not physically, but intellectually. If one remembers, or has a good understanding of the way in which the Christians were viewed in those times; one should know that Christians were one of the most hated minority groups in the entire empire. Indeed, the early Christians were blamed for everything from burning Rome to “hating humanity”, and the Romans did not spare any expense in making sure that they did away with these hated people.

Now he claims:

Honestly, I don't even care, whether or not certain Christians wanted to be martyred or not is really not relevent to the conversation.

Right....after writing the biggest paragraph of his coliseum points.

The we come to this lovely gem about the Cathars:

Ruben wrote:Hey, you know what, the Cathars were religious fanatics who encouraged suicide and believed that all human life was evil, are you going to defend their persecution too?

Thanas wrote:You are an idiot who knows jack about the cathars.

Ruben wrote:The cathars most certainly did encourage suicide, since they believed human life was a prison.

Thanas wrote:And I repeat - you know jack about the cathars. They were no suicide cult, no matter how much you try to paint them as such.

Ruben wrote:Ever heard of the "Endura"?

Thanas wrote:Which was not a suicide cult, you idiot. It was a ritualistic fasting in order to speed death by people who were terminally ill.

I never said that they were a suicide cult, I said they encouraged suicide, which is factual.

Ruben wrote:
Thanas wrote:Yeah, and used that to slander the whole cathar religion.
I didn't say anything about the Cathars that wasn't factual.

Keep in mind that his first words were comparing the christians to religious fanatics who hated human life and encouraged suicide.

Then we come to the whole "The church defended civlizations." I challenged that with the claim that the church destroyed many valuable temples and persecuted several philosophers.

Ruben wrote:Which pagan philosopher are you refering too?

Thanas wrote:We can start with Hypatia and then make our way all over to Damasius.

Ruben wrote:Hypatia was killed by a christian mob, not an officially sanctioned persecution.

Thanas wrote:Hypatia was killed by monks spurred on by a christian priest. None of them were punished for it. In fact, the leader of the mob became an important church figure.

Ruben wrote:Okay, so, it was a group of monks and a priest. In other words, it was an angry mob, that is not systematic persecution.

(It was not a priest, it was a bishop. If he knows anything about Hypatia, he should know that. So he quite clearly is bullshitting)

Yeah, right. keep telling your that. No, the church did nothing. No, it was innocent. Oh...just the people the church consisted of were the ones killing them. Of course, because it were only the people doing it, no problem.

The discussion then got intermingled with the temple burning and the repression of science, which started thusly:

The destruction of the library of Alexandria does not count? The persecution of pagan intellectuals and scientists does not count? The persecution of apothecaries does not count? The threat of the spanish inquisition does not count? Etc pp.

Ruben wrote:The Library of Alexandria was burned by the eastern Roman Empire not the Catholic church, or Clovis. I'm not sure why you even brought it up in reference to Clovis I when he had nothing to do with the burning at all. The library was also burned three times in history. First by Julias Ceasar, second by the Christian Roman empreror, and lastly by the muslims in 648.

Note how he uses the debate tactic of "Only the emperor did it, the church had nothing to do with it". When in fact we have a whole picture of the bishop and saint Theophil directing the christian mob against one of the oldest treasures of mankind and one of the greatest temples.

Ruben wrote:Prove that scientific documents were burnt at alexandria, and that there were not copies of these documents else where.

The library at Alexandria, according to Ruben, did not contain any scientific documents. And it does not matter if it was destroyed as there were....copies. Which he is asking me to prove did not exist elsewhere.

I'll not get into any of the following things, because what then happened that Ruben, dishonest masterpiece, claimed the following:

Ruben wrote:It was an isolated incident. Just because the church liked the emperor who did it doesn't disprove this fact, nor does temple burning prove anything. It was not specifically, at least, targeted at science, so, no this doesn't prove a systematic suppression of science.

I then posted picuteres of the destruction of the temple of Philae, with the christian victory inscription visible.

His response:

Ruben wrote: This would be the old "all apples are fruit, but not all fruits are apples" fallacy, all you have done is pointed out a few instances of mobs destroying temples and libraries and what not, and claiming that this was official church policy. If you can find me some Popes who advocated these things, then maybe you would have a point, but you haven't done that yet.

So now he changed his tune to: "there were only a few instances".

Oh, right...suddenly saints are not enough. St. Augustine good enough for you? Ambrosius? John Chrysostemos? How about the fourth church council of Carthage?

Ruben wrote:Again, what temples did Augustine burn? Please cite a source for Ambrosius. yes St. John led a Christian mob to destroy a temple, but you fail to mention that the temple was already closed at that point.

Over the course of the fourth century, the majority of Ephesians did convert to Christianity. The pagan temples were declared closed by Theodosius I in 391.

In 401, the temple was finally destroyed by a Christian mob inspired by "golden-tongued" Saint John Chrysostom, who had recently come to Ephesus as its archbishop. Its marble stones were used in construction of other buildings, and some of the columns in Hagia Sophia originally belonged to the temple of Artemis.

John Freely, The Western Shores of Turkey: Discovering the Aegean and Mediterranean Coasts, 2004, p. 148.

Keep in mind that he is talking about one of the seven wonders of the world here. According to him, the christians had the right to destroy world wonders.

Then we came to the subject of the similarities with Jesus and Mithras, with the miracles performed by Vespasian. His response to well sourced quotes from me:

And then he claimed that it does not matter that the miracles are similar at all.

He also demanded I translate his sources when a simple google search will reveal english translations. Here he once more obfiscates.

Furthermore, I have not even approached the subject concerning the similarities between Dionysos and Jesus, for I would fear it would wreck his mind.

He then claimed that mithras and christianity had nothing to do with it, when his own source said:

When Christian artists needed to portray on their sarcophagi the soul's ascent to heaven in 'a chariot of fire, and horses of fire'. The inspiration for this theme was the extant representations of Mithras's ascent to heaven in a sun-chariot.

Ruben wrote:I think the burden of proof is on you to show that Mirthrain similarities predate Christianity, and not vice versa.

His own source said:

These tablets contain the first recorded mention of the name 'Mithra', who, together with the Lord of Heaven, is invoked as the protector of a treaty between the Hatti (the Hittites) and their neighbours, the Mitanni. The date of the treaty is somewhere in the fourteenth century B.C...

But of course, that was not enough for the boy wonder Ruben.

He also claimed the following:
- That roman religion had no practical value and that therefore it was not a great loss to civilization.
- That the church built civliization or preserved civilization. His retort to the fact that the church did a shoddy job at it and did not make the works available at all was essentially that they did not lose all of them.
- He tries to ascribe the credit of every christian king to the church, but has presented no evidence that his champion Karl Martel owed his success in the battle of Tours to the church.
- He claims that the church tried to protect the slaves, but he has not shown a single issue where a king suffered any worldly consequences besides a nebulous claim to automatic excommunication, which is laughable considering this means that the church awarded the title of defender of the faith to someone who was, according to Ruben, excommunicated.

He has claimed several times that the church defended civilization. He has also claimed that the destruction of pagan temples were either done by the order of the Emperor or isolated incidents.

let us read a pagan source on that, shall we:

Libanios, ad templis wrote:But those black-garbed people (monks), who eat more than elephants[...]these men, O Emperor, even whilst your law is in force, run to the temples, bringing with them wood, and stones, and iron, and when they have not these, hands and feet. Then follows a Mysian prey 9, the roofs are uncovered, walls are pulled down, images are carried off, and altars are overturned: the priests all the while must be silent upon pain of death. When they have destroyed one temple they run to another, and a third, and trophies are erected upon trophies: which are all contrary to [your] law. This is the practice in cities, but especially in the countries. And there are many enemies every where. After innumerable mischiefs have been perpetrated, the scattered multitude unites and comes together, and they require of each other an account of what they have done; and he is ashamed who cannot tell of some great injury which he has been guilty of. They, therefore, spread themselves over the country like torrents, wasting the countries together with the temples: for wherever they demolish the temple of a country, at the same time the country itself is blinded, declines, and dies. For, O Emperor, Temples are the soul of the countryside: they mark the beginning of its settlement, and have been passed down through many generations to the men of today. In them the farming communities rest their hopes for husbands, wives, children, for their oxen and the soil they sow and plant. [...]Of such mischievous consequence are the arbitrary proceedings of those persons in the country, who say, 'they fight with the temples.' But that war is the gain of those who oppress the inhabitants: and robbing these miserable people of their goods, and what they had laid up of the fruits of the earth for their sustenance, they go off as with the spoils of those whom they have conquered. Nor are they satisfied with this, for they also seize the lands of some, saying it is sacred: and many are deprived of their paternal inheritance upon a false pretence. Thus these men riot upon other people's misfortunes, who say they worship God with fasting. And if they who are abused come to the pastor in the city, (for so they call a man who is not one of the meekest,) complaining of the injustice that has been done them, this pastor commends these, but rejects the others, as if they ought to think themselves happy that they have suffered no more.

Then we also have the Carthaginean synod calling upon the emperor to destroy all pagan temples:

Item placuit, ab imperatoribus glorissimis peti, ut reliquiae idolatriae non solum in simulacris, sed in quibuscumque locis, vel lucis, vel aborius omnimode delantur.

Source: Johannes Dominicus masi, Sacrorum consilorum nova et amplissima collectio, Vol. 3, p. 971.
So here we have a synod calling for the emperor to destroy all pagan temples and cults, idols etc. Omnimode delantur.

But of course Ruben will continue to claim that these were just isolated incidents, not even in the face of this evidence will his position waver. Omnimode delantur. Read those words. They are asking the emperor to destroy everything. But Ruben will of course still proclaim that the emperor was the sole responsible person here.

Not even when we have reports of Quodvultdeus about the destruction of the temple of Deae caelestis, in which the christian monks killed and harmed pagan priests and then celebrated a mass in the temple. No, the church must be innocent. Not even when we have a triumphant cry of Theodoret:

Theoderet, A cure against greek maladies 8,86 wrote:"Why do we still speak of Philosophers, Emperors or Generals, as the Martyrers have in the memory of men (already) become the successors of those who were called gods. Truly, their temples are so completely destroyed, that one cannot even imagine their previous places, while the material is now used in the shrines of martyers."

Not with St. Augustine openly gloating about the destruction of the temple of Caelestis:

Augustinus, Enarratio in psalmum 94.14 wrote: What were the kingdoms of the earth? The kingdom of idols, the kingdoms of daemons are broken[...]how great was the power of Caelestis in carthage. Where is now the kingdom of Caelestis?"

Not with the laws against pagans being commonly considered to have been influence by St. Ambrosius of Milan. Who also quite triumphantly demanded that pagans not be met with tolerance, but with intolerance and that they be persecuted.

15. But they say that what has been given or left to the Church has not been touched. Let them also state who has taken away gifts from the temples, which has been done to Christians. If these things had been done to the heathen the wrong would have been rather a requital than an injury[...]

(to Theodosius in reply to the letter of Symnachus asking for the allowance of pagan rituals in Rome).

No, the church, the great defender of civilization, was according to Ruben not responsible for the destruction of numerous work of art. it is too bad, that nobody really believes him anymore.

There can be no doubt on the basis of the written and archaeological evidence that the Christianisation of the Roman Empire and early medieval Europe involved the destruction of works of art on a scale never before seen in human history.

- Eberhard Sauer: The archaeology of religious hatred in the Roman and early medieval world, 2003, 137.

Ruben has no case. His church is directly responsible for the loss of many great pieces of art and a great many works of science. Ruben says that there was no repression of science. Yet by his own admission the church controlled the education for the largest part of the middle ages. We also know that people deemed heretic were subject to punishment. That is concrete evidence for scientific repression right there. Thus, coupled with his ignorant reading of history, means that he has no case.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2009-12-15 03:41pm

Ruben wrote:
Thanas wrote:I do not have to as I never argued against your thesis, just your propagandizing of history.
So, basically, your entire argument is a straw man, since I never argued anything different than this.

Ruben wrote:
Spoonist wrote:I don't understand this point you are trying to make. In your coliseum debate you made a bunch of historical claims to show the positive effect of RCC. Now in this post-mortem Thanas started to point out where your thoughts/ideas differ from modern secular scholarly understanding of history and where you in some cases where factually wrong or had misunderstood the implications.
How can that be construed as a straw man? I mean you may disagree and argue his points regarding history but how could his entire approach be even remotely considered to be a logical fallacy?
No, he has not actually attacked my argument, or my overall thesis, he has either nitpicked my takes on a few select historical events, or just brought up extra evidence that had nothing to do with my original claim in the first place. Case and point, when I was in the coliseum I argued that the Catholic Church was not the enemy of science, and, in fact, aided in the progress of science. Thanas responded by pointing out temple burnings, which had nothing to do with my original thesis. So, yes that line of argumentation is definitely a staw man.

I am not interested in arguing over the details with you. So I will let you continue that with the others.
But if you base your argument on your interpretation on the effect of historical events then it is not a strawman to either "nitpick" those interpretations or the actual historical events themselves. If you where not interested in that line of reasoning you should not have used them as basis for your arguments. But since you did it is not a logical fallacy to "nitpick" that basis. Thanas beef with you (so far) is where your view on history conflicts with his view on history.
So your assertion that "his enitre argument" is a fallacy is false and redundant to the points made.

For example when you "argued that the Catholic Church was not the enemy of science, and, in fact, aided in the progress of science" then showing evidence that deviates from that argument is not a strawman but a valid criticism of the basis for your argument. You can disagree with said evidence or the implications thereof. You could even argue that some such evidence is a red herring but I would not advice upon that given your context.

Ruben · Post by **Ruben** » 2009-12-15 03:52pm

To anyone who has a good understanding of history, it should be known that the “coliseum”, that is to say the real coliseum, holds a special a place for Christians, and especially Catholics; for the coliseum was the ground where so many catholic saints gave their lives for the religion which they followed, and the God whom they loved. The coliseum was the place where Romans from all across the empire could go to see a Christian thrown to lions as a spectacle for amusement. Now, I too come before you as a man thrown to the lions; a man given over to the captors who seek to gnaw away at every fiber of his religious being, and those captors are none-other than the atheists. Yes, I too have been made into a spectacle for your amusement; a man of faith given over to die in an impossible fight to the death. Yet, there is one difference between this fight and the one took place nineteen-hundred years ago; this time, I have the ability to fight back, not physically, but intellectually. If one remembers, or has a good understanding of the way in which the Christians were viewed in those times; one should know that Christians were one of the most hated minority groups in the entire empire. Indeed, the early Christians were blamed for everything from burning Rome to “hating humanity”, and the Romans did not spare any expense in making sure that they did away with these hated people.

Now he claims:

This section already came up in the debate, as I said before this was intended to be a some what amusing interlude, not a serious argument, I don't know why you keep attacking it.

Right....after writing the biggest paragraph of his coliseum points.

It may have been the biggest, but it was not the most important, again, this came up in the coliseum.

Ruben wrote:
Hey, you know what, the Cathars were religious fanatics who encouraged suicide and believed that all human life was evil

I only said this because you claimed were defending the persecution of Christians in the empire.

Ruben wrote:
The cathars most certainly did encourage suicide, since they believed human life was a prison.

Thanas wrote:
And I repeat - you know jack about the cathars. They were no suicide cult, no matter how much you try to paint them as such.

Ruben wrote:
Ever heard of the "Endura"?

Thanas wrote:
Which was not a suicide cult, you idiot. It was a ritualistic fasting in order to speed death by people who were terminally ill.

Quote:
I never said that they were a suicide cult, I said they encouraged suicide, which is factual.

I never said they were a suicide cult, you did, I said they encouraged suicide. i admit I may have implied it by not contradicting you, but they still factual encouraged suicide, and they thought all reproduction was to be discouraged.

Keep in mind that his first words were comparing the christians to religious fanatics who hated human life and encouraged suicide.

They did encourage suicide, and whether or not they "hated human life" is debatable.

Then we come to the whole "The church defended civlizations." I challenged that with the claim that the church destroyed many valuable temples and persecuted several philosophers.

Once again, I did not deny that Christians destroyed temples, but I do deny the systematic nature of it. I wonder if you think church burning in Republican Spain was a "systematic" destruction too?

(It was not a priest, it was a bishop. If he know anything about Hypatia, he should have known that. So he quite clearly is bullshitting)

That is still a mob whether it was a bishop or not. Once, again I already acknowledged this.

The decision then got intermingled with the temple burning and the repression of science, which started thusly:

Here is where we have a problem with Thanases argument.

Christians suppressed paganism.(True)

Christians suppressed science.(False)

Once, again, do you think the holocaust was suppression of the banking industry?

Note how he uses the debate tactic of "Only the emperor did it, the church had nothing to do with it". When in fact we have a whole picture of the bishop and saint Theophil directing the christian mob against one of the oldest treasures of mankind and one of the greatest temples.

Apparently, Thanas did not read my post, since i never denied that Theophil was involved. It was, however, ordered under decree from the emperor.

Note how he uses the debate tactic of "Only the emperor did it, the church had nothing to do with it". When in fact we have a whole picture of the bishop and saint Theophil directing the christian mob against one of the oldest treasures of mankind and one of the greatest temples.

Ruben wrote:
Prove that scientific documents were burnt at alexandria, and that there were not copies of these documents else where.

The library at Alexandria, according to Ruben, did not contain any scientific documents. And it does not matter if it was destroyed as there were....copies. Which he is asking me to prove did not exist elsewhere.

I'll not get into any of the following things, because what then happened that Ruben, dishonest masterpiece, claimed the following:

Ruben wrote:
It was an isolated incident. Just because the church liked the emperor who did it doesn't disprove this fact, nor does temple burning prove anything. It was not specifically, at least, targeted at science, so, no this doesn't prove a systematic suppression of science.

I then posted picuteres of the destruction of the temple of Philae, with the christian victory inscription visible.

His response:

First, this is my fault for not looking into the matter well enough, but actually the whole "hypathia Temple of alexandria" story is a canard.

Alexandria had long been known for it's violent and volatile politics. Christians, Jews and Pagans all lived together in the city. One ancient writer claimed that there was no people who loved a fight more than those of Alexandria. Immediately after the death of Hierax a group of Jews who had helped instigate his killing lured more Christians into the street at night by proclaiming that the Church was on fire. When the Christians rushed out the largely Jewish mob slew many of them. After this there was mass havoc as Christians retaliated against both the Jews and the Pagans - one of which was Hypatia. The story varies slightly depending upon who tells it but she was taken by the Christians, dragged through the streets and murdered.

Some regard the death of Hypatia as the final destruction of the Library. Others blame Theophilus for destroying the last of the scrolls when he razed the Temple of Serapis prior to making it a Christian church. Still others have confused both incidents and blamed Theophilus for simultaneously murdering Hypatia and destroying the Library though it is obvious Theophilus died sometime prior to Hypatia.

"The Vanished Library" by Luciano Canfora

So, actually Theophilus died prior to the death of Hypatia, and there is considerable debate as to how she actually died. Alexandria was also known for its violence, the Christians were not especially violent.

So who did burn the Library of Alexandria? Unfortunately most of the writers from Plutarch (who apparently blamed Caesar) to Edward Gibbons (a staunch atheist or deist who liked very much to blame Christians and blamed Theophilus) to Bishop Gregory (who was particularly anti-Moslem, blamed Omar) all had an axe to grind and consequently must be seen as biased. Probably everyone mentioned above had some hand in destroying some part of the Library's holdings. The collection may have ebbed and flowed as some documents were destroyed and others were added. For instance, Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000
"The Vanished Library" by Luciano Canfora

There is also some debate as to who is responsible for the majority of the destruction.

There is also not one shred of evidence to support that a large portion of books were still in the Library at the time of the burning.

However, this version of events is not confirmed in contemporary accounts of Caesar's visit. In fact, it has been reasonably established that segments of its collection were partially destroyed on several occasions before and after the first century BC. A modern myth (no older than the late eighteenth century) attributes the destruction to Coptic Christian Archbishop Theophilus of Alexandria in 391, who called for the destruction of the Serapeum; but in fact there was no connection between the library and the Serapeum, and no good historian of late antiquity takes the claim seriously. A more credible version of the story, not recorded till the thirteenth century, blames the Muslim sacking of Alexandria in 642.

Arabella Burton Buckley. 1876. A short history of natural science and of the progress of discovery

Oh by the way your assertion about the library being a significant event is considered a common myth. So in the words of willy wonka:

And then he claimed that it does not matter that the miracles are similar at all.

Well then, I guess star wars is "copied" from star trek, since both take place in space.

Furthermore, I have not even approached the subject concerning the similarities between Dionysos and Jesus, for I would fear it would wreck his mind.

Go ahead.

He then claimed that mithras and christianity had nothing to do with it, when his own source said:
Quote:
When Christian artists needed to portray on their sarcophagi the soul's ascent to heaven in 'a chariot of fire, and horses of fire'. The inspiration for this theme was the extant representations of Mithras's ascent to heaven in a sun-chariot.

This is only proof in your own mind.

His own source said:
Quote:
These tablets contain the first recorded mention of the name 'Mithra', who, together with the Lord of Heaven, is invoked as the protector of a treaty between the Hatti (the Hittites) and their neighbours, the Mitanni. The date of the treaty is somewhere in the fourteenth century B.C...

This still doesn't prove they had the same practices and beliefs.

- That roman religion had no practical value and that therefore it was not a great loss to civilization.

Not the rituals themselves. Do you think the mass has any non-religious value?

- That the church built civliization or preserved civilization. His retort to the fact that the church did a shoddy job at it and did not make the works available at all was essentially that they did not lose all of them.

We probably would have lost more without the Church.

- He tries to ascribe the credit of every christian king to the church, but has presented no evidence that his champion Karl Martel owed his success in the battle of Tours to the church.

Well, you seem to think the church is responsible for every misdeed of their followers, so why aren't they responsible for all the good things too? The Church actively followed an anti-saracen military policy, so, under your own reasoning that should give them credit for the battle.

- He claims that the church tried to protect the slaves, but he has not shown a single issue where a king suffered any worldly consequences besides a nebulous claim to automatic excommunication, which is laughable considering this means that the church awarded the title of defender of the faith to someone who was, according to Ruben, excommunicated.

They made the statement, The king disregarded it, under every law of the church he would have been excommunicated.

He has claimed several times that the church defended civilization. He has also claimed that the destruction of pagan temples were either done by the order of the Emperor or isolated incidents.

They were all ordered by Emperors.

let us read a pagan source on that, shall we:

Woa, back up there sparky. Your the one that said we can't trust any christian sources because they are biased, so, why can we trust pagan ones?

Source: Johannes Dominicus masi, Sacrorum consilorum nova et amplissima collectio, Vol. 3, p. 971.
So here we have a synod calling for the emperor to destroy all pagan temples and cults, idols etc. Omnimode delantur.

This is a secondary source, provide me the actual document and tell me which synod it was.

Not even when we have reports of Quodvultdeus about the destruction of the temple of Deae caelestis, in which the christian monks killed and harmed pagan priests and then celebrated a mass in the temple. No, the church must be innocent. Not even when we have a triumphant cry of Theodoret:
Theoderet, A cure against greek maladies 8,86 wrote:
"Why do we still speak of Philosophers, Emperors or Generals, as the Martyrers have in the memory of men (already) become the successors of those who were called gods. Truly, their temples are so completely destroyed, that one cannot even imagine their previous places, while the material is now used in the shrines of martyers."

Thanas also fails to mention that Temple looting was common before Christianity.

Not with St. Augustine openly gloating about the destruction of the temple of Caelestis:

You are misquoting him, he is not gloating about the destruction of temples, he is making a point about how the Gods had forsaken the Empire.

No, the church, the great defender of civilization, was according to Ruben not responsible for the destruction of numerous work of art. it is too bad, that nobody really believes him anymore.

Again, I never said christians didn't destroy art work.

Ruben says that there was no repression of science.

Again, this was not suppression of science, and I never said christians didn't destroy works of art.

We also know that people deemed heretic were subject to punishment. That is concrete evidence for scientific repression right there. Thus, coupled with his ignorant reading of history, means that he has no case.

[/quote]

From this statement, we can see that either Thanas is stupid, or he does not know how to read, because I already quoted him scholars of science from the modern era who have said the medieval world was not scientifically repressed, the universities had an incredible amount of freedom, and that the medieval era set the foundation for the future scientific revolution.

Thanas · Post by **Thanas** » 2009-12-15 04:22pm

Ruben wrote:I never said they were a suicide cult, you did, I said they encouraged suicide. i admit I may have implied it by not contradicting you, but they still factual encouraged suicide, and they thought all reproduction was to be discouraged.

Source?

Then we come to the whole "The church defended civlizations." I challenged that with the claim that the church destroyed many valuable temples and persecuted several philosophers.
Once again, I did not deny that Christians destroyed temples, but I do deny the systematic nature of it. I wonder if you think church burning in Republican Spain was a "systematic" destruction too?

Show how the two situations are comparable?

(It was not a priest, it was a bishop. If he know anything about Hypatia, he should have known that. So he quite clearly is bullshitting)
That is still a mob whether it was a bishop or not. Once, again I already acknowledged this.

A mob led by a bishop and monks.

Here is where we have a problem with Thanases argument.

Christians suppressed paganism.(True)

Christians suppressed science.(False)

Because you say so.

Note how he uses the debate tactic of "Only the emperor did it, the church had nothing to do with it". When in fact we have a whole picture of the bishop and saint Theophil directing the christian mob against one of the oldest treasures of mankind and one of the greatest temples.
Apparently, Thanas did not read my post, since i never denied that Theophil was involved. It was, however, ordered under decree from the emperor.

Source that it was ordered by the empire? The only thing we have are christian sources saying that.

First, this is my fault for not looking into the matter well enough, but actually the whole "hypathia Temple of alexandria" story is a canard.

Alexandria had long been known for it's violent and volatile politics. Christians, Jews and Pagans all lived together in the city. One ancient writer claimed that there was no people who loved a fight more than those of Alexandria. Immediately after the death of Hierax a group of Jews who had helped instigate his killing lured more Christians into the street at night by proclaiming that the Church was on fire. When the Christians rushed out the largely Jewish mob slew many of them. After this there was mass havoc as Christians retaliated against both the Jews and the Pagans - one of which was Hypatia. The story varies slightly depending upon who tells it but she was taken by the Christians, dragged through the streets and murdered.

Some regard the death of Hypatia as the final destruction of the Library. Others blame Theophilus for destroying the last of the scrolls when he razed the Temple of Serapis prior to making it a Christian church. Still others have confused both incidents and blamed Theophilus for simultaneously murdering Hypatia and destroying the Library though it is obvious Theophilus died sometime prior to Hypatia.

"The Vanished Library" by Luciano Canfora
So, actually Theophilus died prior to the death of Hypatia, and there is considerable debate as to how she actually died. Alexandria was also known for its violence, the Christians were not especially violent.

They still did burn down the library. What is your evidence Theophilus died prior to the attack on the library?
I never said that Theophil was responsible for the attack on Hypatia, in fact, had you read my posts you would know that I named the priests who did it.

So who did burn the Library of Alexandria? Unfortunately most of the writers from Plutarch (who apparently blamed Caesar) to Edward Gibbons (a staunch atheist or deist who liked very much to blame Christians and blamed Theophilus) to Bishop Gregory (who was particularly anti-Moslem, blamed Omar) all had an axe to grind and consequently must be seen as biased. Probably everyone mentioned above had some hand in destroying some part of the Library's holdings. The collection may have ebbed and flowed as some documents were destroyed and others were added. For instance, Mark Antony was supposed to have given Cleopatra over 200,000
"The Vanished Library" by Luciano Canfora

Confora misses of course the destruction of 398 as he is not aware that Hypatias slaying had nothing to do with the serapeum.

Of course, you had to dig up Canfora. He is not even the best of sources. Did you know that one of his books got not published in Germany because it was, in the words of Prof. Wehler, that his work was "so dumb, that in no place it can meet the standards of western histories". Source

So you apparently picked a real smart guy there.

There is also some debate as to who is responsible for the majority of the destruction.

There is also not one shred of evidence to support that a large portion of books were still in the Library at the time of the burning.

We do have one source however saying that he walked through the walls, seeing the destroyed books. Eunapios.

However, this version of events is not confirmed in contemporary accounts of Caesar's visit. In fact, it has been reasonably established that segments of its collection were partially destroyed on several occasions before and after the first century BC. A modern myth (no older than the late eighteenth century) attributes the destruction to Coptic Christian Archbishop Theophilus of Alexandria in 391, who called for the destruction of the Serapeum; but in fact there was no connection between the library and the Serapeum, and no good historian of late antiquity takes the claim seriously. A more credible version of the story, not recorded till the thirteenth century, blames the Muslim sacking of Alexandria in 642.

Arabella Burton Buckley. 1876. A short history of natural science and of the progress of discovery

1876. Dear God, we did not even know much about it back then. Look into a modern book.

And then he claimed that it does not matter that the miracles are similar at all.
Well then, I guess star wars is "copied" from star trek, since both take place in space.

Yes, be smug. Of course, you actually show how that is on the same level....oh wait.

He then claimed that mithras and christianity had nothing to do with it, when his own source said:
Quote:
When Christian artists needed to portray on their sarcophagi the soul's ascent to heaven in 'a chariot of fire, and horses of fire'. The inspiration for this theme was the extant representations of Mithras's ascent to heaven in a sun-chariot.
This is only proof in your own mind.

Apparently, it is not enough that ancient writers thought so too. I cited them all.

His own source said:
Quote:
These tablets contain the first recorded mention of the name 'Mithra', who, together with the Lord of Heaven, is invoked as the protector of a treaty between the Hatti (the Hittites) and their neighbours, the Mitanni. The date of the treaty is somewhere in the fourteenth century B.C...
This still doesn't prove they had the same practices and beliefs.

It proves the cult existed back then. Of course it cannot show that it and christianity was the same because apparently christianity did not exist back then. You know, that is why we call it B.C.

- That roman religion had no practical value and that therefore it was not a great loss to civilization.
Not the rituals themselves. Do you think the mass has any non-religious value?

As part of Human culture and helping us understand it and history? You betcha it has value.

- That the church built civliization or preserved civilization. His retort to the fact that the church did a shoddy job at it and did not make the works available at all was essentially that they did not lose all of them.
We probably would have lost more without the Church.

And had christians not probably destroyed most of it, we probably would not even need to depend on church archives.

- He tries to ascribe the credit of every christian king to the church, but has presented no evidence that his champion Karl Martel owed his success in the battle of Tours to the church.
Well, you seem to think the church is responsible for every misdeed of their followers, so why aren't they responsible for all the good things too? The Church actively followed an anti-saracen military policy, so, under your own reasoning that should give them credit for the battle.

There is a difference between a devout christian fanatic who is told to "destroy this" and a king who commands armies, no? The one is commanded, the other one commands. And you still have to prove that the church was in any way responsible for Karl Martel winning the battle.

- He claims that the church tried to protect the slaves, but he has not shown a single issue where a king suffered any worldly consequences besides a nebulous claim to automatic excommunication, which is laughable considering this means that the church awarded the title of defender of the faith to someone who was, according to Ruben, excommunicated.
They made the statement, The king disregarded it, under every law of the church he would have been excommunicated.

Only in your mind, certainly not in the mind of the pope or any other church official. This is the eighth time you have refused to provide proof on this. Do so now.

He has claimed several times that the church defended civilization. He has also claimed that the destruction of pagan temples were either done by the order of the Emperor or isolated incidents.
They were all ordered by Emperors.

The slaying of Hypatia sure was not. The destruction of the Serapeium sure was not. And as I have proved, the church begged the emperor to do so.

let us read a pagan source on that, shall we:
Woa, back up there sparky. Your the one that said we can't trust any christian sources because they are biased, so, why can we trust pagan ones?

We can if it fits with the evidence prevented. Pagan sources are oftentimes more accurate than christian sources anyway, for example see Ammianus Marcellinus.

Source: Johannes Dominicus masi, Sacrorum consilorum nova et amplissima collectio, Vol. 3, p. 971.
So here we have a synod calling for the emperor to destroy all pagan temples and cults, idols etc. Omnimode delantur.
This is a secondary source, provide me the actual document and tell me which synod it was.

The synod of Carthage in 401. As for the document, it is not available to the public except in this edition (in the same way you cannot produce the original of historians.) You always use editions. But okay, as you have no idea of history, I forgive you this idiocy.

Thanas also fails to mention that Temple looting was common before Christianity.

Not in this scale. And only with illegal religions, not on state-sanctioned religions.

Not with St. Augustine openly gloating about the destruction of the temple of Caelestis:
You are misquoting him, he is not gloating about the destruction of temples, he is making a point about how the Gods had forsaken the Empire.

Source?

We also know that people deemed heretic were subject to punishment. That is concrete evidence for scientific repression right there. Thus, coupled with his ignorant reading of history, means that he has no case.
From this statement, we can see that either Thanas is stupid, or he does not know how to read,

Do you deny that the presence of unquestionable truth combined with a harsh punishment up to and including the death penalty for offenders is something that represses science?

because I already quoted him scholars of science from the modern era who have said the medieval world was not scientifically repressed, the universities had an incredible amount of freedom, and that the medieval era set the foundation for the future scientific revolution.

The evidence you provided is BS. I know all about medieval persecution of scientists. The Magisterkämpfe at the University of Paris are welll known. The persecution of teachers who did not teach dogma was also well known. You are correct that there was a small window of freedom, however with the arrival of the domini canes this window was shut.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

Re: Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem