But that’s been shown very clearly to not be the case.
Can we try this from a different angle? Europe was heading toward a “golden age” before Christianity came along. In your opinion what about Christianity caused it to coalesce?
No it hasn’t.
You’d have to prove to me that Europe was heading into a golden age, rather than declining from one when Christianity took root. As for what happened after the Council of Nicaea, nothing that occurred can be separated from Christianity in areas where the Catholic church dominated the local culture.
I’m sorry but I asked you for specific reasoning as to why you felt Christianity brought about the renaissance. Can we stick with that before me having to prove what I and others have already shown? Or are you pointing to the Council of Nicaea as that specific?
Ed: I realize I have not posted here for long but it is my understanding that the person who makes a claim is expected to be the one who supports that claim. Am I incorrect in that assessment?
Now I’m unsure when the compassion came into it. Anyway, you could list forever all the unpleasant things Christians have done, but that doesn’t make Christianity inevitable. So long as you maintain it is and can’t conceive of other historical paths, our discussion is moot, though others have contributed to the thread so it may remain of interest.
I’m not sure we both are looking at history, frankly. At the very least, you’ve lumped everything under the “Christianity” label without recognizing the very real schisms and evolution in its history. Is it at all likely that the earliest Christians would recognize their faith in the schisms of 1054, 1378 and the Reformation? At the very least, the Christianity that supposedly made the pagans more compassionate is definitely not the same Christianity that supposedly fathered the Enlightenment.
It was clearly inevitable, empirically. The actual way history actually happened is the only way it COULD have happened.
Straw man. I have done no such thing. You have extrapolated things about my position that I have not claimed.
Well that’s also an interesting argument. I am certain that Cotton Mather would not recognize modern American Christianity at all. Certainly he would agree with Said Qutb that the people of Colorado in the 40s were all a bunch of indolent whores.
There is a growth in the Christian tradition, I don’t know that it necessarily invalidates the idea of a cohesive narrative.
I answered that. The Rennaisance was specifically a reaction to Christian tradition. I am saying that Christian culture not very long before the Rennaisance was completely totalitarian over Europe. No one was exempt from its influence. It seems to me like you guys are arguing that the Rennaisance is some kind of good and we are judging whether Christianity merits credit for it. I am simply looking at history as one step after the next.
That and the discussion of the Rennaisance is OT.
Right, but I am giving only minimal attention to the OT hijack.
My OP deals with the time around 200-500 AD, and you are talking about a millenium later.
I started this thread for the digression on counterfactuals.
And I am asking for specific reasons as to why you are saying that. I have given very specific reasons as to how it was possible for other influences to have just as much of an effect and even proven that such a period has happened elsewhere in the world without the influence of Christianity as have others. You in turn have refuted those posts with the opinion that those reasons aren’t good enough but you have not provided proof for your reasoning. I weary of chasing my tail looking for proof that’s “good enough” for you when clearly there is none that will meet your standards. Therefore I am asking what standards do meet with your approval as clearly you feel there is some standard that Christianity exhibits which other influences such as trade economics and governance do not. So what is it?
Not at all. I’m arguing that it was an era in history that was brought on as the result of several factors, one of which was Christianity.
Very well then. 200AD-300AD the RCC was still in its infancy in Europe and wasn’t completely cohesive under the Eastern Orthodox Church until Constantine’s conversion in 324, after which he held the First Ecumenical Council to which you eluded earlier. In Rome, Christians were still being butchered.
I think it is fair to say that while Constantine greatly aided the spread of Christianity he would not have been able to do so without the efforts already made by previous emperors to expand the empire and open trade routes. To pooh-pooh these significant events is to ignore the fact that the spread of information does not occur in a vacuum. I would again assert that if those trade routes were not in place prior to the spread of Christianity, it would have remained a middle eastern religion. I feel confident that you are waiving your previous objection to hypotheticals based on your earlier post in which you stated:
My entire line of enquiry and requesting information is derived entirely from this statement. How could you possibly know this? What evidence do you have? I am not being obnoxious or intentionally dense, I am making a serious request for information.
I like the succinctness. I don’t buy the argument, but my knowledge of the era in question is frankly pretty weak.
But if it can be shown that Christian salvation was a new and genuinely competing value - which were contributing causes to actual events - then I think we have something interesting. I don’t know enough about the era to understand the empirical consequences of charity as an ideology.
At the time literacy was a specialized skill for certain jobs. As it happens, the wages were simply not high enough to justify the 6-7 years of schooling necessary to be able to read and write. So few people bothered.
But some Christians and Jews thought it was worth their while. They were hired by the government, which could put their obscure skills to some use. According to the Frontline documentary, by Constantine’s day, the Roman bureaucracy was packed with Christians.
Well, sometimes the ingredients are important separately, as well in toto. Cite.
Um. Would it be too much to ask if mswas could concisely state his understanding of Bryan Ekers’ thesis, as well as his own thesis? This is a slippery area, so it might help (even if it involves some repetition).
Can I post my own thesis and my understanding of his? If I start to strawman myself, I promise to cut myself short.