PDA

View Full Version : Is modern Europe product of christian values?



LeBrok
25-10-11, 05:40
I think modern Europe has herself inspired from Christian values, and from Renaissance and the French revolution to develop into her current form.

I know we used to attribute many current events and systems of modern Europe as coming from heritage of Christian Europe. But can we really describe what are the unique Christian values that helped to build modern Europe?


I've found easier to express what Christianity didn't affect in Modern Europe, so here it is:

- Christianity doesn't affect food we eat, unlike Hebrew and Muslim religions, as eating kosher foods.
- It doesn't affect fashion and how we dress. Except in some european villages, where covering heads by married women is still practiced.
- It doesn't influence architecture or art anymore. In past church was the biggest art sponsor, because it was the richest institution and power center.
- It doesn't affect sciences, except setting limitations and declaring some experiments unethical, as in stem cells research. It never brought insides on inner working of the world, human nature included.
- It has nothing to do with modern political systems, and democracy in particular or protection of minorities. Catholic church and many others are structurally still stuck in feudal times. At the time of collapse of empires after WWI, all churches were always pro monarchs, the old power establishment, and against new political changes.
- It didn't take part in creation of modern economic system, nor banking system. Actually the church was a hindrance in unleashing capital and investments making lending and charging interest a sin. In many european countries real christians were not to take upon commerce and trading, as it was the "sinful" Jewish occupation.
- It doesn't affect sports or sport rules, except occasionally blessing a football in some countries.
- It doesn't participate in television culture, except transmitting a mas on not very popular channels.
- It is even losing a licence on moral teachings and life guidance. It is more and more evident that atheists are as moral or immoral as believers, and even more tolerant and inclusive than them, which is what united europe or world needs for peaceful coexistence.
- Freedoms that we cherish so much these days were not achieved with help of ten commandments or christian doctrines, but with democracy, citizenship and good economy.
- Good standard of living is due to good governance and strong economy, which has nothing to do with being christian or god's miracles.
- Policing and civil law went away from religious influences, except traditional (in some countries) swearing on the Bible, which seemed never stopped people from lying.

Granted there is still some influence christianity have in politics and schools or censoring masmedia. But I can't see much of modern achievements of Europe, or what would be considered european culture and mindset, coming from long history of Europe in Christian hands. If anything modern Europe began when Christian Churches started to lose their grip on every segment of people's life. From Renaissance humanism and more scientific freedom, to birth of new economic and political systems of 20th century, and finally EU.

In general Churches were always conservative and traditional, acting as the guardians of the "old good ways", and as such missed the boat on participation in creating Modern Europe. I'm concluding that Modern Europe happened in spite of Christian Values, values expressed by Christian Churches and their policies and politics.

Elias2
25-10-11, 05:45
I know we used to attribute many current events and systems of modern Europe as coming from heritage of Christan Europe. But can we really describe what are the unique Christian values that helped to build modern Europe?

The biggest? seperation of church and state, something I don't see at all in muslim countries, Turkey included.

Yetos
25-10-11, 06:30
I know we used to attribute many current events and systems of modern Europe as coming from heritage of Christan Europe. But can we really describe what are the unique Christian values that helped to build modern Europe?

there are 4 kinds of christianity

1 is the old destroy the rest, kill philosophers, inquisitors etc
2 is the holy wars like the 30 war 100 years wars etc
3 is the Divine style state like byzantium
4 is the thing that Elias told separation of state and church, Laws must taken after state and not by church,

the difference is that in Europe we don't throw stones to a sinner,
something that can be found in some islamic areas also like west Turkey , but deeper in Islam mullahs have bigger power than majors or other rulers,

Brett142
25-10-11, 07:15
Absolutely, if they join us they won't join THEM. So what if they are muslim? They will just assimilate to European culture and lose their religiosity anyway. Yes they would have one of the biggest says in the EU but the UK Germany and France have 200 million people nearly 3 times that of Turkey so somehow I don't see why it's such a big issue. And for all the racists out there, they are still classed as white Caucasian and I would love ANYONE to tell the difference between Turks and Greeks side by side.

LeBrok
25-10-11, 08:11
The biggest? seperation of church and state, something I don't see at all in muslim countries, Turkey included.


It's a bit from left field, but be it. Do you think it was christian/religious idea, or pure philosophical and secular one, or political solution when democratic parliaments took over power, after WWI when old monarchies collapsed? You can’t find any christian decalogue, catechism, or dogma preaching separation of church and state, before first instance of separation. Just because this idea took place first in christian country it doesn't mean that idea itself is of religious christian influence, therefore of christian values.
Let’s see what history has to say about this.

First attempt of separation was in England:



The barons, who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, wanted to create a separation between church and state powers to keep the Crown from using the Church as a political weapon and from arbitrarily seizing its lands and property. However, the Pope annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the king by violence and fear" one month after it was signed. The Magna Carta was reissued, albeit with alterations, in 1216 and 1225 but continued to be a subject of contention for several centuries as it was either seen as providing legal precedence or by later monarchs as restricting their authority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_and_state_in_medieval_Europe
Looks like motivation was purely political and financial interest on both sides, in which pope (religion) was against separation.

In modern times first separation document, known as Wall of Separation, was written by Thomas Jefferson in USA. He also championed Religious Freedom law in 1777, with meaning that all religions are equal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom)

And if you think that these noble ideas started from his christian bliefs, think again.
Here are his words:



In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.
-Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819

http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

The idea of separation wasn't christian/religious, and it went against strong protests of all christian leaders in Europe. It is a product of Europe and North America, but not of christian tradition.

Antigone
25-10-11, 09:14
I know we used to attribute many current events and systems of modern Europe as coming from heritage of Christan Europe. But can we really describe what are the unique Christian values that helped to build modern Europe?

No. The term Christian Values is another of those meaningless cliches (usually originating with a politician, in this case GW Bush I think) that is currently in vogue to throw about. But ask anyone to define what exactly are Christian Values and how they differ from other "values" and they usually can't answer.

Imo what is really meant by the term is merely the western way of life, which of course, has (and always had) more to do with making money than religion. Anything else is just fancy window dressing as a sop for those who like to think themselves as morally superior.

Maciamo
25-10-11, 11:28
I was raised in a Catholic environment, and underwent what could be called fundamentalist, almost medieval catechism in primary school (with teachers taking the Bible literally and threatening kids that they will go to hell if they didn't behaved and thought exactly as they said). I quickly became an agnostic, then after a lot of deep philosophical reflection from the age of 10 (I was intellectually precocious), and my first acquaintance with neuropsychology at the age of 15, eventually turned me into a strong atheist by the age of 18. I have since made sure that nothing in my life could be influenced by Christianity or other religions. I boycotted all religious ceremonies, from the family traditions like baptisms and communions to church weddings and religious funerals, even for close family members (they knew I wouldn't attend if there was even a slight reference to religion).

After living in non-Christian countries (like Japan or India), I got enough perspective to distinguish what part of modern European culture for a non-religious person could be still be essentially of Christian origin, but I couldn't find anything. Genetics has taught me that people behave first and foremost the way they are designed to by their genes. Culture obviously has an influence on our behaviour, but cannot eradicate innate traits of character or instincts. Economic and social circumstances also tend to play a bigger role on people's behaviour than culture. Altruism and kindness are two of the most important values of true Christianity (of the New Testament at least), and yet I found it to be much more prevalent among the Japanese, who are mostly atheists or agnostics. This proves my point that religion cannot change the nature of people, and people don't need religion to be good.

Modern society is based on sciences (and its derivative like technology, medicine, etc.), which is the worst enemy of religions. Any scientist who claims he/she can be religious is not a true scientist (by 'scientist' I mean someone whose aim it is to understand the laws of the universe, not just anybody using a scientific formula or technology based on science - there is a huge difference between a thinker that acquires and develops knowledge and a mere consumer/applicant of science).

Gavroche
25-10-11, 11:42
Any scientist who claims he/she can be religious is not a true scientist
Sounds like a fundamentalist atheist...:innocent:

Maciamo
25-10-11, 12:58
Sounds like a fundamentalist atheist...:innocent:

There is no fundamentalist atheism, as there is no atheist scriptures or doctrines (and therefore no opposition between the strict and liberal interpretations of the scriptures).

sparkey
25-10-11, 18:08
Although just as strong an atheist as Maciamo in my personal beliefs, I am much less irritated by being around others when they are being religious. In fact, I find religious practice very interesting, and comparative religion is one of my favorite subjects.

One thing that I have noticed when studying comparative religion is how, when cultures adopt a religion, the culture rubs off on the religion at least as much as the religion rubs off on the culture. It happened historically with the development of all the different flavors of Christianity. It's easy to see how English Anglicanism is; how Italian Roman Catholicism is (when practiced in Italy... it tends to take local flavors elsewhere); how Germanic-Scandinavian Lutheranism is; how extremely Calvinism was influenced by a cultural shift to rationalism amongst academics in 16th century Europe...

So before anyone makes the argument about the "Puritan work ethic" and how that influenced England and got it industrialized, know that this is thinking about it wrong... English culture (specifically, the more Anglo-Saxon variety that you find in places like East Anglia) influenced English Christian practice to create Puritanism, so what we're seeing is not Christian influence creating anything, only English culture.

That's not to say that Christian influence is not felt, but it's mostly in things like iconography and ritual, rather than politics, common culture, and behavior.

Antigone
25-10-11, 18:47
I agree entirely Sparkey. As all religions are man made constructs, then it stands to reason that it is man who has influenced religion and not the other way around.

Maciamo
25-10-11, 20:07
Although just as strong an atheist as Maciamo in my personal beliefs, I am much less irritated by being around others when they are being religious. In fact, I find religious practice very interesting, and comparative religion is one of my favorite subjects.

Comparative religion is also one of my favourite subjects (well, I have dozens and dozens of favourite subjects). I am irritated by Christianity and Islam in particular, but much less by other religions. I am even well inclined towards Buddhism, as long as it is close to the original doctrine and not a degenerate demagogic version like the Pure Land school (which preaches that anybody can attain enlightenment after they die as long as they chant the name of Amitābha Buddha to clear their karma !) or eccentric, shamanistic sects of Vajrayana Buddhism with all their scary colourful deities imported from Hinduism (that includes Tibetan Buddhism, the only Buddhist theocracy in the world).

sparkey
25-10-11, 20:22
Comparative religion is also one of my favourite subjects (well, I have dozens and dozens of favourite subjects). I am irritated by Christianity and Islam in particular, but much less by other religions. I am even well inclined towards Buddhism, as long as it is close to the original doctrine and not a degenerate demagogic version like the Pure Land school (which preaches that anybody can attain enlightenment after they die as long as they chant the name of Amitābha Buddha to clear their karma !) or eccentric, shamanistic sects of Vajrayana Buddhism with all their scary colourful deities imported from Hinduism (that includes Tibetan Buddhism, the only Buddhist theocracy in the world).

Neat, I have similar opinions of Buddhist sects. I've explored Nichiren Buddhism out of intellectual curiosity and found the differences within the sect fascinating... basically, a subset (SGI and its parent, Nichiren Shoshu) have invented history (http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/HokkeShu_06.html) to establish themselves as the correct school to follow, and have become the most common form of that sect. It's an informative look into how religions spread despite divergence from the truth. It reminds me of Mormonism. But that's getting off topic.

Actually, Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism are good examples of the culture-influencing-religion pattern I noted above. The Sino-Tibetan substratum present in Mayahana Buddhism is so obvious, it nearly becomes the religion (I apologize for borrowing linguistic terms when talking about religions).

Yetos
25-10-11, 20:51
I have reason to believe that christianity was a marriage of Orphic religion, Persian Methras, with the Hebrew

many of that we call christian values are written in στωικοι (stoic)

like χρυσσιπος or Ζηνων etc

beggining from Παρμενιδης (parmenides) and Ξενοφανης Xenophanes

Elias2
25-10-11, 23:48
It's a bit from left field, but be it. Do you think it was christian/religious idea, or pure philosophical and secular one, or political solution when democratic parliaments took over power, after WWI when old monarchies collapsed? You can’t find any christian decalogue, catechism, or dogma preaching separation of church and state, before first instance of separation. Just because this idea took place first in christian country it doesn't mean that idea itself is of religious christian influence, therefore of christian values.
Let’s see what history has to say about this.


First attempt of separation was in England:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_and_state_in_medieval_Europe
Looks like motivation was purely political and financial interest on both sides, in which pope (religion) was against separation.

In modern times first separation document, known as Wall of Separation, was written by Thomas Jefferson in USA. He also championed Religious Freedom law in 1777, with meaning that all religions are equal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom)

And if you think that these noble ideas started from his christian bliefs, think again.
Here are his words:


The idea of separation wasn't christian/religious, and it went against strong protests of all christian leaders in Europe. It is a product of Europe and North America, but not of christian tradition.

Christian tradition, christian teaching and christian implimentation generally was not the same thing overall in the medieval era. King's invoked the authority of god to give meaning to their ruling. In the bible, the new testament, there is no outline like there is in the Koran about how to run a state and no version of sharia. But what you asked specifically was what unique christian values helped build modern europe, and the answer to this is the allowence of the seperation of church and state.

To futher explain what I meant by the seration of church and state, we need to look at the three main chirsitan religions in Europe; protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. Out of these three the first to seperate church and state was the Catholic with the gregorian reforms. In this the patriach of Rome claimed the "divine" should belong to the church and not the state. This lead to conflict wit the holy roman emperor at the time, but eventually the patriach won. This was in the 11th century, in which church and state in catholicism was disconnected and a clear realm of athority was established between the kings authority and the vatican's monopoly of the divine. This continues now with the vatican.

Orthodox was different and evolved differently. The Eastern Roman emperor had more control over the patriach of Constantinople and therefore the break between church and state would not come for orthodox untill the 19th century in the balkans with the independant movements of greeks, serbs, and bulgarians, breaking away from the Ottoman empire and starting their own churches. The Ottomans used to patrarch of Constantinople as a tool to control the Roman Millet since 1453. For russia, the Tsar's power, which was similar to the Eastern Roman Emperor's of previous, would stop with the Russian Revolution.

Protestant is very different because there is no general heirarchy in this form of christianity as we see with the five patriarchs of the original christian churches, and therefore there was no individual to grapple with the king over power, or influence developments in the state. The queen of england is also the head of the church of england, but again its different because protestant is not one sigle doctron (over a 1000 protestant denominations) and therefore would be imposible to implement a "protestant" state.

This evolution of seperation of church and state, and the acceptance of it, is the biggest contributer to modern europe form the medieval tradition in my opinion. The Greco-roman traditions are far more influencial now than christianity.

To conclude this very long post, I want to just take a short look at the muslim view. It is very hard for muslim countries to seperate church and state because islam was made with the idea both should be combine from the start. The koran and Hadith have very clear explinations on how to run a state based off Islam, from how to tax people, the dual level of citizen status, and even motivations for going to war. This general outline is alien in christianity and this is why the modern middle east is struggling to modernize.

Attaturk thought the solution to this problem in islam is the make the army have authority to topple governments that they thought were too islamic, but this leaves a giant inconvienient truth about islamic countries; they are unable to have a true democratic system like we see in europe if this is the only solution. The AKP party of Turkey used EU membership as a tool to get rid of the army's role to topple governments, but its comming very clear he just used it as an excuse to do so, without seriously thinking about joining EU. This can lead to armlarming developments in Turkey by the AKP government, which started off in political islam.

sparkey
26-10-11, 00:00
I have reason to believe that christianity was a marriage of Orphic religion, Persian Methras, with the Hebrew

I know Richard Olson (http://www.hmc.edu/academicsclinicresearch/academicdepartments/humanitiesandsocialsciences1/faculty1/richardolson.html) holds this view. I think that at least, the mystery religions influenced the development of Christianity, especially Pauline and Gnostic Christianity.

LeBrok
26-10-11, 06:42
To futher explain what I meant by the seration of church and state, we need to look at the three main chirsitan religions in Europe; protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. Out of these three the first to seperate church and state was the Catholic with the gregorian reforms. In this the patriach of Rome claimed the "divine" should belong to the church and not the state. This lead to conflict wit the holy roman emperor at the time, but eventually the patriach won. This was in the 11th century, in which church and state in catholicism was disconnected and a clear realm of athority was established between the kings authority and the vatican's monopoly of the divine. This continues now with the vatican.

This was only one way separation to secure all church's properties and gaining full control over catholicism and its subjects by pope. Other words the church was separated from state influence, but the state wasn't separated from church influence. For next 800 years catholic church was busy meddling into states affairs, supporting certain politicians and people in power over others. Certifying kings elections, excommunicating many uncooperative ones. In many countries church till 1900 century was the biggest land owner and employer. Thanks to this it could wield it's economic (financial) powers in politics, justice system, education system, even military. Till Renascence church has lead armies of many countries for crusades, wiped out pagan Prussians in Europe and acquired new lands and subjects in Americas. Church's influence in judicial system of many countries burned ("saved from hell") thousands of innocent men and women. Church's dominance over "understanding and explaining" science had lead to delays in publications of revolutionary scientific papers, or simply killed scientists, and burned their work.

Yes, catholic church got it's separation and control over "Divine", and its property. Unfortunately the state, education, courts, etc had to wait till 20th century to get their separation from church. That's the true separation that we are so proud of today and consider it a progress.



King's invoked the authority of god to give meaning to their ruling.

This, plus they, as head of church, had a hefty sums of money coming from church's lands, properties, and donations. Power and money was unified in one hand.
When the "divine" separation happened, in many catholic countries bishops became richer and more powerful than kings. Popular story of 3 musketries made one of these examples very famous. Should we mention Spanish inquisition?

Antigone
26-10-11, 07:04
Protestant is very different because there is no general heirarchy in this form of christianity as we see with the five patriarchs of the original christian churches, and therefore there was no individual to grapple with the king over power, or influence developments in the state. The queen of england is also the head of the church of england, but again its different because protestant is not one sigle doctron (over a 1000 protestant denominations) and therefore would be imposible to implement a "protestant" state.

When Henry VIII split from Rome and made himself head of the Church of England it was really quite a clever move, for a king. In one swoop he made himself absolute ruler over his people, not only did he have complete civil power but he also took for himself complete spiritual power. So in England's case (and later Great Britains) we see a re-inforcing of the combination of church and state and not a seperation.

The Monarch of Great Britain who is also the supreme head of the Church of England still has the power to dissolve parlaiment. The current Queen just chooses not to exersice that power but that is not to say that any future monarch will not be quite so liberal in outlook. Technically there is still not a complete seperation of church and state in Britain, but the British seem quite happy with the current state of affairs. Although they may not be quite so complacent if Charles or later, William (as kings) decide they want more involvement in politics.

Elias2
26-10-11, 22:33
This was only one way separation to secure all church's properties and gaining full control over catholicism and its subjects by pope. Other words the church was separated from state influence, but the state wasn't separated from church influence. For next 800 years catholic church was busy meddling into states affairs, supporting certain politicians and people in power over others. Certifying kings elections, excommunicating many uncooperative ones. In many countries church till 1900 century was the biggest land owner and employer. Thanks to this it could wield it's economic (financial) powers in politics, justice system, education system, even military. Till Renascence church has lead armies of many countries for crusades, wiped out pagan Prussians in Europe and acquired new lands and subjects in Americas. Church's influence in judicial system of many countries burned ("saved from hell") thousands of innocent men and women. Church's dominance over "understanding and explaining" science had lead to delays in publications of revolutionary scientific papers, or simply killed scientists, and burned their work.

Yes, catholic church got it's separation and control over "Divine", and its property. Unfortunately the state, education, courts, etc had to wait till 20th century to get their separation from church. That's the true separation that we are so proud of today and consider it a progress.


This, plus they, as head of church, had a hefty sums of money coming from church's lands, properties, and donations. Power and money was unified in one hand.
When the "divine" separation happened, in many catholic countries bishops became richer and more powerful than kings. Popular story of 3 musketries made one of these examples very famous. Should we mention Spanish inquisition?

It is true that church still had a big influence in state affairs and politics, the church in rome had very little control over actually dictating orders to the rulers of catholic europe. The Patriarch of Rome was very much just a political tool for the catholic elite to grapple each other over heriditary rights and so forth.

Asturrulumbo
27-10-11, 01:46
I do think it's a great misunderstanding to think that science and religion are opposed. Science, as an epistemological construct, is based on an empirical-rational (that is to say, analytical, that is to say, scientific) understanding of the world. However, it is not strictly an ontological construct in that it does not claim that its worldview is the truth (although this is how it is usually viewed today). Religion, on the other hand, is definitely an ontological as well as epistemological construct, and also (very importantly), an ethical/moral one(unlike science). Religion is based not on a "scientific" view of the world, but rather operates through intuition and feeling, uniting man to his environment and giving it a transcendent meaning to himself. In a way, religion is much more akin to art that it is to science.
I think that what has happened is that science has become the "orthodox" (one could say default) ontological system in the modern western world. What this causes is that many people try to justify their religious beliefs through science (as happens all-too-frequently in the U.S, a prime example is "intelligent design") and thus end up making religion in general seem stupid. Religion, which is based in the supernatural, need not rely on the natural to justify itself, in my opinion. One cannot play backgammon on a chess board, or vice-versa.
In my opinion, science and religion actually compliment each other in many cases.
That being said, given that Europe is a predominantly Christian continent, much of the values and ethics of modern Europe (and Western civilization in general) are Christian in origin. Indeed, one could say that the "genealogy" of modern western ethics looks something like this:
-The Enlightment
-Renassaince humanism
-Classical (Graeco-Roman) Civilization
-Christianity

Yetos
27-10-11, 08:42
I do think it's a great misunderstanding to think that science and religion are opposed. Science, as an epistemological construct, is based on an empirical-rational (that is to say, analytical, that is to say, scientific) understanding of the world. However, it is not strictly an ontological construct in that it does not claim that its worldview is the truth (although this is how it is usually viewed today). Religion, on the other hand, is definitely an ontological as well as epistemological construct, and also (very importantly), an ethical/moral one(unlike science). Religion is based not on a "scientific" view of the world, but rather operates through intuition and feeling, uniting man to his environment and giving it a transcendent meaning to himself. In a way, religion is much more akin to art that it is to science.
I think that what has happened is that science has become the "orthodox" (one could say default) ontological system in the modern western world. What this causes is that many people try to justify their religious beliefs through science (as happens all-too-frequently in the U.S, a prime example is "intelligent design") and thus end up making religion in general seem stupid. Religion, which is based in the supernatural, need not rely on the natural to justify itself, in my opinion. One cannot play backgammon on a chess board, or vice-versa.
In my opinion, science and religion actually compliment each other in many cases.
That being said, given that Europe is a predominantly Christian continent, much of the values and ethics of modern Europe (and Western civilization in general) are Christian in origin. Indeed, one could say that the "genealogy" of modern western ethics looks something like this:
-The Enlightment
-Renassaince humanism
-Classical (Graeco-Roman) Civilization
-Christianity


there are 3 kinds of christianity

one of them is this
Love or maybe. or I am the light,
thou shall not Kill

Starts from 324 AD

Systematic cleansing and destruction of all ancient religions
Systematic genocide of Greeks and other nationalities,

remember 330 AD Constantine took the statue of Zeus from Olympia to Nova Roma
1 of seven wonders, the faces of Jesus are >75% based on that statue,
city Bayeux same year priests of apollo were lynched
335 Constantine Crusifies all non christian priest in minor asia (how many)
359 the first gather camps in Skythopolis Syria
Holocaust of Greek that follow old religion

363 emperror Ιουλιανος (Julian) declares religion liberties,
he was murdered by a first degree (diakonos) cleric, fan of Basileios Bishop of Ceasareia - Kappadokia
Church names apostat ? why?

remember Hypateia etc, Υπατεια

the massacres of Vellisarius in Italy

and the religious wars,

simply after enlightment the corporation Church (trade mark +) has limited power cause people are more educated and do not fear.
Modern Europes theories are described well in what Kazantzakis wrote

I hope nothing (kingdom come)
I fear nothing (Dante's inferno)
I am free ( I have clear mind)

100 years of war !!!!!!!!


BESIDES WHICH ARE THE CHRISTIAN VALUES?

western church,
Franciscans ?
Jesuits?
Dolcinians?
Knights of temple?
Bishops with porfyra (kings colour)

church as cleric is nothing more than corporation,
religion is a private subject
but truth is not being told clear,

the values are older

monks although are based in ST Antony's tradition (Egypt)
their philosophy springs from Diogenes

Europe's value are based in Freedom,
Christianity teach us to bow,
(how many times you read he word bow-kneel in Bibble)


364 AD
Emperror Flavius
order to burn the last bibliotheque
Antioch-eia Syria,

remember all we know for ancient world is after that we found in garbage and ashes of the burn, or some hidden, by some religious who fought church, like Knights or orthodox monks, or some forgotten western monasteries that hide them from upper cleric,

the last written of archimedes are found in a christian book, with a machine,
the book was erased and above some wrote christian preach,

is european values same with the ones of Ambrosios of milan (mediolanum)

385-388 Maternos Kynigios (Ματερνος Κυνηγιος)
means the Hunter of holy mother (Myriam) estimated that killed 400 000 Greeks in Greece,
in order to purify the land from the 'pagani' (peasants)

we needed 1300 - 1500 years after the Yapateia torture, to send a woman to a school, and allow a woman to teach,
Pavlism is vertical, no woman must teach ( the original is teach, not preach)

at Byzantines stopes about 800-900 Ad
at western Europe later
at east Europe no body knows when,


second value

monks and poverty,

just find out who was Diogenes who lived in a big crate that was used for oil or wine,


third value

well there must be something good, but I can not find it,

Yetos
27-10-11, 10:02
I know Richard Olson (http://www.hmc.edu/academicsclinicresearch/academicdepartments/humanitiesandsocialsciences1/faculty1/richardolson.html) holds this view. I think that at least, the mystery religions influenced the development of Christianity, especially Pauline and Gnostic Christianity.

it is not only Olson,

there is also a greek who compares the traditions of old and their mysteries, and proves that Poseidon became St Nicolaos etc
also the dates, 23 dec - 25 december old religion ( reborn of phanus-apollo-dionyssus, the birthday of Persian God Mithras)
comparig the word Mithras with west medi and east metreyah maybe is the same what greeks call messiah
first moon of spring Anthestiria (persefonis return-Panathenean etc) modern is Eastern
kabereian mysteries and sun fests today 20 july with old callendar is one week away from the death of Myriam,
old summer fest in 23 june (biggest day) same days with Penticost etc

wine and bread, as the old greek Orphic, (only Cretans and Zagreus followers allowed to wine and meat, but to them were forbiden other,)

yes you are correct, the early wears christianity was more Pavlism-os than christianity
Gnostic were more in antioch syrria and minor asia.

later developed philosophy based on Zenon and chrysippos
(nemesis and eimarmeni)
and become theocracy and create theocratical states (emperror+patriarch=state),
and in west become Poppe-cracy (the one who has no mistakes)
and in England King=patriarch

Asturrulumbo
27-10-11, 17:29
there are 3 kinds of christianity

one of them is this
Love or maybe. or I am the light,
thou shall not Kill

Starts from 324 AD

Systematic cleansing and destruction of all ancient religions
Systematic genocide of Greeks and other nationalities,

remember 330 AD Constantine took the statue of Zeus from Olympia to Nova Roma
1 of seven wonders, the faces of Jesus are >75% based on that statue,
city Bayeux same year priests of apollo were lynched
335 Constantine Crusifies all non christian priest in minor asia (how many)
359 the first gather camps in Skythopolis Syria
Holocaust of Greek that follow old religion

363 emperror Ιουλιανος (Julian) declares religion liberties,
he was murdered by a first degree (diakonos) cleric, fan of Basileios Bishop of Ceasareia - Kappadokia
Church names apostat ? why?

remember Hypateia etc, Υπατεια

the massacres of Vellisarius in Italy

and the religious wars,

simply after enlightment the corporation Church (trade mark +) has limited power cause people are more educated and do not fear.
Modern Europes theories are described well in what Kazantzakis wrote

I hope nothing (kingdom come)
I fear nothing (Dante's inferno)
I am free ( I have clear mind)

100 years of war !!!!!!!!


BESIDES WHICH ARE THE CHRISTIAN VALUES?

western church,
Franciscans ?
Jesuits?
Dolcinians?
Knights of temple?
Bishops with porfyra (kings colour)

church as cleric is nothing more than corporation,
religion is a private subject
but truth is not being told clear,

the values are older

monks although are based in ST Antony's tradition (Egypt)
their philosophy springs from Diogenes

Europe's value are based in Freedom,
Christianity teach us to bow,
(how many times you read he word bow-kneel in Bibble)


364 AD
Emperror Flavius
order to burn the last bibliotheque
Antioch-eia Syria,

remember all we know for ancient world is after that we found in garbage and ashes of the burn, or some hidden, by some religious who fought church, like Knights or orthodox monks, or some forgotten western monasteries that hide them from upper cleric,

the last written of archimedes are found in a christian book, with a machine,
the book was erased and above some wrote christian preach,

is european values same with the ones of Ambrosios of milan (mediolanum)

385-388 Maternos Kynigios (Ματερνος Κυνηγιος)
means the Hunter of holy mother (Myriam) estimated that killed 400 000 Greeks in Greece,
in order to purify the land from the 'pagani' (peasants)

we needed 1300 - 1500 years after the Yapateia torture, to send a woman to a school, and allow a woman to teach,
Pavlism is vertical, no woman must teach ( the original is teach, not preach)

at Byzantines stopes about 800-900 Ad
at western Europe later
at east Europe no body knows when,


second value

monks and poverty,

just find out who was Diogenes who lived in a big crate that was used for oil or wine,


third value

well there must be something good, but I can not find it,

I don't understand what you are trying to say. If you want to know specifically how Christianity has influenced modern western values, I think Jurgen Habermas synthezises it quite well:

"For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle Postmodern talk."

Yetos
27-10-11, 18:51
I don't understand what you are trying to say. If you want to know specifically how Christianity has influenced modern western values, I think Jurgen Haberman synthezises it quite well:


I am trying to say that christianity teach to Bow -Kneel and no to Be Free,

Freedom was teached by some tribes-warriors,
like Spartans who went to Dareius palace and told him, Kill us but we do not kneel before a human

Solidarity was teached by Stoic philosophers, and existed in City-states much before the Christians,
Methras mysteries, (Thracian-Persian religion) existed before Christians, and it was them who told us feed the poor,
the first solidarity speech about how a state can tread on week was written by Lyssias (λογος υπερ αδυνατου)
egalitarianism existed much before, just remember that Spartans had OΜΟΙΟΙ (equals)

Christianity only told us to fight for God, and not for a king or the country or the family,
christianity told us to burn books, bibliotheque and philosophers
Christianity told us to genocide a nation that is not accepting the christian system
etc
Only the last 300 years christianity entered a new phase but that has to do because European enlightment teach the truth to people, and not the blind obey to his master's (bishop) voice.

remember early years christianity is not different from Islam

the glory that some want to give to church, does not belong to her, but to some people, who saved old books
and told us that the real values are different,

when you read just few of the above,
then told me who's value were.


Parmenion was the said that Truth is above Gods

Asturrulumbo
27-10-11, 21:22
Only the last 300 years christianity entered a new phase but that has to do because European enlightment teach the truth to people, and not the blind obey to his master's (bishop) voice.


Therein lies the problem, you are taking truth for granted. In my opinion, truth is ambivalent: it is defined by what one believes. If the truth is equality, human rights, "freedom", etc., then Christianity as it was some 1000 years ago will certainly not be of your liking. I am not here to defend Christianity, I am as Christian as I am Muslim, atheist, agnostic or pagan, but it is a mistake to think that today's western ethics are not greatly influenced by Christianity.

Christianity only told us to fight for God, and not for a king or the country or the family,
christianity told us to burn books, bibliotheque and philosophers
Christianity told us to genocide a nation that is not accepting the christian system
etc
Sounds more like Judaism. Christianity is one of the reasons the West does not hold many of those views ("love your enemy", for example). While it is true that many philosophies already had many of the characteristics of Christianity, they didn't survive by themselves, they survived because they were absorbed by Christianity. Otherwise, Hedonism and Skepticism would have also survived.

Yetos
28-10-11, 02:03
Therein lies the problem, you are taking truth for granted. In my opinion, truth is ambivalent: it is defined by what one believes. If the truth is equality, human rights, "freedom", etc., then Christianity as it was some 1000 years ago will certainly not be of your liking. I am not here to defend Christianity, I am as Christian as I am Muslim, atheist, agnostic or pagan, but it is a mistake to think that today's western ethics are not greatly influenced by Christianity.

Sounds more like Judaism. Christianity is one of the reasons the West does not hold many of those views ("love your enemy", for example). While it is true that many philosophies already had many of the characteristics of Christianity, they didn't survive by themselves, they survived because they were absorbed by Christianity. Otherwise, Hedonism and Skepticism would have also survived.


so it was not christianity that created the wars like 100 years,?
it was not christianity who have in their classes the Inquisitors?
etc

it was not christianity that teach us that fire purifies spirit??????

much before the christians told LOVE EACH other
Persian religion of Methras told the same,
Essaioi also had similar moto, and many others,

christianity is nothing more than a Historical farisaism, a big hypocritic corporation
who took wisdom from ancient cultures and philosophers and told people that is Gods words.

the holy trinity existed in Orphic religion of thracians, etc etc

and to enter more
the scientific word is enlightment but from what? maybe from christianity's dark ages
the story goes like these,
city states,
philoshophers who hunt truth and justice,
rulers who hunt glory

bibliotheque where philosopher hide, like the monks in dark ages to read,

christianity just created another priest class, who as always fight or unite with rulers to keep in peace the country, and put laws and fit their belly.

Europes reborn is based on Knights who suddenly in middle east realize the truth,
Europe's reborn is based on Bokkakios Petrarch etc who study ancient written
Europe's reborn is based in drop of byzantine where many forbiden and hidden books went to west,
Europe's reborn is based on the second wave of philosophy that developed in west Europe
which had also the luxury to have the arabian algebra,
and finally Gutenberg,
many bibles were published,
so people could read the truth, and knew, and did not afraid bishops any more,

all the rest like the french revolt, the 3rd wave of philosophy etc are nothing more than the result of Gutenberg invasion.
the ideas run fast, and people were free cause they did not hope to go to church heaven, and not afraid the bishop's curse

we needed to pass more 1500 years to understand that is another thing the theocracy and another the theology,
and more 1800 to understand the free will of christ, and not the fear of bishop.
only the last 200 church went back to common logic, and truth,
and even in late 19 century in a symposium in Rome for physics the big one ask not to check the universe birth cause that belongs to god,
but it was polite ask, not like the old 'I jesus on earth' forbit you to do so,
even church and christianity find it shelf after renaissance, and the last wave of philosophers,

something that in islamic countries realize it at 2000 and even today may lynch you for your freedom of express,
where in 2000 they bomb ancient culture monuments,

ACourvoisier
30-10-11, 23:32
I think that Europe, understand: the lands of Europe, is certainly not a "product" of christian values.

Or wich "products of christian values" are you thinking of ?
-Ethics ?

Were we pagans, that we could live almost the same; as it is wrote in the Bible, "the pagans have a Law for their own".

However, we can say that christian values are secularized. How ?
-This is exactly the question; for the raison, that they are so implanted in our mentality that we don't analyze them anymore. But I think we find effectively christian values in ethics.

ACourvoisier
31-10-11, 00:13
There is no fundamentalist atheism, as there is no atheist scriptures or doctrines (and therefore no opposition between the strict and liberal interpretations of the scriptures).
Unfortunately, if you know french, you can see that there is atheist doctines:
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait_d'athologie
- by "Michel Onfray".
But I have not read this, for the simple raison that it took me years to acquire my convictions of Protestant, to now.
I just would let you know that it exists.

(Of course, there is not atheist scripture, for an evidence: the mention of God was already accept in hypothesis His existence.)

ACourvoisier
31-10-11, 15:09
(...)
Any scientist who claims he/she can be religious is not a true scientist (by 'scientist' I mean someone whose aim it is to understand the laws of the universe, not just anybody using a scientific formula or technology based on science - there is a huge difference between a thinker that acquires and develops knowledge and a mere consumer/applicant of science).


Dear Maciamo, About all you wrote about yourself, I found 2 things, that I found interesting.
I would remember to you, that be so intellectualy precocious is not necessarily an advantage. You know ; give the answers the teacher want to hear, and be thinking for oneself is two very different things.
(You write so many, that we could answer you almost every different line.) All I see, is that you are mastering applicated science also (your site has a very complex interface, but respond rapidely to our requests).

There is furthermore other points:
This is not necessarily formulas that are based on science, but science which can be based on formulas - we should re-define the term of « science » - according to « her » reputation (I don’t like using « its » for science). If you were considering « science » as being only experimentation verifying the formulas, so you would be in the truth, for this historic way.

Going back to the begining of the quotation, I think you made several other might mistakes :
for a point, which is actually several « problems », such as they go difficulty together :
« understand », « laws », and I would precise a third : « laws of the Universe ».
To use such purpose, we should « totally » define the Universe (we are actually far from this point, and this is an euphemism, and once this done, we should moreover define the Universe from the past to the future), and – by implication – the « laws » are : several, and nowadys not unified, so by implication : only approximatives.
This is a raison, for which we shouldn’t even use the term « laws of the Universe » (what are the laws of black matter, and of black energy ?).

Now, were you physicist, how would you maintain, that « we understand the laws », when the laws are obligatorily some « things » posed, (defined ?), and – we hope – constant ?
For myself, I support the thought that we simply don’t understand the laws, for the simple raison, that we only observe them, and use the corespondant models.

Endly, were you awre of « the laws », would you use precisely your words. Indeed :
« Any scientist who claim he can be religious is not a true one. » So, you pose other problems :
- in more right words : a scientist who could maintain to believe in God couldn’t be « scientific enought », to be – for example – Doctor, or Nobel Prise in « pure science » ?

So, and this is the end of this post, there is several Doctors or Nobel prises, who should give back thier title.

Franco
08-11-11, 23:11
According to Webber , the father of modern sociology, Christianism, Protestantism to be more exact, was of vital importance in formation of modern capitalism. Even Marxist philosophers like Habermas have changed their approach to religion and nowadays not only they recognize the influence of Christianism on the modern Western countries but they consider it to be a good thing. So I see pointless denying what has been well documented by the most prominent specialists in the field. Personally I suspect that Europe would be extremelly diferent than it is nowadays had it be conquered completely by the Muslims, or remained Pagan, so yes, our societies are product of Christianism, even if we are, like myself, non religious people anymore.

sparkey
08-11-11, 23:37
According to Webber , the father of modern sociology, Christianism, Protestantism to be more exact, was of vital importance in formation of modern capitalism. Even Marxist philosophers like Habermas have changed their approach to religion and nowadays not only they recognize the influence of Christianism on the modern Western countries but they consider it to be a good thing. So I see pointless denying what has been well documented by the most prominent specialists in the field. Personally I suspect that Europe would be extremelly diferent than it is nowadays had it be conquered completely by the Muslims, or remained Pagan, so yes, our societies are product of Christianism, even if we are, like myself, non religious people anymore.

But then we have to ask, "What is Protestantism?" It's a Europe-local phenomenon, not imported, so where did it come from? I contend that Protestantism is a reflection of certain cultures. It's no coincidence that the form that Protestantism tends to take in certain areas of Europe is largely determined by the culture in that area.

So, it's technically correct to say that Protestantism influenced the capitalist system, but it really doesn't paint the whole picture. Local culture created Protestantism, which in turn influenced the capitalist system (along with the culture itself). So the root is the culture, not Christianity.

I don't see a good reason to assume that capitalism never would have happened had Europe remained Pagan. Islam might be a little different because it has an explicit governmental law, but that law has little to say about modern economic theory.

Yetos
09-11-11, 01:28
According to Webber , the father of modern sociology, Christianism, Protestantism to be more exact, was of vital importance in formation of modern capitalism. Even Marxist philosophers like Habermas have changed their approach to religion and nowadays not only they recognize the influence of Christianism on the modern Western countries but they consider it to be a good thing. So I see pointless denying what has been well documented by the most prominent specialists in the field. Personally I suspect that Europe would be extremelly diferent than it is nowadays had it be conquered completely by the Muslims, or remained Pagan, so yes, our societies are product of Christianism, even if we are, like myself, non religious people anymore.

Capitalism existed before christianity,
Just read what Jesus said, about the slaves and the coins (tallants) the 3rd one did not gave them to the banker
Mat 25 27


Capitalism has many faces,
ancient Greeks had parts of Capitalism also but they mainly based on Koinon
Romans especially after the Latifounds (huge villas with 1 owner that have self control) grew it more,
but the main systemic as bank is written in Bibble,

later banks drop in power until Venice,
at Venice times capitalism grew fast and took forms and was protected by state,
read the merchant of Venice from Shakespeare so it was form much before protestants,
at protestants areas we mainly have industrialization starting from the Dutch and the windmills then Britain and steam power etc
in fact that why Spain was lost that times, which although was the richest in Europe by the colonial gold, and had enormous first material, her Dogmatic stuck to traditional Christianity send her back years,

about Muslim and eurpe,
Muslim started invading Europe at 700 Ad in East and Byzantines,
and in west in Spain, and in sicily in Italy,
the biggest problem for Byzantines was not the muslim, but the Crusaders,
why? cause Con/polis was not droped to muslim but droped to 'Christian's' who looted her,
so the biggest Help to islam was done By Christian Europeans, Looting and Burning Con/polis
Besides if you know History then you know that Byzantines had 4 enemies
1 was Islam
2 was the Slavic from North
3 was the West Europe
4 was the church, who took all males at age of 14 and leave non for soldier, and the 35% of land belong to church and not to state, and Church pay taxes only to God
I had read somewhere that at 1200 there were 150 000 monks at minor asia and only 30 000 soldier!!!

just ask your shelf why Mohamet B gave so many privileges to monasteries?

But I must admit with you that Christianity gave a boost to capitalism,
especially when money can buy the sins, and heaven, well it is savage Capitalism :sad:

Franco
09-11-11, 02:09
Capitalism existed before christianity,
Just read what Jesus said, about the slaves and the coins (tallants) the 3rd one did not gave them to the banker
Mat 25 27


Sorry but it didn't . Capitalism began during the Middle Ages in autonomous Italian city-states and the Netherlands.



Capitalism has many faces,
ancient Greeks had parts of Capitalism also but they mainly based on Koinon
Romans especially after the Latifounds (huge villas with 1 owner that have self control) grew it more,
but the main systemic as bank is written in Bibble,

Even if you consider the economic activity of the Romans and Greeks a form of capitalism that is not the capitalism the European one comes from, but from the Christian one. I'm not saying this, just Webber.



in fact that why Spain was lost that times, which although was the richest in Europe by the colonial gold, and had enormous first material, her Dogmatic stuck to traditional Christianity send her back years

Spain never was the richest country simply because that gold was used by the Habsburg Royal family to defend their interests in Central Europe. Christianism wasn't any impediment for the Spanish to enslave indians , blacks and steal the gold from America. These activities are clearly banned by Christianism, so I doubt they did not develop their economy due to a rigid interpretation of religion. As I said it was due to bad economic policies from monarchs of central european extraction who were more interested in assuring their continental posessions than developing Spain.




about Muslim and eurpe,
Muslim started invading Europe at 700 Ad in East and Byzantines,
and in west in Spain, and in sicily in Italy,
the biggest problem for Byzantines was not the muslim, but the Crusaders,
why? cause Con/polis was not droped to muslim but droped to 'Christian's' who looted her,
so the biggest Help to islam was done By Christian Europeans, Looting and Burning Con/polis
Besides if you know History then you know that Byzantines had 4 enemies
1 was Islam
2 was the Slavic from North
3 was the West Europe
4 was the church, who took all males at age of 14 and leave non for soldier, and the 35% of land belong to church and not to state, and Church pay taxes only to God
I had read somewhere that at 1200 there were 150 000 monks at minor asia and only 30 000 soldier!!!

just ask your shelf why Mohamet B gave so many privileges to monasteries?

But I must admit with you that Christianity gave a boost to capitalism,
especially when money can buy the sins, and heaven, well it is savage Capitalism :sad:

Probably, I'm not very knowledgeable about history of Bizantium, but If I recall first cursade took place in 1095 and by 1080 the Turks conquered most of nowadays Turkey and once part of the Bizantine Empire. The decline of Bizantium began way before the crusades took place.

Yetos
09-11-11, 03:09
Sorry but it didn't . Capitalism began during the Middle Ages in autonomous Italian city-states and the Netherlands.


Even if you consider the economic activity of the Romans and Greeks a form of capitalism that is not the capitalism the European one comes from, but from the Christian one. I'm not saying this, just Webber.


Spain never was the richest country simply because that gold was used by the Habsburg Royal family to defend their interests in Central Europe. Christianism wasn't any impediment for the Spanish to enslave indians , blacks and steal the gold from America. These activities are clearly banned by Christianism, so I doubt they did not develop their economy due to a rigid interpretation of religion. As I said it was due to bad economic policies from monarchs of central european extraction who were more interested in assuring their continental posessions than developing Spain.



Probably, I'm not very knowledgeable about history of Bizantium, but If I recall first cursade took place in 1095 and by 1080 the Turks conquered most of nowadays Turkey and once part of the Bizantine Empire. The decline of Bizantium began way before the crusades took place.

Better read the mathew 25 27
27 debiste al menos haber puesto mi dinero en manos de los banqueros; así, al regresar yo de mi viaje, lo habría recuperado junto con los intereses.

I don't understand what you mean Capitalism, make it clear, Industrial is part of modern capitalism as also expansionism and Imperialism
Roman empire had all of the above
Now when we see that Jesus demands the interest, then surely it is Capitalism

well about Byzantium there are 3 eras
the East Roman stops at Iberian Kings
the middle state WHICH ENDS AT 1204 and 4rth Crusade which instead of Jerusalem stoped at Con/polis and burn it,
(Iberian (georgia) Makedonian etc dynasties)
The Greek era until end of Trebizond

at 1204 Turks were still east of Manzikert, around Ikonio,

and much Before Austria stoped the Turks of Suleiman
Kastriotis had war with Both Turks and Tarantines (Christians)
just look the maps,

before 4rth crusade
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1200/index.html

after 4rth crusade the try to rebuild by Greeks
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1300/index.html

or Before crusades
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/900/index.html

Just look what Crusaders did

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/LatinEmpire2.png

Only the Pink is from old Byzantine

so as you understand
It was the christian foundamental that brought islam to Europe,

Franco
09-11-11, 03:32
Yetos, what do you think about this quote from Habermas:

"For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk."

Yetos
09-11-11, 04:46
Yetos, what do you think about this quote from Habermas:

"For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk."

I just wonder what more did jesus than Socrates,
Socrates puts it in another form, Jesus say I come to fulfill to law, to pay the law (πληρωσω τον νομο)

so what we have,
if you ever read Chryssipos or Zenon you know about ειμαρμενη (eimarmene)
that is a brief from a theory of Stoics,
God creates Universe, and God puts law in Universe,
But he lives outside the laws of Universe,
So one day decides to enter his creation,
he enters, but he can not exit until the laws open the door to let him exit,
God has 2 choices,
1 is to destroy his creation and be lonely again as a wild animal wondering, (his nemesis)
2nd is to find his character, be patient, live the laws he put, and wait until they allow his exit,
(his eimarmene)

so why a preach from someone who copied a theory is stronger than the one who wrote?
the above is from Stoic philosophers teach,
the eimarmene in Christian words is the χαρις the grace,

Now about the love of Christians,
just read the post,
HE asks interest from a slave, a possible uneducated man, or a not smart one,
and he punishes the poor man,
what love and what happy be the poor in mind?
and what forgivess!!!

just think, you go out with your friend for a beer, you forgot your wallet, you friend pays the bill
tomorrow, you pay him the money he gave,
Just wonder what will you think if he asks for interest

why Socrates is not a saint? or not a god? or not a religious founder?
and is jesus?
the both died to fulfill the law

why the words of Peter and the pray in olives hill is Holy words and not the dialoque of Socrates with plato


Universalistic egalitarianism
hmmm
ALL MEN EQUAL INFRONT OF GOD
those who have money may buy their sins
like modern times
ALL MEN ARE EQUAL INFRONT THE LAW
those who have money buy good lawers

the world at least the one we know had Universalistic egalitarianism at Roman empire
and had Roman Justice, which even today is in teach in Law schools
But the privilege of Roman citizen was only to be bought by the rich ones,


from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity,
hmm as I said in a previous post
Bow Kneel before the Pharao God on Earth
Bow kneel before the King
Bow Kneel before a Bishop
Spartans Answer to Dareius (you may kill us, but we don't kneel)
so Freedom spang not from Christianity, but from Human's degnity and I believe is older than Spartans
Collective life
hmmm
Communism also had Collective, did he sprung from Christianity?
the ancient Greek word is koinon κοινον
so pagans and people before Christianity were not Collective or cooperative?,
the Greek word for not Collective Humans is Therion (animal that can kill, like lion, wild bull etc)
read about Timon (τιμων ο μισανθρωπος) who hated humans

solidarity
hmm
when Λυσσιας Lyssias made his speach about solidarity to the weak was cebturies before christians
in Fact Lyssias supported on what we call today public help to the disable,
in fact he supported much before that 1 obolos of a disable to the koinon is much stronger than the tallant of a rich man (the one later Christian made the 2 drachmas of a widow)

so what is Christianity?

first lets see what is the law of Moses
Moses realized that his people, when got out of Egypt, might turn to Theria (carnivorous or killing animals)
in Egypt they were under pharaoh's law,
a god on Earth law, in Desert?
well if he put the law then it will be a human's law nobody would obey,
if he kept the Pharaoh's law then all will laugh, cause they beat pharaoh and escape,
then?
so he went to mount Sinai and 'meet the God'
and gave a law that was by a God, above pharaoh cause that God lived in the sky which is above earth.

same way is christianity,
a God that lived as Human by eimarmene suufered for his believes like socrates, etc etc

cause if I told you Zenon say this you will say 'who the ..... is Zenonon?'
But if I say God tells that you say wow!!!!

on the other hand, Church corporation
started wars, started inquisition, started eliminating philosophy, etc etc,

I wonder How Europe will be if all men went to monasteries like in East church of 1200 ?
or sins could be bought with money like the west?
or where the British will go who have a king for Patriarch
or all europeans had a black cat? etc etc

Franco
09-11-11, 04:51
But then we have to ask, "What is Protestantism?" It's a Europe-local phenomenon, not imported, so where did it come from? I contend that Protestantism is a reflection of certain cultures. It's no coincidence that the form that Protestantism tends to take in certain areas of Europe is largely determined by the culture in that area.

So, it's technically correct to say that Protestantism influenced the capitalist system, but it really doesn't paint the whole picture. Local culture created Protestantism, which in turn influenced the capitalist system (along with the culture itself). So the root is the culture, not Christianity.

I don't see a good reason to assume that capitalism never would have happened had Europe remained Pagan. Islam might be a little different because it has an explicit governmental law, but that law has little to say about modern economic theory.

I'm not saying capitalism would not happen had Europe never been Christian , just that nowadays our societies would be very different and that religion indeed had an influence on the rise of modern Capitalism. Would capitalism exist as we know it if Europe remained pagan? Who knows, personally I don't think so. Religion has shaped Europe undoubtly and has contributed decissively to make us the way we are nowadays. As for your comment on Protestantism being a mere cultural thing disguised as Christianism , I don't understand it. Then following your reasoning Christianism not only did not influence modern Europe but it simply didn't exist really. Catholicism has cultural influences of pre-christian cultures as well, like Roman fondness for institutionalisation of pompous religious rituals, importance of hierarchy (there is obvious parallelism between the Roman Emperor and the Pope and between the Senate and bishops) , etc. If there exits one branch of Christianism purer than the rest, that is Protestantism, because it is more centered around what the Bible tells.

sparkey
10-11-11, 18:51
I'm not saying capitalism would not happen had Europe never been Christian , just that nowadays our societies would be very different and that religion indeed had an influence on the rise of modern Capitalism. Would capitalism exist as we know it if Europe remained pagan? Who knows, personally I don't think so. Religion has shaped Europe undoubtly and has contributed decissively to make us the way we are nowadays.

This is, of course, all difficult to prove, as we aren't able to observe the alternative. I think Christianity itself had some important effects on certain things, and I even think that the Medieval lending system (the ban on usury) is one of them, but I also think that much of the effect is illusory and actually results from native culture. So it looks like we're stuck with a bit of disagreement here.


As for your comment on Protestantism being a mere cultural thing disguised as Christianism , I don't understand it. Then following your reasoning Christianism not only did not influence modern Europe but it simply didn't exist really. Catholicism has cultural influences of pre-christian cultures as well, like Roman fondness for institutionalisation of pompous religious rituals, importance of hierarchy (there is obvious parallelism between the Roman Emperor and the Pope and between the Senate and bishops) , etc. If there exits one branch of Christianism purer than the rest, that is Protestantism, because it is more centered around what the Bible tells.

Not quite; it doesn't follow that, since culture influences the practice of Christianity, that Christianity doesn't exist. Rather, Christianity is a Semitic religion that has spread well outside its initial culture, and has been transformed in those new cultures into something local. We see this with the spread of all religions... it doesn't mean that the religions don't exist. The spread of Buddhism into the West and the spread of Christianity into African animist cultures are good modern example of this sort of transformation that we can observe.

I have a certain fondness for Protestantism but I'd like to get away from the idea of it being "purer" than other forms of Christianity. Where did this vision of "pureness" come from and who decided its standards? It was people like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli... products of a reformist, rationalist age that was very Northwestern/Central European in character. Protestantism is closer in some ways to the earliest Christians than Catholicism is, but different Protestant traditions contain their own local innovations, and operate in autonomous fashions that actually make the innovations based on local culture more obvious. Three obvious examples off the top of my head: deference to royalty in the Anglican tradition, the educational focus of the Moravian tradition, and rationalism in the Calvinist tradition.

LeBrok
20-03-14, 22:01
Responding to the thread question.

- Christianity doesn't affect food we eat, unlike Hebrew and Muslim religions, as eating kosher foods.
- It doesn't affect fashion and how we dress. Except in some european villages, where covering heads by married women is still practiced.
- It doesn't influence architecture or art anymore. In past church was the biggest art sponsor, because it was the richest institution and power center.
- It doesn't affect sciences, except setting limitations and declaring some experiments unethical, as in stem cells research. It never brought insides on inner working of the world, human nature included.
- It has nothing to do with modern political systems, and democracy in particular or protection of minorities. Catholic church and many others are structurally still stuck in feudal times. At the time of collapse of empires after WWI, all churches were always pro monarchs, the old power establishment, and against new political changes.
- It didn't take part in creation of modern economic system, nor banking system. Actually the church was a hindrance in unleashing capital and investments making lending and charging interest a sin. In many european countries real christians were not to take upon commerce and trading, as it was the "sinful" Jewish occupation.
- It doesn't affect sports or sport rules, except occasionally blessing a football in some countries.
- It doesn't participate in television culture, except transmitting a mas on not very popular channels.
- It is even losing a licence on moral teachings and life guidance. It is more and more evident that atheists are as moral or immoral as believers, and even more tolerant and inclusive than them, which is what united europe or world needs for peaceful coexistence.
- Freedoms that we cherish so much these days were not achieved with help of ten commandments or christian doctrines, but with democracy, citizenship and good economy.
- Good standard of living is due to good governance and strong economy, which has nothing to do with being christian or god's miracles.
- Policing and civil law went away from religious influences, except traditional (in some countries) swearing on the Bible, which seemed never stopped people from lying.

Granted there is still some influence christianity have in politics and schools or censoring masmedia. But I can't see much of modern achievements of Europe, or what would be considered european culture and mindset, coming from long history of Europe in Christian hands. If anything modern Europe began when Christian Churches started to lose their grip on every segment of people's life. From Renaissance humanism and more scientific freedom, to birth of new economic and political systems of 20th century, and finally EU.

In general Churches were always conservative and traditional, acting as the guardians of the "old good ways", and as such missed the boat on participation in creating Modern Europe. I'm concluding that Modern Europe happened in spite of Christian Values, values expressed by Christian Churches and their policies and politics.