How much history did Christianity destroy?

[Johane Derite]

I came across this:

St. Augustine of Hippo writes in the City of God (written AD 413–426):


"Let us omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race...They are deceived by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have passed. (City of God 12:10).

I wonder what these "documents" he is referring to were. I wonder if we will ever know. I wonder how many such documents were destroyed.
I find his reasoning even more revealing, that he disproved them by reckoning with the "sacred writings."


Just imagine how much history these people must have destroyed. Who knows how much documents and artefacts were totally annihilated in the early
days of Christianity. If they destroyed their own gospels that they considered heretical or Gnostic, imagine how they must have seen non christian historical documents.



Reminds me quite a bit of the Stalinist and Maoist approach to centralized power and the conscious erasure of history.

In China the Maoists had something called the "Four Olds Campaign"

LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Olds

"Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas. One of the stated goals of the Cultural Revolution in the People's Republic of China was to bring an end to the Four Olds."



To do this they demanded the destruction of old monuments, texts, artefacts, etc. They even killed people that tried to hide artefacts and the such.

Also, this puts doubt on the actually existing historical documents that were preserved.

The way Stalin and the USSR presented history was totally
suited to the USSR political motivations at the time, and they redacted and added things to their textbooks on subjects like the french revolution,
paris commune, feudalism, etc in a conscious manner. Its most likely that the early churches would have done this of course.



Even democracies today destroy documents of crimes they committed because they can't face them. I seriously doubt the churches of the first millenium
would have been better.

Example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/27/archive-files-britain-colonial-past-government

 

[LeBrok]

We should be reminded from time to time, what insecurity, intolerance and haltered can do.

 

[ROS]

I do not understand the question well, but I understand that there is a dialectic between what the human being is (which is basically selfish) and the Gospels that we can summarize as love for others, in this dialectic sometimes triumphs the pure and hard egoism of the human being and other times, the least, the evolution that the gospels provide of love to others.


I do not know if this answers your question.

 

[Johane Derite]

I do not understand the question well

I just came across that quote from Augustine and was quite shocked.

I guess the question was more speculative, wondering about what those historical documents he wanted "ommitted"
and how this opens all types of questions about "unkown unkowns" i.e. things we don't even know that we don't know.

In this case, the erasure of historical information, or as you call it, the triumphs of egoism.

 

[ROS]

Christianity shows us what is good and this is perfectly understood, then the human being does and undoes as he pleases.


But hey, it is not bad to have a north, although later on you do the opposite.

 

[Angela]

The least tolerant people I've ever met are atheists. Second are extreme left wing people.

 

[Johane Derite]

"Some of the saints listed above are chiefly remembered for their fearless acts of destroying idols"


LINK: https://iconreader.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/saints-who-destroyed-religious-images/

[FONT=&quot]Saint George topples the pagan idols[/FONT]​

[FONT=&quot]St Abraham uses staff to destroy the idol of Veles[/FONT]​

 

[ROS]

Being intolerant or tolerant is independent of religious or political beliefs, I already have a certain age and in this politics I believe that in any party you find everything and the same happens with atheism or not atheism.


I personally believe in a nation called Spain, but of course I understand that there are people who consider themselves Basque simply or Catalans.


I am from Murcia, in a part of Murcia Valenciano is currently spoken, it seems that I included Valenciano in Cartagena historically because of the repopulations, I have had relatives who have emigrated to Catalu?a, Valencia, Alicante, etc., but we are all Iberian and Spaniards, if the parents of the homeland who are in the north begin to give up their children badly we are going.


Spain is a great nation and nobody has the right to humiliate it, it is not more than anyone, but less so.


I am Catholic, apostolic, Roman, I am not very practicing, I understand and tolerate the Protestant, Orthodox or other religious or atheist world but I consider myself that way, we have grown up in this religion and we have sucked and we have much to thank.

 

[ROS]

[CITA = Johane Derite; 535819] " Algunos de los santos mencionados anteriormente son principalmente recordados por sus intr?pidos actos de destrucci?n de ?dolos"


ENLACE: https://iconreader.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/saints-who-destroyed- im?genes religiosas /

San Jorge derrota a los ?dolos paganos​

San Abraham usa personal para destruir el ?dolo de Veles​

[/CITAR]

Remember the above the human being is egoist and this leads to nationalism and this leads to racism, this is the nature of the human being, in contrast is the summary message of the Gospels "love one another as I have loved"

 

[Ygorcs]

Well, he was definitely wrong, but apparently also were the documents that he is criticizing in that passage if you read that in its entirety and carefully:

They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. And, not to spend many words in exposing the baselessness of these documents, in which so many thousands of years are accounted for, nor in proving that their authorities are totally inadequate, let me cite only that letter which Alexander the Great wrote to his mother Olympias, giving her the narrative he had from an Egyptian priest, which he had extracted from their sacred archives, and which gave an account of kingdoms mentioned also by the Greek historians. In this letter of Alexander's a term of upwards of 5000 years is assigned to the kingdom of Assyria; while in the Greek history only 1300 years are reckoned from the reign of Bel himself, whom both Greek and Egyptian agree in counting the first king of Assyria. Then to the empire of the Persians and Macedonians this Egyptian assigned more than 8000 years, counting to the time of Alexander, to whom he was speaking; while among the Greeks, 485 years are assigned to the Macedonians down to the death of Alexander, and to the Persians 233 years, reckoning to the termination of his conquests.

Egypt as one unified state definitely did not have more than 8,000 years, and Assyria of course didn't have 5,000 years by the time of Augustine. So, it doesn't seem like those documents were real historic documents, but rather other wild speculations about the ancient history not very unlike the wrong statements given by Augustine.

 

[LeBrok]

The least tolerant people I've ever met are atheists. Second are extreme left wing people.

Like Maciamo, Sparkey, Taranis, LeBrok, IronHorse, Maleth, ...

 

[Angela]

Like Maciamo, Sparkey, Taranis, LeBrok, IronHorse, Maleth, ...

Extremely intolerant of religious belief and believers? Yes, unfortunately I believe so.

Wonderful in all other respects, however.

 

[IronSide]

Like Maciamo, Sparkey, Taranis, LeBrok, IronHorse, Maleth, ...

IronHorse

The thing is, where I'm from its dangerous to criticize religion in public, in our case because extreme religious people take control, I don't know if this is or was the case whenever religious people took control.

I know, however, that there is no direct relationship between the two, and religious people can be quite tolerant, LeBrok for example and a friend of mine here in Saudi.

 

[Yetos]

just think to be a polytheist

in a foundamental monotheistic world

 

[Angela]

IronHorse

The thing is, where I'm from its dangerous to criticize religion in public, in our case because extreme religious people take control, I don't know if this is or was the case whenever religious people took control.

I know, however, that there is no direct relationship between the two, and religious people can be quite tolerant, LeBrok for example and a friend of mine here in Saudi.

LeBroc is an atheist, as is everyone else in his list.

I can tell you that I have never in my life, throughout the years of my Catholic school education or in the years following before I "lost my faith", heard vituperation against agnostics and atheists from priests, nuns, brothers and sisters, or lay people similar to that which comes from atheists like Bill Maher, for example.

Most "religious" people have had their own doubts and totally understand why other people might come to believe in no divine agency whatsoever. They don't, in my experience, question the intellect or the reasoning ability or the sanity or the emotional make up of those who don't believe in any god. The latter are usually the stock in trade of what atheists say about religious people of any stripe, well, other than about Muslims, but that's a different discussion.

 

[davef]

I'll admit I was horrible to religious people as a teenager and I remember shouting vulgar insults at groups attending religious events in public (but I'll also admit that I was one of the most disrespectful vulgar little brat on the face of the earth and was sent to the principal almost every day in early elementary school due to my mouth....but I wasn't knocking religion that early on in life, it was simply bodily and other childish insults and forms of vulgarity).

These days, I'm extremely tolerant of those who believe strongly in the divine and I even have a few friends who are completely devout Catholics and I never mocked them once, nor do I see myself doing so.

 

[IronSide]

LeBroc is an atheist, as is everyone else in his list.

I can tell you that I have never in my life, throughout the years of my Catholic school education or in the years following before I "lost my faith", heard vituperation against agnostics and atheists from priests, nuns, brothers and sisters, or lay people similar to that which comes from atheists like Bill Maher, for example.

Most "religious" people have had their own doubts and totally understand why other people might come to believe in no divine agency whatsoever. They don't, in my experience, question the intellect or the reasoning ability or the sanity or the emotional make up of those who don't believe in any god. The latter are usually the stock in trade of what atheists say about religious people of any stripe, well, other than about Muslims, but that's a different discussion.

I thought LeBrok was a Catholic, I misunderstood a reference in some other thread, sorry LeBrok.

 

[bicicleur 2]

2-3 generations ago, the Catholic Church was still quite powefull and dominant here and very paternalistic, trying to controll everybodies mind and habits
my parents generation got liberated from that, and there is some resentment about the way the church have ruled all these generations, that is very natural
and sometimes it is frightening to see all those people conditioned and biassed by Islam coming in who are so convinced about there own beliefs and with whom reasoning seems very difficult

 

[bicicleur 2]

I thought LeBrok was a Catholic, I misunderstood a reference in some other thread, sorry LeBrok.

yes, you must have missed something
look at my last post, he is someone of the generation with the resentment

 

[Ygorcs]

LeBroc is an atheist, as is everyone else in his list.

I can tell you that I have never in my life, throughout the years of my Catholic school education or in the years following before I "lost my faith", heard vituperation against agnostics and atheists from priests, nuns, brothers and sisters, or lay people similar to that which comes from atheists like Bill Maher, for example.

Most "religious" people have had their own doubts and totally understand why other people might come to believe in no divine agency whatsoever. They don't, in my experience, question the intellect or the reasoning ability or the sanity or the emotional make up of those who don't believe in any god. The latter are usually the stock in trade of what atheists say about religious people of any stripe, well, other than about Muslims, but that's a different discussion.

I agree, Angela. In my experience (of course limited to the internet world and the social reality of Brazil), the older atheists and agnostics are usually very low-profile and tolerant, they simply do not believe, that's all, but they couldn't care less about whether you believe in some religion or not. But the majority of the younger (< 45) generations of atheists are simply awful, sorry if I have to say that. They're the ones that sound more close to the evangelical radicals we have here, in that there is a constant, relentless need to preach loudly and often arrogantly - there is always the "stupid, insane, weak theists" cardboard - about their atheism and criticize other beliefs (yes, being an atheists is also a kind of personal conviction that one holds to be true even though there is no empirical proof, that is, epistemologically it is a personal belief, not much more than that). For people who have no faith and rely on evidences to form their opinions, I find it baffling that younger atheists are often soooooo self-confident and arrogant about what they believe and, if the only thing that unites them is simply a lack of belief in god/gods, it's at least a bit weird to see such a devoted proselytism that not even most religious people are willing to do.