Proof that Christianity "retarded" Europe

[Kiljan Arslan]

I am looking for proof here to certain so called "rationalists" claims that Christianity "retard" Europe's growth. Because I mean it couldn't have been the fact Europe got invaded by successive waves of barbarians, or that the roman empire had collapsed. It had to be Christianity that caused it right. So lets see proof that Christianity was actually to blame not other factors. I mean if one is a rationalist their has to be a rational reason their making that claim. It couldn't be just hatred for something that doesn't agree with their world view could it?

if it is decided to move this to to vestigus I understand.

[MaximiIian]

It didn't, exactly. People retarded the growth of Europe, and retarded the possible benefits of any system of belief, government, or society. The people of that era, the middle ages, were just simply brutal and nasty people.
Now, some aspects of Christianity, after it became set and established, impeded progress and seized more and more power. But the same could be said about any established organization.
Some Christians, on the other hand, made real progress in European society, in the fact that much recorded information on pre-Christian European tribes and cultures, was written by monks during the Dark Ages.

[jonny duck]

It didn't, exactly. People retarded the growth of Europe, and retarded the possible benefits of any system of belief, government, or society. The people of that era, the middle ages, were just simply brutal and nasty people.

Can I just point out that people haven't changed, they can still be the same nasty brutal people, simply these days we tend to call it "dictatorship" or "capitalism".

Christianity didn't especially retard europe. The problem was that until the invention of the printing press, the only people that could write were either the very rich educated people, or, more commonly, the monks and priests of the Catholic Church. Therefore, if it didnt say what the Church wanted it to, then the church simply destroyed it or didn't copy it.
This, and the fact that the church led a campaign against anything that could threaten their power, meant that a lot of work by educated people, that didnt follow christian doctrine was destroyed.

Personally I have a feeling that stories such as the legend of King Arthur were tainted by the church to remove their original pagan message and to replace it with more pope friendly ideas.

[Ummon]

Can I just point out that people haven't changed, they can still be the same nasty brutal people, simply these days we tend to call it "dictatorship" or "capitalism".

Christianity didn't especially retard europe. The problem was that until the invention of the printing press, the only people that could write were either the very rich educated people, or, more commonly, the monks and priests of the Catholic Church. Therefore, if it didnt say what the Church wanted it to, then the church simply destroyed it or didn't copy it.

That is a no go sir: copyists did copy everything, and eventually (if the case was particularly serious) bury the book in some hidden chamber where only the most chosen monks could read it. Which is besides, also the plot of "The Name of the Rose", you see, and henceforth part of popular culture...

Well, Thiud summed it up nicely already. It was the crisis that destroyed most of the ancient works, not the Christians. They're not to blame (well at least not for this, destroying arts and temples is another topic...) But in general you are right, one HAS to be a complete retard to be a Christian

Now make sure you mention the murder of Hypatia for a change. Us retards will appreciate the cliché.

[MaximiIian]

Can I just point out that people haven't changed, they can still be the same nasty brutal people, simply these days we tend to call it "dictatorship" or "capitalism".

I disagree. Sure, those kinds of things exploit human nature at its weakest, but I firmly believe humanity has improved greatly since those times, and we can improve still further. We aren't trapped in a lockbox of nastiness and barbarity; we can overcome our weaknesses and triumph in our strengths, regardless of the circumstances.

But, then again, I'm an optimist. ^____^

[IronBlood]

I read the book History as Mystery by Michael Parenti a couple months back. Within the book, there was a section that talked about exactly this topic. Basically it stated that the Early Christian Church (when it was officially recognized) only cared for books that talked about orthodox Christianity or religious life and all other works were either evil or irrelevant. When the Christian Church was finally recognized as the official religion of the Empire, it did a little dusting in God's library.

Alexandria: Led by bishop Theophilus, Christian fanatics burn most of the scrolls in the Serapeum and the Main Library. Canfora ( mentioned byMichael Parenti) debunks the myth that when the Romans under Julius Caesar burned part of Alexandria, they burnt part of the Library also. Canfora states that the fire was on the water front, no where near where the Library was. And also when the Muslims rushed into Alexandria, they probably only found parasitic writings, which they burned for fuel.

Ephesus: Paul's new converts to Christianity burn 50,000 silver pieces worth of their books to show their "devotion".

Constantinople: Justinian had several Pagan Greeks arrested and their writings burned in the Kynegion. The Kynegion was the site where the corpses of those comdemned to die where flung.

Central America: Conquistadors set the torch to priceless Aztec and Mayan manuscripts and writings, which they had deemed as works by the devil.

Paris 1210: Works by Aristotle are burned by the university of Paris.

1239: Pope Gregory orders the burning of the Talmud, thinking it contains blashempies against the Virgin and Savior.

Beside these examples the Early Christian Church shut down academies and libraries throughout the empire.

---

When reading and writing died out in the dark ages, most often the only people that could read or write were the monks. The monks only rewrote/recorded what they deemed was useful or important. This was basically a monopoly on learning, cultural and intellectual output. Imagine all the texts that were left just to rot only because they were deemed unimportant or useless in religious life. Secular works and works by women were commonly ignored. Also there have been hardly any works written 500-1100 AD, even less are the chances of finding one that isn't about religion.

So in other words, "if Christianity/The Irish did save Western literacy/learning it was not from barbarians but from its fellow ecclesiastes on the Continent."

---

Can you give me a good reason why learning died out in the Middle Ages? Certainitly the "barbarians" didn't go around torching literary works or forcing people not to read.

(Source for info "History as Mystery, by Michael Parenti")

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I read the book History as Mystery by Michael Parenti a couple months back. Within the book, there was a section that talked about exactly this topic. Basically it stated that the Early Christian Church (when it was officially recognized) only cared for books that talked about orthodox Christianity or religious life and all other works were either evil or irrelevant. When the Christian Church was finally recognized as the official religion of the Empire, it did a little dusting in God's library.

Then you need to read a few more books, because that is a wildly distorted account of what happened and is totally inaccurate. Some early Christian thinkers rejected pagan thought, noably people like Tertullian who asked "what has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" Opposed to them were Christian thinkers like Clement of Alexandria, who adopted the approach of the Jewish scholar Philo Judaeus and argued that all learning came from God and so "pagan" knowledge was a reflection of the mind of God just as much as Christian "revelation":

We shall not err in alleging that all things necessary and profitable in life came to us from God, and that philosophy more especially was given to the Greeks as a covenant peculiar to them, being as it were a stepping stone to the philosophy that is from Christ.

Clement's inclusive approach was taken and expanded by Augustine, who argued that just as the Israelites made use of the gold of the Egyptians, so Christians could make use of the wisdom of the pagans, since all knowledge gained by reason comes from God since the rationality of the universe is a reflection of God's reason.

This is the approach to pagan learning that was dominant in the Middle Ages and this is why, far from destroying pagan learning, the Medieval Church did its best to preserve it and - after the fall of the Western Empire - rediscover what had been lost in the chaos following that collapse.

The idea that those losses were caused by the Church is absolute nonsense. This myth has been spread by people with an anti-Christian agenda over the last few hundred years and is perpetuated largely thanks to most people being abysmally ignorant of the real Medieval attitude to ancient learning. It was revered highly and sought out whenever possible.

The myth is also perpetuated by twisting some historical incidents and presenting others as though they were the norm rather than the exception. For example:

Alexandria: Led by bishop Theophilus, Christian fanatics burn most of the scrolls in the Serapeum and the Main Library. Canfora ( mentioned byMichael Parenti) debunks the myth that when the Romans under Julius Caesar burned part of Alexandria, they burnt part of the Library also. Canfora states that the fire was on the water front, no where near where the Library was. And also when the Muslims rushed into Alexandria, they probably only found parasitic writings, which they burned for fuel.

The Great Library decayed and suffered various depredations and fires over the centuries. This happened to such an extent that when the mob burned the Serapeum there was barely anything of the original Library left. The idea that this mob "burned the Great Library" is another myth.

Ephesus: Paul's new converts to Christianity burn 50,000 silver pieces worth of their books to show their "devotion".

"A number who had practised sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas."
(Acts 19:19)

What the hell has burning some books of magic and divination got to do with Christianity's attitude to pagan philosophy?

Constantinople: Justinian had several Pagan Greeks arrested and their writings burned in the Kynegion. The Kynegion was the site where the corpses of those comdemned to die where flung.

And these "pagan books" were works of science or philosophy? Strange - the source for this, the chronicler John Malalas, doesn't mention that.

Paris 1210: Works by Aristotle are burned by the university of Paris.

Yes, during a struggle over the teaching of some of Aristotle's ideas which those who ordered these works burned lost. Within a few years the same books were back on the syllabus of the University of Paris. They were never taken off the syllabus of other universities. Aristotle became the mainstay of Medieval philosophical study.

You don't seem to know the contexts of the stuff you're citing.

Beside these examples the Early Christian Church shut down academies and libraries throughout the empire.

Christian Emperors shut down some academies and no libraries. Others were allowed to remain open. The ones that were closed were purely pagan ones that were openly hostile to Christianity and the Emperors were simply following earlier precedents here. The great academy of Constantinople not only remained open but happily taught Homer, Sophocles and other pagan works alongside Christian writers for centuries to come. And bishops and other churchmen happily studied these works as well.

---

When reading and writing died out in the dark ages, most often the only people that could read or write were the monks. The monks only rewrote/recorded what they deemed was useful or important. This was basically a monopoly on learning, cultural and intellectual output. Imagine all the texts that were left just to rot only because they were deemed unimportant or useless in religious life. Secular works and works by women were commonly ignored. Also there have been hardly any works written 500-1100 AD, even less are the chances of finding one that isn't about religion.

That is pure and complete nonsense. They were not "left to rot". What ones survived survived thanks to their preservation by those Dark Age monks. And when the turmoil of the centuries that followed the fall of the Empire subsided it was monks and churchmen that travelled to Spain and Sicily to translate lost pagan works into Latin and bring them back to Europe.

So in other words, "if Christianity/The Irish did save Western literacy/learning it was not from barbarians but from its fellow ecclesiastes on the Continent."

Total bollocks. You have some serious reading to do because it seems you've fallen for some hoary old myths. Start with James Hannam's excellent summary of early Christian attitudes to pagan literature and the books he suggests at the end. Then move on to "Christianity and the Survival of Ancient Learning" and the books and articles in its extensive footnotes.

Can you give me a good reason why learning died out in the Middle Ages? Certainitly the "barbarians" didn't go around torching literary works or forcing people not to read.

(i) Literacy, especially in Greek, was already declining in the West well before the Empire fell.
(ii) Books are fragile and, in a pre-printing age, there are very few of them. It doesn't take many copies to be destroyed for a whole work to disappear. And yes, actually, the barbarians did burn libraries while they were burning many other things.
(iii) When you are worried about the next invasion or where your next meal is coming from you tend not to take the time to copy a book in a language that you can't read. And unless ancient books were regularly re-copied they were not preserved.

Now, how about you explain why, if it was Christianity that caused the loss of this pagan literature, why don't we see a similar loss in the Eastern Empire? No barbarian invasions there, but plenty of Christianity. Yet no loss.

Think about it.

[Keeper of the Keys]

So now your saying christians are retarded!

[Flavius Nevitta]

So now your saying christians are retarded!

[Keeper of the Keys]

Well, Thiud summed it up nicely already. It was the crisis that destroyed most of the ancient works, not the Christians. They're not to blame (well at least not for this, destroying arts and temples is another topic...) But in general you are right, one HAS to be a complete retard to be a Christian

Thats not funny show some respect man.

[IronBlood]

Then you need to read a few more books, because that is a wildly distorted account of what happened and is totally inaccurate.

Yes I believe I should read more books but I won't go as far to say that the History as Mystery was totally inaccurate. All the info I have posted all come from his book. In truth, I actually despised the book, as it was usually bias, full of Michael Parenti tasteless comments and views, and mostly talked about killing of Native Americans by the US Government, the oppression of women by religion, Christianity in particular, and basically trying to depict Christianity as an insane religion. Probably the only section that escaped Michael Parenti was the retelling of the Battle of the Little Bighorn by a Cheyenne women, which I enjoyed personally.

But I believe in this book, it held a "grain of truth"

Here's the source if you would like to make your own opinions of the book. Page 95 is where "Burning of the Books" begins.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://books.google.com/books?id=7bX...esult#PPA95,M1

The Great Library decayed and suffered various depredations and fires over the centuries.

The only example I found of another "catastrophe" happening to the Library was when Soldier/Emperor Aurelian took the city during the revolt by Queen Zenobia of Palmyra. Could you please provide examples of "incidents" that happened to the Library?

"A number who had practised sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas."
(Acts 19:19)

What the hell has burning some books of magic and divination got to do with Christianity's attitude to pagan philosophy?

However the Acts of the Apostles does not say/specify what types of books they were. I do not think it's unreasonable to suggest that not all the books burned were about "magic".

You don't seem to know the contexts of the stuff you're citing.

As I said before all the info I have posted is from Michael Parenti's book. He provided a ton of references but obviously he tainted them with his own personal opinions.

That is pure and complete nonsense. They were not "left to rot". What ones survived survived thanks to their preservation by those Dark Age monks. And when the turmoil of the centuries that followed the fall of the Empire subsided it was monks and churchmen that travelled to Spain and Sicily to translate lost pagan works into Latin and bring them back to Europe.

Well you can't honestly say that all the sources that fell into average monk's hands were all persevered/recopied. There had to be some bias into what was preserved and what was not.

Total bollocks. You have some serious reading to do because it seems you've fallen for some hoary old myths. Start with James Hannam's excellent summary of early Christian attitudes to pagan literature and the books he suggests at the end. Then move on to "Christianity and the Survival of Ancient Learning" and the books and articles in its extensive footnotes.

I was partly quoting Michael Parenti when I posted that but anyways thanks for the two links, I'll look into them.

(i) Literacy, especially in Greek, was already declining in the West well before the Empire fell.

Can you give me a source on that?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Yes I believe I should read more books but I won't go as far to say that the History as Mystery was totally inaccurate. All the info I have posted all come from his book. In truth, I actually despised the book, as it was usually bias, full of Michael Parenti tasteless comments and views, and mostly talked about killing of Native Americans by the US Government, the oppression of women by religion, Christianity in particular, and basically trying to depict Christianity as an insane religion. Probably the only section that escaped Michael Parenti was the retelling of the Battle of the Little Bighorn by a Cheyenne women, which I enjoyed personally.

Which should tell you something about the author and give you a hint that this is not an objective analyst who is presenting an unbiased version of history. He's a polemicists and activist with some axes to grind. That kind of person usually makes the worst sort of historical analyst.

But I believe in this book, it held a "grain of truth"

Why do you believe this? I've read the section in question in the link you've provided and it's garbage. I haven't read such a travesty of historical analysis in quite some time. He takes selected incidents and information and presents them as the norm. He accepts things that didn't happen as factual. He distorts other events. And he clearly has zero understanding to the intellectual framework of the period he's discussing or even a good general grasp of it. That section of the book is a joke and if the rest of it is that bad I'd suggest throwing it away.

The only example I found of another "catastrophe" happening to the Library was when Soldier/Emperor Aurelian took the city during the revolt by Queen Zenobia of ]Palmyra. Could you please provide examples of "incidents" that happened to the Library?

This summary of the historiography around the trope of "the burning of the Great Library of Alexandria" is a good summary of what we do and don't know about how the Library decayed and why attributing its end to any single incident is wrong.

However the Acts of the Apostles does not say/specify what types of books they were. I do not think it's unreasonable to suggest that not all the books burned were about "magic".

Acts specifically tells us that the people who gave up their books had been practicing "sorcery". There is nothing in Acts to indicate that their books would have contained science or philosophy, so your decision to decide that they may have is based on nothing, apart from wishful thinking on your part. History is based on evidence, not wishful thinking.

As I said before all the info I have posted is from Michael Parenti's book. He provided a ton of references but obviously he tainted them with his own personal opinions.

He's tainted them with a long anti-Christian and anti-Catholic tradition of claiming that the Medieval Church was universally hostile to pagan learning. That biased and bigoted tradition of propaganda takes incidents like this, wrenches them out of context, and then presents them as meaning something they simply don't. Even the guys who were condemning some of Aristotle's works in 1210 acknowledged the rest of Aristotle's corpus and revered ancient learning in general. Parenti either doesn't have a clue about this subject or doesn't care.

Well you can't honestly say that all the sources that fell into average monk's hands were all persevered/recopied. There had to be some bias into what was preserved and what was not.

I can honestly say that ancient works of logic, rhetoric and grammar formed the basis of all Medieval education, so if a monk had the opportunity to preserve an ancient work he did so. This is borne out by all the evidence available to us. All of it. On the other hand, the evidence for monks or churchmen ever being told to ignore, neglect or destroy such works amounts to zero. Nothing. Such evidence does not exist.

What does that say to you?

Can you give me a source on that?

Any book on the learning during the transition from the late Empire to the early Medieval period will do, but William Vernon Harris' final chapter in his Ancient Literacy details how the disruptions of the Third and the Fifth Centuries eroded education in the Empire, particularly in the West. The division of the Empire into Western (Latin-speaking) and Eastern (Greek-speaking) halves accelerated the decline of Greek in the west. By the Sixth Century Cassiodorus and Boethius undertook a program of translating some Greek works into Latin simply because fewer and fewer Romans were able to read them in Greek:

"With the decline of the old educated aristocracy and a widening cultural rift dividing the Greek East from the Latin West, the sort of education (Boethius) and Cassiodorus had enjoyed was becoming a rarity. The Goths were learning Latin, after a fashion, but the Latins were forgetting their Greek .... Stung by these dangers Boethius set himself a Herculean task: 'I will translate into Latin every work of Aristotle that comes into my hands and all the dialogues of Plato.'"
Richard E. Rubenstein, Aristotle's Children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Middle Ages, pp. 61-62 - Rubenstein's book is an excellent antidote to the myths about Christianity, the Medieval Church and ancient learning)

Apart from a pocket of Greek literacy amongst the Irish monks, these translated works by Boethius were all the Greek philosophy and science available in the West until the chaos of the Dark Ages subsided and other churchmen went out to Spain and Sicily seeking out more ancient works, working with Jewish and Muslim scholars to translate them from Arabic, Hebrew and Greek into Latin to being them back to western Europe. There they revolutionised learning in the new universities and laid the foundation for the later scientific revolution.

See how that's a rather different picture to the twisted nonsense Parenti fed you?

Sorry, but your question seems rather... silly.

How would you expect to get an answer to this question? Go back, wipe out Christianity, and see what the world would be like today? Why MUST it be Christianity? Why not the myriad other factors that made Christian Europe sucumb it's world-leading grasp? Plague? Infighting? Nationalism? Competition? Squabling over Resources?

*sigh* The VV is retarding, that's for sure...

You can say that again, since you don't seem to have understood what he's asking. He's not defending the idea that Christianity was responsible, he's challenging those who believe this to do so.

[zedestroyer]

Now, how about you explain why, if it was Christianity that caused the loss of this pagan literature, why don't we see a similar loss in the Eastern Empire? No barbarian invasions there, but plenty of Christianity. Yet no loss.

Why do you always use this argument?? The Eastern and the Western Empires were very different. The Western Empire had little non-Roman influences (except for the importation of Christianity), it was almost 100% Roman. While the Eastern Empire was more Greek than Roman.
You can see that in the development of Christianity. If both empires were equal, why do they followed different paths during the development of Christianity. The the Eastern Empire was more urbanized, developed, wealthy and sophisticated than the Western one.
Saying that the Eastern and the Western were equals is like saying that Europe and the USA are equals. They can have some similarities, but they are different from one another.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

I have a question. If the church was against pagan thought then why did works like those of Lucretius, who argues some very unchristian ideas, survive??

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Why do you always use this argument??

Because those who want to argue that Christianity somehow "caused" the Dark Ages need to explain why it only happened in the West and not the East, which was just as Christian if not more Christian than the West.

The Eastern and the Western Empires were very different. The Western Empire had little non-Roman influences (except for the importation of Christianity), it was almost 100% Roman. While the Eastern Empire was more Greek than Roman.

So? How does that explain Christianity "causing" a Dark Age in the West rather than the East?

You can see that in the development of Christianity. If both empires were equal, why do they followed different paths during the development of Christianity. The the Eastern Empire was more urbanized, developed, wealthy and sophisticated than the Western one.

Indeed. And the collapse of the West had a great deal to do with things like politics, economics and tax bases and not to do with the wicked old Church making everybody stupid.

Saying that the Eastern and the Western were equals is like saying that Europe and the USA are equals. They can have some similarities, but they are different from one another.

I'm not saying they are equals, in fact I say precisely the opposite. In terms of their political stability, economic resources, population etc, the West was inferior to the East which is why the West collapsed and the East survived. The point is that both were equally Christian, yet only one half collapsed.

Christianity was not the cause.

I jsut have one question. If the church was against pagan thought then why did works like those of Lucretius, who argues that there is no god, survive??

Those works survived because the Church wasn't against pagan thought. Churchmen preserved many works that they totally disagreed with because they believed there was some truth in all ancient philosophy arrvied at through reason because reason was how you understand the rational mind of God. Lucretius was, in their opinion, wrong on some points but right on others and so was worth preserving.

The idea that the Medieval Church was opposed to pagan learning and didn't perserve or even destroyed pagan works is a complete myth. It's nonsense.

[Ludicus]

So? How does that explain Christianity "causing" a Dark Age in the West rather than the East?
... In terms of their political stability, economic resources, population etc, the West was inferior to the East which is why the West collapsed and the East survived. The point is that both were equally Christian, yet only one half collapsed.
Christianity was not the cause.

You have a very good point here.
Christianity was firmly entrenched in Byzantium, yet Byzantium remained the most stable nation of the middle ages, and literacy was more widespread there than in any other nation in the middle ages.
Curiously, it was in the east (but not in the west) that the breach between the the Byzantine and Latin Churches, following the iconoclastic controversy, originated a (more or less) static religious culture, the adoption of a strict traditionalism in the B. Church - and probably a relative loss of the intellectual dinamism.
I agree, Christianity was not the cause.

[MaximiIian]

Well, stupid commoners and some of the more fanatic believers definitely possess most of the blame for atrocious acts taken in the name of Christ. But that doesn't cancel out the good things done by Christians, such as Dark Age monks recording ancient literature, or the contributions of Renaissance thinkers to modern Western philosophy, or the large number of architects, artists, and musicians over the centuries who did a vast amount of their work partly for religious reasons.
I've spoken to KjA via PM about the whole thing; and the best theory we can come up with is that, generally, the most fanatic and fervent followers of a belief system that sees itself as the only valid one, will take destructive means to demonize other beliefs.

Not necessarily all belief systems, and definitely not all believers. But some, yes, will do horrible things. Terrible, destructive things. But this doesn't mean you can accurately and truthfully generalize the validity of a system or the innocence of an entire body of believers based on the actions of a minority, no matter how significant a minority, especially when most of the worst acts (Crusaders, 16th century War of Religions, Inquisition) have been done only ostensibly for religious reasons, but in truth were highly politically motivated.

[Noble Savage]

I think this thread would suit VV better. If anyone disagrees just drop me a PM

Ta

Noble Savage

[Exarch]

nothing saddens me more than the destruction of books and other literary works tsk tsk tsk
all that knowledge...lost
we could've learnt heaps from the alexandrian library

[Orko]

It wasn't Christianity that "retarded" Europe, it were the Barbarian invasions that did, and provided a base for Christianity to grow and prosper.