people just dont understand...

[legio_XX]

i was working the other day and was talking to a friend about julian and how complocated he was good and bad, when a costumer over herd me and joined in (seemed like a nice old man) he told me the juilan was a lol form of anti crist that wanted to undermind the christen world and it was a great thing that this mureder died when he did. plus the roman army was now more or less a regtag army of germans and mercs. this i dissagreed witth sayig "ido not think that your sourses are infact corect"
he told me that he was and that i was just blinded by the grandure of the old roman empire and there....hethan ways......being a that I was working there I could not realy muster a debate with such a man and risk getting intruble with my boss so I gave up and politley changed the subject and asked him if i could help him in any way he then smiled ordered his meat then left. later I found out that he was a local southern baptised paster....... its sad the religon can blind ones thought and opinion of people and places.( of coure I have no disrespect for a man or woman with religon i just wish people wopuld study things nonbyist way)

[charles the hammer]

Well while i agree that julian wasnt all bad he did a great many things for the empire but like many emperors he had his quirks. he just believed what he believed and i love the roman empire i must agree that julians death was probably for the best because not only did he try to destroy christianity but was probably on the cuff of causing a giant war between christians and pagans which could have undermined the empire or atleast the east where christianity was strongest.

[Sound&Fury]

I wouldn't pay any attention to such people. They're clearly incapable of interpreting history outside their narrow, religiously-orientated paradigms. Let them have their own views, but they have nothing to offer in a historical debate.

[ineedatarget]

At least Julian started to think about religious tolerance in some ways even he supported polytheism. At worst it would provoke a civil war but at best it would avoid many conflicts (like what Caliph Umar did). It depends on circumstances and luck. Julian was the unlucky one. We shouldn't blame him. Convert to Christianity was risky too. Once failed control the situation, a large part of Roman culture which created by "pagan" would collapse. No need to say Rome would be dead if it lost its culture base and a new kind of roman culture based on Christianity needs centuries to establish (we don't need "tribus romanus" on the map). What can Julian do? There was little choice left for him.
Personally, I think Julian was very cool. Even if I know Edward Gibbon overly praised him, a ruler dared to challenge Christianity at that time must be wise enough and courageous.
Forget about some narrow-minded people. They don't realize that although it was nearly 1600 years after Christianity became the state religion of Rome, so called "paganus" and faithless ones still get them outnumbered. :hmmm:
They should think seriously about accepting other religions and make sure they are living in twenty-first century, not in Middle Ages or Reformation.

[charles the hammer]

Even if I know Edward Gibbon overly praised him, a ruler dared to challenge Christianity at that time must be wise enough and courageous.

what do you mean by wise enough. You cant blame christianity for what was done. I personally dont like julian that much and I will give him props if he was tolerant but thats not the point. most people called themselves christians but catholism was a mix of pagan rituals and christianity. (thats evident in christmas itself.) people tend to blame christainty for the erosian of rome so they idealize julian but what destroyed rome was what made rome great to begin with, PRIDE. there treatment of anything different from them was horrible so they did themselfs in not christianity. Sorry i just had to vent im tired of christianity being belittled.

[ineedatarget]

Don't be serious. I don't mean to blame Christianity (if I do, I'd rather blame its philosophy, not history). I just want to blame those who had fundamentalism thoughts.
Julian was wise compared to some emperors before who kill Christians. Trying to eradicate one side of religious conflict would cause more damage to Rome than what Julian tried to do.
The fall of Rome had many reasons like farmland desertification, lack of slaves to work, barbarian invasion, etc. The religious conflict was only one factor but there's no way to neglect its impact on Rome.

[charles the hammer]

Whats wrong with it philosophy?

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Whats wrong with it philosophy?

I don't think there is much wrong with it (you'll see, I'm a Christian too ), but I respectfully would like to suggest to focus our minds on the greatness and attractive of the Late Roman world as it is the focus of this forum . Just my opinion.

[charles the hammer]

sorry your right I was just wondering what he meant and im just sick of people with so called "intelligence" think they can belittle christanity by calling it leftovers from a dark age. (not saying anyone here is saying this but i heard people and people on tv saying so.)

[Lord Dakier]

Religion is nothing more than when a man orders another to take a life. Everytime religious people get proven wrong they change their story in some small part. Obviously people used religion to gain control of people and to keep th morale high.

[charles the hammer]

wow your going to say that sight no prove and expect people to take you serious. religon has been used that way but dont insult religon insult people. We explot anything we can even the goodest purest things.

[Lord Dakier]

We use Religion as an excuse for terrorism, genocide and famine... if people was not so weak then they would understand this however the weak need a leader and that leader needs an army. To amass such an army he needs to have an already powerfull force. Anyone with intelligence and understanding of how the common Human works would understand what I am saying.

I live my life with Chivalry and Honour not for no god, but to prove my worth on this planet.

It takes one leader to say "join me and my god will bless you in the next world"... and it takes one weakling to say "Well I need protecting will your god do it?"... I think we know where this is going but well yeah... once you have a few men you can build an army.

[ineedatarget]

The problem is how religions were created. Religions emerged from people's demands of protection, helping weak people to get relieved because they would think god(s) will protect them from the might of nature, other people, etc. They may give people hope in harsh times but soon people rely on them too much. People didn't realized religions only gives hope and they still need to act to get them out of trouble. Only they can help themselves, not god(s) but they refused to face their weaknesses directly and asked god for help. I'm not saying every person who have faith is like that but some people have this problem.

And there comes religious persecution. Imagine someone who pointed out fanatics' and fundamentalists' problems. What can they do to this guy? Well they probably shut him up. To admit themselves' weaknesses is more painful than finish someone off. People should read the book "The Right to Heresy: Castellio against Calvin" to see how things work.

Religions set up ethic codes and philosophy systems too. It do help society gets improved, however, the ethics and philosophy people have before must change to the new religious form. In this case, rule No.1 is always “to believe", even if what you believe is actually wrong.

Then the problem comes. Take the natural law as example. In the past people was taught to follow and respect it because it is the ultimate law. What they can do is to reason and understand the logos. But when Christian came in power people have divine law which is "higher" than natural law. The problem is divine law is actually a law for believers. People no longer live for reason but live for believe, follow no longer the logos but the will of God because natural law is only a "supplement”. If people believe first and reason second, there is no way to avoid religious conflict and cultural bias. Some guy may even turn to fundamentalists because they lose the ability to reason properly and even get fooled by religious leaders and serve as a tool of their ambitions. Then we can see bunch of terrorists or silly guys who think they are saints but actually crusaders who slaughter people in the name of God. The philosophy problems of religions are not logical problems inside their system but they prevent people from reasoning by certain ways.

[charles the hammer]

while its true people have used religon as a way to control. But unless the religons books give orders to do the things you say then it really isnt religon thats the problem its people. Im a christian and i know tons and we reason also. Science likes to say religon is just there because people want to think theres a God. but it should also be pointed out that people have another nature that is contradictory to that. And thats we want to do what is fun or injoyable right know. So people go against religon or call it folly so they dont feel restrained by its moral codes. Plus catholism has done alot to make people who enjoy science to hate it by what theyve done over time. (if you read the bible not only is there not one thing that can be disproven, but it wants us to learn to reason to understand and to know that God works not through miracles all the time but to trust that God is guiding your judgment.)

[ineedatarget]

The people's problem is how much they get a "logos" mind not a "mythos" one when they have faith but that's not I'm talking about.

One cannot put anything higher than natural law and cannot reason without following the way of rationalism but religions has some inner qualities telling people to do so. This is the problem I am talking about.

You may say you can reason while believing in God. That’s fine but please remembers those cannot get themselves' minds out of some connotations of religions. I admit it's really hard to distinguish whether it's some people's problem because they lack of reasoning or the religions' problems by suggesting them to give up reasoning that hurts doctrine.

Please support biblical literalism. I don't think nothing can be disproved. What about Darwin's argument against creation in genesis? Well many people (including myself) think Darwin was wrong but its some scientific problem, not proving creationism is right.

You mentioned some people go against religion because they don't want to follow moral values. You can dislike someone like that but you cannot restrict people and force them to obey something that is no longer reasonable now. For example many religions put women lower than man but in fact men and women are equal. We can see many women started asking rights. There is no way to argue that they should give up and behave like "supplement" of men's lives.

Everybody gets h/she right to live without restriction of some silly values. People are not living for their god(s); their souls are not the property of religions. They are not mindless slaves keep following without asking.

Well I'm not blaming religions for this because they were created many centuries ago but the world has changed much later. I just can't imagine moral values become immutable. Anyway I think there is no need to debate longer because our thinking style differ. It would become similar to people who enjoy eating apples try to convince who don't like eating apples.:hmmm:

Peace and merry christmas.

[charles the hammer]

What about the morals is incorrect what has this day and age been proven folly? that might not be the right wording but you know what i mean. And a Merry Christmas to you.

[ineedatarget]

I have some examples but discussing about moral values at here is off topic and I don't want to provoke further fruitless debate.
Thanks for your understanding. Sometimes people don't give up arguing unless they think I am finally convinced by them(actually I pretend to like that to get out of trouble).

[dqualk]

I hate when people make theirselves experts on Christianity and religion in general. Please please please spare us your stupid ideas. But if you wish to present objective truth, which non of you have done, thats fine. Also, if you want voice your opinion, that probably nobody wants to hear, than be sure and specify that you "think" something is one way over another.

Some examples of stupidity that are mere opinions, opinions that are no more sound than "God created this very instance and all of our memory is just another part of His creation that He created 1 second ago (i dont believe this but its just as vaild as the crap they spout out)"

"Religions emerged from people's demands of protection, helping weak people to get relieved because they would think god(s) will protect them from the might of nature, other people, etc."

"Religion is nothing more than when a man orders another to take a life. "

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

I though that ineedatarget had closed this discussion with charles the hammer in a very respectful and diplomatic manner. They both behaved as gentlemen and stopped this topic even though they didn't come to an agreement. I praize their attitude and good will. I also think that when legio_XX opened this thread his only and genuine intention was to share his disagreement with the ideas expressed by this customer of his. So please, let's stop this type of discussions if we are not able to share our opinions in a courteous way. This is a Late Roman Empire mod forum, and obviously not the place to ventilate our love or hatred of religions.

[charles the hammer]

I agree i thought we were done with this i respect ineedatarget because even though we argued he kept it civil never attacking christianity but saying how he disagreed. unlike you dqualk who makes statements as if you have proof their is no God. attacking with no real point just points out how ignorant you are. lets end this now before i loose my civility (not even sure thats a word.) and i would like to point out that intellectuals do the same thing with evolution claim to be true but have no prove. they except it because it is the only alternative to a God. now im done.