The Muhammad and Aisha controversy

[95thrifleman]

Yep, an incest and human sacrifice were also present. Come to think of it, Satan was the only positive character in the whole thing.

I'm a big fan of Milton's Paradise Lost

[conon394]

The purpose back then was literally reproduction. In middle ages girls would be married and having children as soon as they would have their first period, as you say

But that would have been a mistake. Infant mortality was high but a women at 12 starting on her first pregnancy was also facing excessive mortality risks. As Plato noted more than once marriage at 17 or 18 was far better and safer. Wonder if the fact his mentor's mother was a respected midwife had anything to do with that opinion. If you made it to five your mortality risk was likely no higher than any adult [ignoring war or its after affects]. The only comparable next life expectancy graph adjustment was for women giving birth.

[95thrifleman]

But that would have been a mistake. Infant mortality was high but a women at 12 starting on her first pregnancy was also facing excessive mortality risks. As Plato noted more than once marriage at 17 or 18 was far better and safer. Wonder if the fact his mentor's mother was a respected midwife had anything to do with that opinion. If you made it to five your mortality risk was likely no higher than any adult [ignoring war or its after affects]. The only comparable next life expectancy graph adjustment was for women giving birth.

Bit of a shame that the religous fanatics of the middle ages lost or ignored the knowledge of the greeks

[basics]

Bit of a shame that the religous fanatics of the middle ages lost or ignored the knowledge of the greeks

95thrifleman,

Tell me then did religion stop you wanting to have sex when you discovered what it was all about?

[fkizz]

But that would have been a mistake. Infant mortality was high but a women at 12 starting on her first pregnancy was also facing excessive mortality risks. As Plato noted more than once marriage at 17 or 18 was far better and safer. Wonder if the fact his mentor's mother was a respected midwife had anything to do with that opinion. If you made it to five your mortality risk was likely no higher than any adult [ignoring war or its after affects]. The only comparable next life expectancy graph adjustment was for women giving birth.

Well it's the middle ages we're talking about. Much of it was basically muddling through the ruins of the colapsed Western Roman Empire and trying to come up with some solution for the colapse of the Empire and roaming pillager tribes who got their food by raiding farmers.

The glorified scholarly author of Von Kriege, Karl Von Clausewitz also had his first battle at the age of 12 y.o., and it's in a post-middle ages period (1700s-1800s). By today's definition he would be considered a literal victim child soldier instead of an intellectual of reference on War Affairs.
In Battle of Trafalgar, Horatio Nelson had plenty of child sailors doing the reloading of the canons against the French and Spanish armada. If you visit Gibraltar and see the Trafalgar battle grave, plenty of epitaths are dedicated to children.
It was common for Nobility to send their kids into battle the youngest age possible, so their offspring would have enough experience to warrant them being commanders, asides from the family titles.

Plenty of High Royalty Marriages also had arrangements and bethrorals that would be considered as illegal today, due to incest and very high age differences. It wasn't about "sexual enjoyment", but rather pressure demands from High Politics.

For the enjoyment the monarchs often picked people not from their marriage for their adventures.

The marriage arrangements were the results of impositions from State Affairs.

If you see the age of some Generals and Military Commanders, some of them had their peak military victories at the age of 18 y.o.

It was a different world from today, where a person who reaches 30 y.o. finally is thinking of buying a car as his first big life decision.

[conon394]

If you see the age of some Generals and Military Commanders, some of them had their peak military victories at the age of 18 y.o.

It was a different world from today, where a person who reaches 30 y.o. finally is thinking of buying a car as his first big life decision.

It is interesting the way Europe came to reduce the age of its soldiers. Outside of guard duty from 18-20, the Athenians managed almost two centuries war without descending to send out teenagers to fight. They rather preferred upping the age to the 40 and 50 years in desperation. The rest of Greece more or less the same.

[95thrifleman]

95thrifleman,

Tell me then did religion stop you wanting to have sex when you discovered what it was all about?

What does that have to do with middle ages priests destroying greek scientific docments?

No, it didn't for the record. First had sex at 14 and been enjoying it ever since

[Prodromos]

What does that have to do with middle ages priests destroying greek scientific docments?

Is that true?

http://jameshannam.com/literature.htm

One thing that everyone thinks they know about early Christians is that they went around and burnt down libraries and destroyed vast swathes of ancient literature in the process. For a 'fact' that is so widely believed, there is remarkably little evidence around. When challenged the best that most people can do is mention the Christians who destroyed the Great Library of Alexandria. But, as I have established in this article, that is itself a myth. That has not stopped authors like Carl Sagan in Cosmos and others who really ought to know better, from recycling it to make anti-Christian points.

After finding the example of Christian vandalism most commonly cited was untrue, I decided to launch an in-depth inquiry into the two related questions of what has happened to the majority of the corpus of ancient writing and whether the Christian contribution to their preservation has been positive or negative. This survey only covers the early church and the period through the Early Middle Ages so it does not examine the work of medieval inquisitors or later church authorities. I hope to look at these areas at a later date but for the moment my conclusions are as follows:

- Indiscriminate destruction of ancient literature by institutional Christianity never occurred;
- There was no attempt to suppress pagan writing per se;
- On a few occasions, pagan tracts specifically attacking Christianity were condemned but others have been preserved;
- Suppression of heretical Christian writing was widespread;
- Magical and esoteric works were treated in exactly the same way as they were under the pagan Emperors, who had not been very sympathetic;
- With some exceptions, respect for pagan learning was widespread among Christians;
- The survival of the classical literature we have was almost entirely due to the efforts of Christian monks laboriously copying out texts by hand.

Warning: language

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Cyclops]

Looks like the selective outrage mob are beating their drums again. Post after post attacking Muslims, nothing about Richard II marrying a six-year-old or the host of other examples.

This sort of anachronistic outrage is the purest idiocy, and the alt-right and wannabe Nazis who also adopt this faux outrage are strangely reminiscent of the Wahhabist scum and their insistence on anachronistic misreading of history.

Getting angry about Mahmud's possible molestation of a little girl? I look forward to the multiple posts decrying the Spartan's taste for teenage boys which is widely attested by the Spartan's friends and enemies alike. Will the same outraged mob also decry more recent depravities, such as Adolph Hitler's sexual relationship with his niece? History is littered with examples of conduct we can deplore, so if its the conduct and not the person that is being criticised, how about some consistency?

Is that true?

http://jameshannam.com/literature.htm



Warning: language

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Love the greentext story, one of my favourite formats.

The truth as always is complex. The great majority of ancient literature was preserved by secular institutions in the east, mostly in the East Roman Empire but also within the Caliphate and its successor states (perhaps too much is made of the transmission of some of Aristotle's works to western Christendom from Cordoba by "Moorish Golden Age" apologists, but it did happen).

Its no coincidence that the Renaissance coincides with the fall of Constantinople, in the century before 1453 Northern Italy was flooded with East Roman teachers, artists etc. which refreshed the culture of Western Europe from the light in the east (this had been happening for some time, and the crusdes did lead to a revival in classical culture). Irish monks like monasteries across Christendom did their part in preserving much of the classical heritage, although this was incidental to their role in preserving Christian heritage. The church had filled the vacuum left by the fall of the Roman Empire in the West in education and as a sponsor of elite culture: by necessity it was the (almost sole) preserver of elite arts and education, and by extension classic texts.

In the late Western Empire there was antagonism between faiths, and this resulted in some Christian destruction of pagan temples. in Alexandria this seems to have included the Library there, a great crime against our classical heritage. Its foolish to construct a biased "Barbarian Christians took er books" argument if we overemphasise this event, but it did happen.

The church saved what it could, for itself in its role as educator and self appointed moral guardian. It did not "save classical civilisation" although it helped preserve some of it. Sometimes the church also corrupted or destroyed classical knowledge too. Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose describes the complex position of the church with regard to classical heritage despite being a work of fiction and a romance novel.

[Aexodus]

Looks like the selective outrage mob are beating their drums again. Post after post attacking Muslims, nothing about Richard II marrying a six-year-old or the host of other examples.

Does anyone consider Richard II’s moral example relevant today.

[Cyclops]

Does anyone consider Richard II’s moral example relevant today.

He's part of a lineage that stands at the head of the British state; his right to rule is Elizabeth II's right to rule. His heirs have claimed governorship of the Church of England, so its really a question about the moral fitness of the head of a religion. Surely moral fitness is not modified by faith, ethnicity or perceived race? that would racism or bigotry.

[Aexodus]

But Elizabeth II is not Richard II. What he did doesn’t stain the entire institution.

[PointOfViewGun]

But Elizabeth II is not Richard II. What he did doesn’t stain the entire institution.

What you claim Muhammad did, which is demonstrated to be false, does not stain Islam either.

[Aexodus]

It stains Muhammad as a religious figure in my eyes. And most Muslims would agree he did.

[PointOfViewGun]

It stains Muhammad as a religious figure in my eyes. And most Muslims would agree he did.

Nice moving of the goalpost there... Do you know for a fact that most Muslims believe that Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old or are you just assuming?

[TheLeft]

How about Edmund Tudor? He was the father of Henry VII and grandfather of Henry VIII. He married and consummated a relationship with a 12 year old girl, Lady Margaret Beaufort, while he was 33.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund...rl_of_Richmond

Does that mean that the grandfather of the first Supreme Head of English Church was a paedophile? Isn't that how this works? Or does this line of reasoning only apply to people with brown skin?

[Aexodus]

He would indeed be a paedophile today yes.

[TheLeft]

He would indeed be a paedophile today yes.

And yet the outrage from the far-right is zero. I wonder why that is?

It's almost as if Islamophobes are using this as a stick to try and hammer home their (ludicrous and bigoted) point while caring nothing about the actual issue of paedophilia. After all, doesn't the Patron Saint of all far-righters, St Tommy of Robinson not give a crap about white paedophiles, while exclusively concentrating on Asian men who've already been arrested & charged?

[PointOfViewGun]

Nice moving of the goalpost there... Do you know for a fact that most Muslims believe that Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old or are you just assuming?

He would indeed be a paedophile today yes.

I take it your implied response to my question is that you don't know but that you merely assume.

[Aexodus]

And yet the outrage from the far-right is zero. I wonder why that is?

Perhaps because none of those people are held up as moral examples to follow today.

Why the far-right? Are atheists far right?