Did the Catholic Church Create Europe?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think you are attributing to me the product of religion ; that has held back every advancement of society into modernity and science at every stage and step.

What you are saying is false. It shows an ignorance of history. The Catholic church was the curator of history and knowledge in the Middle Ages. It basically created Europe. Without the Catholic church Europe might still be a region of Vandals and Visigoths, living in mud huts.

Religion has its faults but your continual sweeping denunciation of it is no different than Lee's sweeping denunciation of "Christianity." It's an extreme view, and a damaging one. I think it's become a crutch for you. You are like a religion hating addict. So much so that you confuse healthy moral habits with religion. You confuse expecting people to honor their obligations with placing burdens on them. You confuse standards with legalism. You confuse lack of responsibility with freedom.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What you are saying is false. It shows an ignorance of history. The Catholic church was the curator of history and knowledge in the Middle Ages. It basically created Europe. Without the Catholic church Europe might still be a region of Vandals and Visigoths, living in mud huts.

Are you talking more about the aqueducts and roads they built throughout the Empire, or the telescope they bought for Galileo?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Are you talking more about the aqueducts and roads they built throughout the Empire, or the telescope they bought for Galileo?

I'm talking about civilization. Something Europe didn't know until the Catholic church brought it there. I'm taking about Augustine and Aquinas and the scholastics and the monks and the whole gamut of elements which added up to a society which could actually respond to the Renaissance Enlightenment when it came along.

People of Protestant ilk like to think everything before the Reformation was complete corruption. It wasn't. The popes got out of hand, but they also helped control greedy secular leaders. And an entire continent got Christianized. Europe is post-Christian now, but ironically it was not the Catholic church that brought that on. It was in part the seemingly endless religious wars between Protestants that so disgusted Europeans that they can't find a place in their hearts now for things Christian.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm talking about civilization. Something Europe didn't know until the Catholic church brought it there. I'm taking about Augustine and Aquinas and the scholastics and the monks and the whole gamut of elements which added up to a society which could actually respond to the Renaissance Enlightenment when it came along.

People of Protestant ilk like to think everything before the Reformation was complete corruption. It wasn't. The popes got out of hand, but they also helped control greedy secular leaders. And an entire continent got Christianized. Europe is post-Christian now, but ironically it was not the Catholic church that brought that on. It was in part the seemingly endless religious wars between Protestants that so disgusted Europeans that they can't find a place in their hearts now for things Christian.

Europe didn't know "civilisation" even after centuries of Roman rule?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Europe didn't know "civilisation" even after centuries of Roman rule?

Europe was controlled by the Empire, but not much civilized by it. When the Empire waned the region degraded into a collection of roaming, warring tribes: the Huns, Angles, Saxons, Slavs, Franks, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Goths, Vandals, etc. They comprise what we know as "the Dark Ages." Without the Christian monks there, all written literature from this period would have been lost from this area. These tribes simply weren't interested in preserving antiquity.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Europe was controlled by the Empire, but not much civilized by it. When the Empire waned the region degraded into a collection of roaming, warring tribes: the Huns, Angles, Saxons, Slavs, Franks, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Goths, Vandals, etc. They comprise what we know as "the Dark Ages." Without the Christian monks there, all written literature from this period would have been lost from this area. These tribes simply weren't interested in preserving antiquity.

Not sure the benefit of "preserving antiquity", when you're just gonna revise it after the fact anyway...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

People of Protestant ilk like to think everything before the Reformation was complete corruption. It wasn't. The popes got out of hand, but they also helped control greedy secular leaders. And an entire continent got Christianized. Europe is post-Christian now, but ironically it was not the Catholic church that brought that on. It was in part the seemingly endless religious wars between Protestants that so disgusted Europeans that they can't find a place in their hearts now for things Christian.

Rome did use the confessional to "control greedy secular leaders," and to further curtail their "greedy ways," extorted massive sums of money via blackmail from these leaders, since Rome and its thugs alone controlled the "gates to heaven." Not only did the papal empire deal with those "greedy leaders," they also dealt a serious blow to all those "greedy" peasants all over Europe. Rome felt it was better for them to starve to death, then to go to hell for the sins of "greed."

Fortunately for the continent of Europe, none of Rome's many bishops, priests, and monks were at all "greedy." No, of course not! And, by the way, how dare those young newly-married grooms be so "greedy," and not share their virgin brides with the local priests.

I could go on and on about how Rome has "properly" dealt with secular "greed," but I should move on to the subjects of medicine, engineering, astronomy, physics, agriculture, etc. which all went seriously backwards under Roman management. Then we can discuss how Europe got "Christianized" -- many were given the choice to be baptized in water or be drowned in water.

Seriously, Igzy which history books have you been reading?

[rayliotta]

Ahem, warning, contains no sugar...

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Rome did use the confessional to "control greedy secular leaders," and to further curtail their "greedy ways," extorted massive sums of money via blackmail from these leaders, since Rome and its thugs alone controlled the "gates to heaven." Not only did the papal empire deal with those "greedy leaders," they also dealt a serious blow to all those "greedy" peasants all over Europe. Rome felt it was better for them to starve to death, then to go to hell for the sins of "greed."

Fortunately for the continent of Europe, none of Rome's many bishops, priests, and monks were at all "greedy." No, of course not! And, by the way, how dare those young newly-married grooms be so "greedy," and not share their virgin brides with the local priests.

I could go on and on about how Rome has "properly" dealt with secular "greed," but I should move on to the subjects of medicine, engineering, astronomy, physics, agriculture, etc. which all went seriously backwards under Roman management. Then we can discuss how Europe got "Christianized" -- many were given the choice to be baptized in water or be drowned in water.

Seriously, Igzy which history books have you been reading?

I realize that there were some significant apostasies within the RCC in the form of wayward priests, and even a few popes, somewhat weighted near the times leading up to and not long after Luther, that were religious Pol Pots. But the practices of even the indulgences that Luther objected to was not some long-running scam, but a somewhat recent practice.

It surely was a dark time in which the RCC seemed to be rolling out its worst just as more of the people were becoming better able to grapple with scripture on their own. Not a whole lot, but more than had been.

I would suggest that if we can accept many of the changes that the RCC has made even in the past 30 year or so, they are taking on some of the practices and teachings that venture into what we would call evangelicalism. No, it is not a huge undertaking. And it has not ended the excessive reverence for — more like near to actual deification of — Mary. But leaving that one out, I think that we often miss what is actually right about them because the "look and feel" is so Apple in a PC world. It is liturgical and traditional in an evangelical, non-traditional world. (And we should look around to see that we just have more modern traditions. Even in the LRC.)

We had a little reticence toward the RCC a number of months ago. I recall realizing that salvation is not a prayer, or an agreement with a proposition. It is the acceptance that Jesus is God, and our sacrifice. In evangelicalism we are taught that this is something that you get convinced about, then pray a prayer and suddenly have this near-miraculous transformation from darkness to light. But it is also true that many following along in the older traditions learn, and follow, and obey, and as they do they begin to believe. First a little. Then a little more. Eventually, they can look back and realize that along the way they began to really believe in Jesus. No Baptist/Pentecostal/evangelical, etc., line-in-the-sand event. But a change from darkness to light.

I'm not excusing what is in error. But we often are too harsh on the RCC because they are not like us. Their tradition is more ancient, even Medieval while ours is modern and Western. We even think that everyone views the gospel in terms of American self-determinationism, capitalism, etc. But it is not true.

I know that your early history was in the RCC. If you had remained there for your whole life, I cannot assert that you would have been truly "saved." But there might be much more likelihood than even you could have believed at the time. You just might never think of it in the terms that Protestantism does. And our modernistic, Protestant views just do not want to accept that their way can result in salvation without sneaking out in some clandestine manner to a revival somewhere.

You should hear the screaming of part of my mind as I write this. The conflicts are tremendous. But I am starting to think that maybe all those old thoughts are just more ways to despise some of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

[Cal]

This is the thread to continue the discussion of the influence of the Catholic church on civilizing Europe.

[Cal]

Okay, let me clarify the context of my assertion. Harold had made the blanket statement that nothing good had ever came out of religion. Now, knowing Harold, his definition of religion is quite broad, probably encompassing everything Christian except each individual's personal walk with God, and probably some of that, too. In other words, what he would call religion probably includes some of what most Christians would consider the legitimate work of the church. In this case the preserving nature of being the salt of the earth. This was the context of my statement about the contributions of the Catholic era.

So I pointed out that European civilization owes a lot to the work of the Catholic church in preserving antiquity and well as medieval history and knowledge. There were simply very few record keepers during that time except those of the church.

Another service the church offered was cultural unification. Europe was a collection of various wandering tribes, who after the fall of the Roman Empire had regressed politically and culturally. Though not quite the barbarians of Conan myths, they still were not what we today would considered civilized for the time. The spread of Christianity in Europe via the Catholic church tamed these bands.

Keep in mind that for most intents and purposes the Catholic church was the only serious church representative on the earth from the 4th century until the 15th, at least until Eastern Orthodoxy became independent, roughly in the 11th. Everyone who considered themselves a Christian also considered themselves a Catholic. This continued in Western Europe until the Reformation.

It is inappropriate in this context to compare medieval culture and church to our present day standards. The question is, what would Europe had been like in 1500 if the Roman empire had fallen but the church had not stepped in to fill the void? Although we cannot know for sure, especially since the catalyst of Christianity helped spell Rome's doom, it's my belief that the extent of civilization seen in Europe in 1500 would have been highly unlikely.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Europe didn't know "civilisation" even after centuries of Roman rule?

I'm sorry, Roman rule and civilization? Kind of like Nero with his great real estate deal, or putting Christians on stakes and letting the cries and moans make your backyard party more festive?

You can define civilization as laws, and roads, and govt.

Or you can define a civilized society based on their morality and the way they treat the weakest among them.

So the HS history teachers like to teach about Rome and civilization, but what we consider to be civilized today is a far cry from what Rome practiced.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Europe was controlled by the Empire, but not much civilized by it. When the Empire waned the region degraded into a collection of roaming, warring tribes: the Huns, Angles, Saxons, Slavs, Franks, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Goths, Vandals, etc. They comprise what we know as "the Dark Ages." Without the Christian monks there, all written literature from this period would have been lost from this area. These tribes simply weren't interested in preserving antiquity.

And this is clearly what differentiates man from all other creatures on this planet. Sure, Whales have bigger brains, and many species have rudimentary communication, and primates have opposable thumbs. But man is the only creature with a dictionary and the only one that needs one. It is our written language that enables us to go to the moon and that defines our civilization. Without the written language it is doubtful we would have progressed much past a hunter/gather tribes and basic agricultural society of New Guinea. The written language defines your civilization. So, in that sense the monks did a wonderful job of preserving written language (as did other religious groups -- Islam had great libraries, etc.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Rome did use the confessional to "control greedy secular leaders," and to further curtail their "greedy ways," extorted massive sums of money via blackmail from these leaders, since Rome and its thugs alone controlled the "gates to heaven." Not only did the papal empire deal with those "greedy leaders," they also dealt a serious blow to all those "greedy" peasants all over Europe. Rome felt it was better for them to starve to death, then to go to hell for the sins of "greed."

Fortunately for the continent of Europe, none of Rome's many bishops, priests, and monks were at all "greedy." No, of course not! And, by the way, how dare those young newly-married grooms be so "greedy," and not share their virgin brides with the local priests.

I could go on and on about how Rome has "properly" dealt with secular "greed," but I should move on to the subjects of medicine, engineering, astronomy, physics, agriculture, etc. which all went seriously backwards under Roman management. Then we can discuss how Europe got "Christianized" -- many were given the choice to be baptized in water or be drowned in water.

Seriously, Igzy which history books have you been reading?

As sinful as the Catholic church was, they did two very important things. 1. They claimed that their authority was from the Apostles, which received it from Jesus. and 2. They justified their practices and teachings with the Bible.

By setting up the Bible and the apostles teaching as the source of their authority this laid the ground work for the truth to expose the darkness. So when people learned that Jesus, Peter and Paul condemned the practices of the Catholic church as sinful it was easier to overcome the darkness.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Okay, let me clarify the context of my assertion. Harold had made the blanket statement that nothing good had ever came out of religion. Now, knowing Harold, his definition of religion is quite broad, probably encompassing everything Christian except each individual's personal walk with God, and probably some of that, too. In other words, what he would call religion probably includes some of what most Christians would consider the legitimate work of the church. In this case the preserving nature of being the salt of the earth. This was the context of my statement about the contributions of the Catholic era.

So I pointed out that European civilization owes a lot to the work of the Catholic church in preserving antiquity and well as medieval history and knowledge. There were simply very few record keepers during that time except those of the church.

Another service the church offered was cultural unification. Europe was a collection of various wandering tribes, who after the fall of the Roman Empire had regressed politically and culturally. Though not quite the barbarians of Conan myths, they still were not what we today would considered civilized for the time. The spread of Christianity in Europe via the Catholic church tamed these bands.

Keep in mind that for most intents and purposes the Catholic church was the only serious church representative on the earth from the 4th century until the 15th, at least until Eastern Orthodoxy became independent, roughly in the 11th. Everyone who considered themselves a Christian also considered themselves a Catholic. This continued in Western Europe until the Reformation.

It is inappropriate in this context to compare medieval culture and church to our present day standards. The question is, what would Europe had been like in 1500 if the Roman empire had fallen but the church had not stepped in to fill the void? Although we cannot know for sure, especially since the catalyst of Christianity helped spell Rome's doom, it's my belief that the extent of civilization seen in Europe in 1500 would have been highly unlikely.

I was very impressed by Martin Luther's biography when he describes his visit to Rome. What hit me was that the corruption in Rome was a great shock to a priest from the outskirts.

When we read of the sins of the Catholic church, the Popes and some priests. We should realize that in the midst of this situation there was probably a very devout "silent" majority. Would Europe have been better off without the corruption of Rome? Probably. Was Europe better off for having the Catholic church in most towns, probably. Today are we better off that many writings from antiquity have been preserved by the Catholic church. Of course.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The question is, what would Europe had been like in 1500 if the Roman empire had fallen but the church had not stepped in to fill the void?

With the spread of Mohammedism, it probably was a good thing that Rome stirred up the woman and children to become Crusaders saving Jerusalem from the infidels. How good it was that Rome had so many scribes recording history according to Rome since their thugs burnt every one else's books. The only way we would know about those "heretic" Waldenses and Albigenses was by "reverse-editing" that vast Roman library they built. Since superstitions ran rampant, so also did diseases like the Bubonic plague. Rome also was good at converting all skilled tradesmen into sculptors of marble Mary and gargoyles to "protect" the masses. Who cares if the people dwelt in mud huts as long as their monasteries and convents had all the latest amenities....

While we are discussing the effects of misplaced religious zeal upon mankind, let's talk about another equally oppressive regime -- Islam. When was the last time that anyone in any of these Moslem countries did anything useful for humanity. All of their roads, buildings, refineries, hospitals, military, science, infrastructures, etc. were all designed and built by companies from post-Catholic "Christian" countries. The only true ingenuity these folks seem to have developed is blowing people up. They are simply ingenious when it comes to bombs ... such is the "fruit" of religion administered by dictators.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

As sinful as the Catholic church was, they did two very important things. 1. They claimed that their authority was from the Apostles, which received it from Jesus. and 2. They justified their practices and teachings with the Bible.

By setting up the Bible and the apostles teaching as the source of their authority this laid the ground work for the truth to expose the darkness. So when people learned that Jesus, Peter and Paul condemned the practices of the Catholic church as sinful it was easier to overcome the darkness.

Few things I kept from my Catholic upbringing --

1. Jesus is the Son of God
2. Jesus died and resurrected
3. The Bible is the word of God

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

It is inappropriate in this context to compare medieval culture and church to our present day standards. The question is, what would Europe had been like in 1500 if the Roman empire had fallen but the church had not stepped in to fill the void? Although we cannot know for sure, especially since the catalyst of Christianity helped spell Rome's doom, it's my belief that the extent of civilization seen in Europe in 1500 would have been highly unlikely.

But my point was/is : with all the religion, around the world today, and down thru the ages, and we're still today not civilized.

[awareness]

So the Catholic church civilized the world by being uncivilized. I like it. How quaint. Yea Catholic church....

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Keep in mind that for most intents and purposes the Catholic church was the only serious church representative on the earth from the 4th century until the 15th, at least until Eastern Orthodoxy became independent, roughly in the 11th. Everyone who considered themselves a Christian also considered themselves a Catholic. This continued in Western Europe until the Reformation.

It is inappropriate in this context to compare medieval culture and church to our present day standards. The question is, what would Europe had been like in 1500 if the Roman empire had fallen but the church had not stepped in to fill the void? Although we cannot know for sure, especially since the catalyst of Christianity helped spell Rome's doom, it's my belief that the extent of civilization seen in Europe in 1500 would have been highly unlikely.

Hello Igzy,

I understand what you are saying about Western Europe here, and I like your mention of the Eastern Orthodox Church. You are, however, failing to mention some very important moves of God that remained much more pure than Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. One such move of God was the inappropriately-named "Nestorian" Church, or, as it is sometimes called, "The Church of the East". "The Church of the East" flourished in incredibly difficult conditions from modern-day Iraq all the way to China. "The Church of the East" stopped attending the so-called "Ecumenical Councils" after the sham of a Council at Ephesus in 431 A.D. This preserved "The Church of the East" from the degrading influences of Mary-worship, praying to the "saints", and other idolatry that marks Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy to this very day. "The Church of the East" still exists today in modern-day Iraq and Iran. In fact, television and internet news shows periodically mention the persecution of Christians in Iraq or Iran. Usually (but not always) these are "Church of the East" Christians. The only large congregation of "The Church of the East" which I know about in the United States in located in Chicago, IL.

Another such move of God was the so-called "Celtic Church" which flourished in the lands of Ireland and Great Britan from the time of Saint Patrick until sometime in the 800's when Rome squashed it by turning the hearts of all the "Celtic" rulers away from the native "Celtic" Church. The "Celtic Church" also had monasteries, such as the famous one on the island of Iona off the coast of Scotland. The monastery on Iona had a very active scriptorium which copied and produced many highly important documents. The "Celtic Church" monasteries were a very important link in the preservation of the Scriptures and documents from classical antiquity. The "Celtic Church" monasteries also sent out missionaries who converted some of the most brutal people in Europe, such as the Picts in Scotland and the Anglo-Saxons in Northumbria.

Recently I read a book called The Russians' Secret by Peter Hoover and Serguei V. Petrov. This was an incredible book which gave details of many groups of Russian Christians who existed from around the year 1000 A.D. and who refused to become part of the Russian Orthodox Church. The stories of persecution and standing fast for the faith in this book are heart-breaking. Through it all, however, the testimony of the Lordship of Jesus Christ was maintained.

I would like to think that if the Roman Catholic Church had never come into being, or if it's influence had ended at some point during the barbarian invasions, missionaries from the various groups which I have mentioned would have come to barbarian Europe and they would have preached a much more pure Gospel than the one preached by "Saint" Augustine and Roman Catholicism. It is hard to say what Europe would look like today, but surely the terrible mixture of Church and State would never have happened to the degree that it did happen. Christians might be a minority in Europe today in this scenario, but a much more pure kind of Christianity would most likely be found. I dunno. I would like to believe that it would have happened this way.

Peace to you.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

But my point was/is : with all the religion, around the world today, and down thru the ages, and we're still today not civilized.

So what? The question is, how civilized would we be without it.

[Cal]

My original point is that "religion has never done anyone any good" is fairly useless statement. It's useless because it's circular. It assumes what it pretends to demonstrate. In other words, "religion" is always bad to the person who says it, but that person can never specifically define what constitutes "religion." They like to leave it open ended so that anything that fails to meet their fancy (and that's most everything) can be dismissed as "religion." So it's just a means of bashing. What's religion? Something that's bad. What's bad? Anything religious. That's basically the extent of the analysis.

It reminds me of the school kid who hangs out in the parking lot at school and sneers at all the athletes and band members and anyone who's actually attempting to accomplish anything. To him they are all "chumps." But really he's just trying justify his underachievement. Perpetual religion bashers do the same thing. Everyone's a "religious chump" but them. Only they are clear about how to do it right, but in the final analysis all they ever do is bash "religion."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So what? The question is, how civilized would we be without it.

The Catholic Church simply replaced one Roman dictator for another. Both persecuted and tortured believers.

Not that I have anything good to say about Roman motives, but at least under the Caesars, Math, Science, Medicine, and Engineering were promoted, and not viewed as threats to the power of the priests.

I believe all regions, absent the liberty of the Spirit, suppress the civilized world.

[zeek]

Christian historian Arnold Toynbee wrote:

[According to one theory] Christianity is, as it were, the egg, grub and chrysalis between butterfly and butterfly. Christianity is a transitional thing which bridges the gap between one civilization and another, and I confess that I myself held this rather patronizing view for many years. On this view you look at the historical function of the Christian Church in terms of the process of the reproduction of civilizations. Civilization is a species of being which seeks to reproduce itself, and Christianity has had a useful but a subordinate role in bringing two new secular civilizations to birth after the death of their predecessor. You find the ancient Graeco-Roman civilization in decline from the close of the second century after Christ onwards. And then after an interval you find --perhaps as early as the ninth century in Byzantium, and as early as the thirteenth century in the West in the person of the Stupor Mundi Frederick II-- a new secular civilization arising out of the ruins of its Graeco-Roman predecessor. And you look at the role of Christianity in the interval and conclude that Christianity is a kind of chrysalis which has held and preserved the hidden germs of life until these have been able to break out again into a new growth of secular civilization. That is an alternative view to the theory of Christianity being the destoyer of the ancient Graeco-Roman civilization; and, if one looks abroad through the history of civilizations, one can see other cases which seem to conform to the same pattern.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Catholic Church simply replaced one Roman dictator for another.

Your word "simply" is an oversimplification.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Catholic Church simply replaced one Roman dictator for another. Both persecuted and tortured believers.

Not that I have anything good to say about Roman motives, but at least under the Caesars, Math, Science, Medicine, and Engineering were promoted, and not viewed as threats to the power of the priests.

I believe all regions, absent the liberty of the Spirit, suppress the civilized world.

Whoa! I am all for science and math but lets be clear, it was clever mathematicians who created this entire market in derivative swaps, basically swindling US home owners out of their life savings. The idea that they couldn't forsee the collapse is a lie designed to help them make off with their loot. Hitler wanted to use medicine to design a master race and to exterminate the Jews. Science and engineering are giving us better and better ways to kill other people with nuclear weapons, drones, etc.

This is just like the Lord said in Genesis about guarding the way to the tree of life from fallen man. In the hands of a regenerated man these advances may truly be characterized as advances, but in the hand of a megalomaniac it is a scary thing.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My original point is that "religion has never done anyone any good" is fairly useless statement. It's useless because it's circular. It assumes what it pretends to demonstrate. In other words, "religion" is always bad to the person who says it, but that person can never specifically define what constitutes "religion." They like to leave it open ended so that anything that fails to meet their fancy (and that's most everything) can be dismissed as "religion." So it's just a means of bashing. What's religion? Something that's bad. What's bad? Anything religious. That's basically the extent of the analysis.

It reminds me of the school kid who hangs out in the parking lot at school and sneers at all the athletes and band members and anyone who's actually attempting to accomplish anything. To him they are all "chumps." But really he's just trying justify his underachievement. Perpetual religion bashers do the same thing. Everyone's a "religious chump" but them. Only they are clear about how to do it right, but in the final analysis all they ever do is bash "religion."

Speak it bro Igzy, loud and clear.

And you are right, religion is not to blame. It's human nature, the human condition, that is to blame. Religions, any of them, more often than acceptable, are a tool of human nature.

And human nature is uncivilized.

I have humming bird feeders out front. I get great joy in watching them. They don't want to share the feeders. The fight over them so much that they don't have time to feed at the feeders. They dive bomb each other, and one plants himself by the feeders to dive bomb on comers, trying to horde them all for himself.

It's in their nature. And it's in human nature too. And religion often is used to dive bomb on-comers ... as we see presently from the Muslim extremists ... that is just one example among many.

Just as we could say that religion (in general) has improved humankind, we could also say religion, and religious clashes, has been a curse upon humankind.

From what I've seen of religion in my life time it makes me wonder who, in their right mind, would ever want to be religious.

Maybe that's why there's such a falling away these days, from religion, in both America and Europe.

I recently read a study that, revealed Americans today don't trust clergy. No Duh. With all the examples coming out in the news, and even in more private venues, like here locally, about pastors in my nearby area, no one in their right mind would trust clergy. The clergy doesn't deserve trust. They've earn distrust. We have found that, they are nothing special. They are just as subject to human nature as the rest of us.

So it's not religion to blame bro Igzy. It the old reliable and most persistent human nature. We're monkeys with religion. And religiousless monkeys aren't as uncivilized as their human counterparts.

[Cal]

True, Harold, but unfortunately the Lord doesn't take "religion" or "human nature" as excuses. He expects us to act and do good works in the circumstances we are in. He's not going to be impressed by pleas of "the system was too religious for me to gain anything for you" or "I didn't fail, human nature did." He expects us to act positively for his kingdom, not just become experts on why things fail. The Lord understands our weaknesses better than anyone, but he's not going to accept failure as a ultimate result. Greater is the one in us than the one in the world.

[zeek]

When Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western civilization, he replied, "I think it would be a great idea."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

True, Harold, but unfortunately the Lord doesn't take "religion" or "human nature" as excuses. He expects us to act and do good works in the circumstances we are in. He's not going to be impressed by pleas of "the system was too religious for me to gain anything for you" or "I didn't fail, human nature did." He expects us to act positively for his kingdom, not just become experts on why things fail. The Lord understands our weaknesses better than anyone, but he's not going to accept failure as a ultimate result. Greater is the one in us than the one in the world.

Preach it brother, preach it....

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My original point is that "religion has never done anyone any good" is fairly useless statement. It's useless because it's circular. It assumes what it pretends to demonstrate. In other words, "religion" is always bad to the person who says it, but that person can never specifically define what constitutes "religion." They like to leave it open ended so that anything that fails to meet their fancy (and that's most everything) can be dismissed as "religion." So it's just a means of bashing. What's religion? Something that's bad. What's bad? Anything religious. That's basically the extent of the analysis.

It reminds me of the school kid who hangs out in the parking lot at school and sneers at all the athletes and band members and anyone who's actually attempting to accomplish anything. To him they are all "chumps." But really he's just trying justify his underachievement. Perpetual religion bashers do the same thing. Everyone's a "religious chump" but them. Only they are clear about how to do it right, but in the final analysis all they ever do is bash "religion."

Igzy, You have done it again!

Your words here have hit the nail right on the head.

As always always, it's a pleasure to come wherever you are and here your spirit.

Peace to all men,

Don Jr

[Cal]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Igzy, You have done it again!

Your words here have hit the nail right on the head.

As always always, it's a pleasure to come wherever you are and here your spirit.

Peace to all men,

Don Jr

Thanks, Don. I'm glad someone thinks I'm on the right track.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Thanks, Don. I'm glad someone thinks I'm on the right track.

I agree with the gist of your argument and offer two additional items for consideration:

1. The greatest contributions of the RC was their ability to unify warring tribes for extended periods of time i.e. governance, the preservation of literature, development of diplomacy protocols and procedures and their patronage of the arts esp during the Renessiance.

2. Although it has become fashionable to describe Europe as post-Christian I prefer to make a distinction i.e. Europe is culturally Christian to such an extent that it pervades their mentality, decision-making, etc. perhaps even unconsciously at this point and yet many are not "practicing" Christians except notably during holidays and for occasions such as funerals, memorials, etc. In short I don't think there is a wholesale rejection of "Christianity" in Europe and a country like Turkey found this out when they tried to join the EU.