If so little is known about Celtic religion, I wonder how much is known about Celtic spirituality? — Apollodorus

Because it is not that limited. Jack Cummins presents a more universal understanding of spiritualism and social organization before the Father in Heaven replaced the mother. He speaks the shaman cultures that do not separate us from the creator and life force, as the God of Abraham religions hold us separate from God and our mother earth life force. It is not just the Celts but just about everyone before Zeus swallowed Metis, Athena's mother and goddess of wisdom.

Zeus and Metis is the story of patriarchy consuming matriarchies and the story of Cain and Able is about the transition from herding to farming.

Apparently, pre-Christian Iron Age Celtic social structure was based on class and kingship: — Apollodorus

That is an excellent point. The old world order was family order and from there the position of the father and the mother really matters! Is the woman an equal or under the male head of the household? We used to be very sensitive to goddesses representing the life force and wisdom and Justice and Liberty. Athena is the goddess of Liberty and Justice as in the Statue of Liberty who holds a torch and a book, the symbols of enlightenment, and the Lady of Justice who holds a scale and sword. But our liberation of women has not carried the spirit of America, an icon that goes with Liberty and Justice. Under our Father in heaven, liberation has meant to be as a man, not to be as a mother! I need to shade the meaning of what I am saying. Rome is about power and glory, it is not about the mother and liberty.

The Christian Kingdom and the empire of Rome became one and the same thing and the Celts said they do not only enslave others but also themselves. That is required for power and glory and that is not what the early Greeks had nor what the Celts had. Rome gave the family power and glory but this is not liberty, and Jewish consciousness began transforming from nomads who shared the land equally, to farmers with the man in the house the representative of God, owning the family plot and slaves. The is not how the mother orders life. This is not just a dis on men, but it totally changes our understanding of life and how we organize ourselves. Do we live in fear of God organized by a hierarchy of authority and power, or do we live with the spirit of freedom and liberty and rejoicing in our individual power and glory?

The public merely observes. Swallowing everything that is served swallow-ready, without chewing, unconsciously digesting only. Who serves? — Thunderballs

That is a very interesting comment. Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking. Slow thinking takes a lot of energy and our brains like to conserve energy so most of the time we follow our feelings and are not actually thinking. That is so true for politics! We vote for our team because it is our team.

The word 'fact' is often used throughout the English speaking world. Some philosophers believe that nouns like 'fact' have an exact meaning. I'm not sure what could be the exact meaning of fact. :confused: — Wheatley

Words are a problem and that makes logic a problem and sometimes we have to just go with the flow. I will settle for the idea that a fact is about 3-dimensional reality and it is something that can be proven true. That means a lot of things we argue about are not factual but opinion and perspective and that everything goes better when we keep that in mind.

I hate riding in the car with two kids in the back seat intensely arguing about something that does not matter and how ridiculous this is when it is possible to get the facts and end the argument but no one really cares about the facts, they just want to win the argument. They are not even aware that there is no substance to their argument.

know that you are definitely not trying to make a case for Christianity or Catholicism, but I come from the perspective of having been socialised within these traditions. The secular and institutionalized aspects have such implications stemming from the masses and the hierarchy of the Church. It is extremely authoritarian and this applies to other mainstream religions, especially the Islamic religion.

I think that this leads to people often exploring alternatives ranging from people simply rejecting all forms of religion or spirituality, to looking for alternatives within other cultures. Of course, it is possible to end up seeing them in an idealistic way which may be so different from the experiences of the people living in the midst of such systems of ideas. But, one aspect which I believe that it is important in all free spirited approaches is the emphasis on personal experience of the numinous.

This can occur within the context of any cultural context but it often follows a more shamanic conception of experience, which is about the experiences of the lower and upper realms of consciousness, with a view to the enhanced individual experiences and insights for culture. I believe that idea systems within the Native American, Celtic and other systems adopt more of a shamanic model, with more of an emphasis on transforming this life as opposed to the way in which mainstream religions often present rigid dogmas and doctrines concerning salvation and ideas of a reward in a life after this one. — Jack Cummins

I find you so amazing because although we don't really know each other, you seem to pick up on exactly what I want to talk about and say it better than I do. That socialization and what it does to us!

"It is extremely authoritarian and this applies to other mainstream religions", :scream: And so is the military and the labour intense industry from the beginning of the industrial age, and the New World Order, and Billy Graham doing a Christmas show telling us in the US that God wants us to send our son's and daughter's into the war that should not have happened. A war supported by the Christian right. The world is gearing up to have a serious conflict over the control of world resources and trade routes. My spirit is greatly disturbed by our like of concern for the mother and all else but our material spirations. And than there is this matter of liberty. What does that feel like?

"This can occur within the context of any cultural context but it often follows a more shamanic conception of experience, which is about the experiences of the lower and upper realms of consciousness, with a view to the enhanced individual experiences and insights for culture" You touched my soul and I could not have said that better.

But my point is that one cannot choose to become a member of those cultures and spiritualities mentioned in the OP. One can read books about those cultures and spiritualities, and think "Oh, how cool, I'd like to be like that as well", but that has no bearing on whether one will actually be accepted as a member into those cultures (and some of them are gone anyway). A such, one can never properly conduct their spiritual practices or make sense of the world they do. — baker

Thank you for drawing out the meaning I wanted this thread to have. You kind of hit a nerve by "that has no bearing on whether one will actually be accepted as a member into those cultures". :groan: Can we get beyond being accepted or not, a very serious Jewish, Christian, Muslim, concern and get in touch with our feelings? Mother earth gave me life and she will receive me when I die, no matter what I believe or do, and that has cultural and political ramifications. How much can we control people who do not fear being rejected or punished by a Father?

Edit - this should be in the 'God 'n that' category which I usually have switched off to avoid this very response (but it's done now). — Isaac

Thank you for your concern but my take on this is more cultural/political. Some of the other post will bring that out. I really don't want this to be another God does/doesn't exist thread nor do I want it to be about Jesus. However, about the kingdom. :brow: Why are people in a democracy talking about a kingdom instead of principles of democracy and how did it feelto be a Celt or Native American before Rome and kingdom spread?

If the Greeks and Romans were “patriarchal” and “worse than the Celts”, why object to Christianity closing down Greek and Roman temples and “destroying” their culture? Should we not welcome it instead? — Apollodorus

Huh? Our Father who art in heaven is very Roman.

Christianity is very Roman and Roman was very and materialistic. Roman was also every institutional and the Celts said something to the effect, they not only enslave others but also themselves. I am starting a new thread to discuss Roman Christianity versus spirituality. The Greeks and Celtic people were more spiritual than Rome. The power and glory of Rome was morally inferior unless you like war and destroying our planet. The God of David is a war God from a time when people believed, the people with the strongest god, won the war. The story of Constantine converting Rome to Christianity begins with a war and his vision of God and the Christian Right continues to worship this God. Hegel claimed the state is God. That is Protestant nationalism and it has consumed the US, and Islam also became very bad when it connected with Nietzsche and Hegel.

I offer the Minoan for another possibility.

Minoan religion apparently focused on female deities, with women officiants.[67] While historians and archaeologists have long been skeptical of an outright matriarchy, the predominance of female figures in authoritative roles over male ones seems to indicate that Minoan society was matriarchal, and among the most well-supported examples known. — Wikipedia

You have not commented on God saying his people are not to be slaves and then flipping this to
"Ephesians 6:5-8 Paul states, “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” which is Paul instructing slaves to obey their master." This is very significant. The Bible is not a revealed work of God but the work of men, as are all holy books.

Here is another very offence passage good for the Taliban but it is from the Bible.
"Timothy 2:11, Women should learn in silence and all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men; they must keep quiet. This passage seems to limit the role of women as subordinates to men." That is pretty oppressive don't you think?

Perhaps we could look at our argument in a new way? How were European Christians educated? What was deemed important in their education?

It was not because of the Koran either. — Apollodorus

? I think it was because of the Koran. I do not know why you feel a need to keep slamming Islam instead of the conditions that lead to human behavior. The commandments of the Koran did lead to collecting books and their control of the Silk Road brought the books and the technology of making paper and block printing into Europe. While Christians monks were bleaching these very valuable books to write their own idea of what was important at the time. Don't you get if you keep slamming Muslims, I will slam Christians? Christians experienced a dark age as Muslims in remote areas are going through a dark age of ignorance.

Introduction
Islam provided great impetus for the human pursuit of knowledge. The first verse that descended on the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) Was Iqra, meaning "read,” opening the door to read, write, and ponder. The Quran urges the mankind to think, ponder, reflect and acquire knowledge that would bring them closer to God and his creation. The Quran uses repetition to embed certain key concepts in the consciousness of its listeners. Allah (God) and Rab (the Sustainer) are repeated 2,800 and 950 times, respectively, in the sacred text; Ilm (knowledge) comes third with 750 mentions.

The prophet Muhammad (SAW) commanded knowledge upon all Muslims, and urged them to seek knowledge as far they could reach, and also to seek it all times. Ali ibn Abu Talib, 4th Caliph (may Allah be pleased with him), once said, "I would be slave of a person who teaches me a letter" accentuating the importance of knowledge. Following these commands and traditions, Muslim rulers insisted that every Muslim acquire learning and they gave considerable support to institution and learning in general. This contributed to making elementary education almost universal amongst Muslims. — University Nebraska

At the time of the invasions, Persia and the Eastern Roman Empire (to which Syria and Egypt belonged) had the most advanced civilization in the region. They were NOT in the Stone Age! — Apollodorus

For sure that region had been civilized for thousands of years and the Christians outside of that civilized area did not have the benefit of it. Their belief that they were superior to all others, and God willed them to be all-powerful was just wrong. And boy, were the Christian Crusaders shocked when they saw civilizations far more advanced they were! It caused the Church quite a problem when the Crusaders came home with stories of people who were much more advanced than them and more knowledgeable than them. That must have been very confusing considering they saw themselves as God's favorite people and believed they were the superior people God chose to rule the earth. A belief they still have today. But back in the day, the Church wisely responded by paying attention to the classics and then beginning to educate the people. Scholasticism started by the Catholic Church was essential to pulling Christians out of the dark ages and that progress was because of the Greek and Roman classics, not because of the Bible.

The Egyptian city of Alexandria had been founded by Alexander in 331 BC and had been a leading intellectual center ever since. — Apollodorus

The stories vary on the account of who destroyed the library in Alexandria. We know for a fact, Christians destroyed other people's holy places and made them Christian holy places. The Muslims came along and did the same thing, and this insanity continues to this day as Muslims and Jews fight for the holy city of Jerusalem. And Zionist Christians are very much a part of this problem and the injustice done to the Palestinians. You may not be a Zionist Christians but trying to convince me that Christians are better than Muslims goes against my own experience with Christians and Muslims.

Here is an interesting comment about those Crusaders who did not have the benefits of ancient civilizations.

Indeed, Christian holy wars such as these bear a striking resemblance—and, no doubt, owe at least some of their existence—to the Moslem custom of the jihad, which by then had become a very successful Islamic institution. By translating the notion of a "holy warrior" into Christian terms, a succession of medieval popes and churchmen created the crusader, a "knight for Christ." — Mark Damen

Today's Muslim fighters in Afghanistan are not the civilized people but the ones with nothing, who have distorted the meaning of jihad and have nothing else to make them feel important other than being holy warriors. As I have been trying to bring out, the cause of the behavior is not exactly religion, but circumstances and there is really not a significant difference between how human Muslims and human Christians behave. Humans do what humans do and it is circumstances that lead to the behaviors.

The most advanced medical tradition at the time was that of the Greeks, and the Muslim Arabs acquired knowledge of it from Alexandria. — Apollodorus

The most advanced medical tradition at the time was that of the Greeks, and the Muslim Arabs acquired knowledge of it from Alexandria. — Apollodorus

Yes, and unfortunately the Church went through stages, like some Muslims and Christians today, where the people in leadership think that all people need to know is their holy book and they ignore or destroy everything else. It is a fight for power and control. Like a male lion killing all the lioness cubs if they are not his. We were not made by a God. We were made by nature.

In ancient times people had their patron god or goddess and I don't think our intelligence would have advanced if people didn't have many different perspectives because they believed in many gods. From the day of there being only one god, the grounds for a dark age began. Jews, Christians, and Moslems who think their holy book can be the only thing they need to read, and believing their holy book is the best explanation of reality, are all equally wrong. That was true thousands of years ago and it is true today. I can accept a notion of God as a universal God who is not in conflict with science and nature but that is not the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham is a tribal God, and that makes the God of Christians and Muslims, a tribal God. When Christians deified Jesus, that made the problem even worse because that becomes the least abstract God. All the religions opposed worshiping images and Muslims get around this by making their images patterns. Christians however use images to tell their story. We can see God and Satan and demons. Maybe starting a thread about what is wrong with that would be a good idea.

The Church was the largest landowner in Europe. The estates held by bishops and monasteries began to develop more productive management techniques, started selling their products for cash, and became the largest lenders, thus driving the emergence of capitalism. There were also many private banks, all approved by the Vatican. — Apollodorus

That is perhaps another worthy thread, but even less philosophical than this one. However, like a college debate, I would choose to take the Muslim side, so we are not left with only what we know about Christians, and therefore, a possibly false belief that they superior. Of course, your side of the story can include the church and slavery, right? Should there be an explanation of why Rome had slaves and serfs and how Christian wealth including the wealth of the church, was built with slaves and serfs? The Church was the largest landholder at a time when God changed his mind about his people not being slaves, to He wants them to honor Him by good slaves. And lets us talk about banking with knowledge of Babylon, Jews, Christians, and Islam in a thread for that purpose.

Similarly, Venice, which was under the rule of the Greek East, became a leader of Europe’s commercial economy, developing into a city-state and later republic, before being overtaken by Christian Portugal and Spain which had liberated themselves from Islamic rule. — Apollodorus

The rule book for the people of Venice, was Roman law, not the Bible. That is important because the rules for cities based on trade were totally different from the rural estates with serfs that defined most of Europe. We have a lot to discuss but this is enough for today.

But for some strange reason, in the popular history or mythology of the post-war era the Eastern Roman Empire never existed! — Apollodorus

Yes, I have noticed that. I think it is done to give legal status or authorization to the government and their religion. That legitimacy is weakened by a division in the religion. Considering how divided Christianity is, it is amazing it remains strong but it is mostly Protestants who make our government legitimate and control our national story. It is not in their best interest to include an explanation of Orthodox Christianity and its connection with serfdom. In Russia serfdom wasn't ended until 1861. There is a lot to the Christian story that Christians do not want to remember.

This is why I think it is important to keep history separate from politics and politically-influenced cultural trends. Otherwise, the terminology used by historians can be misused as a political or cultural weapon that actually distorts history.

I believe the opposite. I think history is very important. All people tell a story about themselves, but they all clean up their story. When people share the same land but tell different stories of history, there is conflict. If Israel and Palestine taught their children the same history, it would reduce conflict. If the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants told the same history of the US as the many people of color and Native Americans, it would be a whole different understanding of reality and we seem to be working on that now.

There may have been a “Golden Age of Islam” but this refers to a period within the history of Islam. It should not be read to mean that the rest of the world was in darkness.

. But it was in darkness. The Christians in Rome made that so when they destroyed pagan temples. To be fair the Christians were fighting against each other as much as they fought against non-Christians. It was a fight for power and control and the Roman Catholic Church won. That same fight separated Orthodox Christians in the east from Christians in the west. That fight did turn out the lights in the West. It cut the west off from thousands of years of civilized development and knowledge. That is why the renascence is a generation of knowledge.

The same goes for the European “Dark Ages”. As used by Petrarch who introduced it, the idea referred to certain aspects of cultural development in Western Europe as compared to the Classical era, not to Islam.

I do not understand that argument? The Koran tells people to educate themselves and when they were trading and enjoying a golden age, it was very much a Muslim goal to collect books and be educated. That was not at all true in Europe. Christianity still stands against science and seems to promote ignorance with a Republican argument about the literate elite not being with the people, and the 2012 Texas Republican agenda being to prevent education for higher-order thinking, and their fight to have creationism taught as science. The Bible begins with a story of God cursing humans because of their desire for knowledge and Christians have much to say about that. And as I said before, if it were not for pagan knowledge moving Europe toward science and the modern age, we would still be throwing our sewage out the window and wallowing in our filth and ignorance. Talk about distorted history. The belief that it is Christianity that got us to where we are today just isn't right. And even today, churches are telling their people not to wear masks or to get vaccinated. Yeah, just throw your sewage out the window and burn people as witches if the well is polluted and causing people to die. The old testament has rules for cleanliness and Christians not only ignored them but persecuted Jews.

It was never meant to compare Christian Europe with the Islamic world. It must have been after WWII, when it was fashionable to denigrate European history and culture, and above all, Christianity, that the trend emerged to contrast a “European Dark Age” with an “Islamic Golden Age”.

Huh? The facts are not the facts but only denigrate European history? That makes no sense to me.

The name of the period refers to the movement of so-called barbarian peoples—including the Huns, Goths, Vandals, Bulgars, Alani, Suebi, and Franks—into what had been the Western Roman Empire. The term “Dark Ages” is now rarely used by historians because of the value judgment it implies.

- Encyclopedia Britannica

In addition to the value judgment, the term is also based on a number of historical inaccuracies and falsehoods. In reality, Europe experienced a high degree of sophistication and, especially, technological development at this time.

Developing technology is not equal to understanding science. For thousands of years, civilizations developed technology. That does not become science until the right questions are asked, and that began in Athens. Science is investigated but technology is created and science conflicts with Christianity. Technology does not conflict with Christianity, but without science the development of technology is retarded and without science, people are living in the dark. This is a big problem when people are afraid of science and the lies of Satan.

[/quote]Also, we need to remember that the “Islamic Golden Age” would not have taken place without the Greek and Roman culture preserved by the Greek East which was Christian.[/quote]

For exactly the same reason Christians would still be in the dark ages if it were not for renasaunce.

{quote]IMHO the claim A, that “Christianity destroyed Greek and Roman culture” is contradicted by the fact B, that the Muslim Arabs got their knowledge of Classical science, medicine, philosophy, etc. from Christian Europe![/quote] ? You are neglecting history.

As to the Celts, their religion reportedly involved human sacrifice:

So did the Hebrews leading to the story of God telling someone to kill his son and then saying not to do. And Jesus is a human sacrifice is he not? Why people believe this human sacrifice was necessary is beyond me. There is no science in that notion.

According to Roman sources, Celtic Druids engaged extensively in human sacrifice. According to Julius Caesar, the slaves and dependents of Gauls of rank would be burnt along with the body of their master as part of his funerary rites. He also describes how they built wicker figures that were filled with living humans and then burned.

Human sacrifice - Wikipedia

And it would be useful if you had some sources for "Christians starving Celts to death" as personally I am not aware of any ....[/quote]

I have to run but real quick, what you said of the Celts does not change the fact that they had better morals than the Romans and the world is still fighting over this moral issue, especially the Muslims and US Christians.

Yep; that's exactly why empiricism tries to militarise the term, as can be seen in this thread. Athena may have. a desire to take advantage of that process in her discussions with her nephew. Denying a distinction between belief and truth might look like a good move, but it plays into the hands of those who would peddle bullshit; identifying bullshit relies on identifying a difference between what is true and what someone believes. — Banno

To be clear, that is an opinion, not a fact. And in the good old days, we called talking about others gossip.

This thread has really deteriorated. I would love to clean it up by deleting the personal attacks that should never become part of a thread or just close it to stop the bad behavior.

He thinks he is, yes. I happen to disagree, often. He looks at history with Walt Disney's eyes, searching for vilains and heroes. — Olivier5

This thread is not about him and it should be against the rules to derail threads by making the topic the person who made a post. If anyone wants to make personal comments, please send me a personal message and when posting in the thread, please stay on topic.

I don't think complicated historical events can be broken down into monolithic stages like this. Metaphysical mutations don't seem like good explanations for historical events, IMO. The material basis (like advancements in trade technology) is what drives events; ideological changes are an effect, not the cause. It doesn't make any sense to me that one region of the planet progressed simply because the inhabitants started believing in something different. It just seems more like mythology than history. — darthbarracuda

I want to bring this post in play because I agree with it.

https://www.google.com/search?q=countries+surrounding+afghanistan&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&sxsrf=AOaemvKStUpx_tH7CK5ZZ7NRxKrvbbnoqQ:1631714083731&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=EJNHhDRYoVHDHM%252CXMbzPN4GBml2lM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSP-vxUoxiGbyeXoFpeVLzwU2Yw3Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWodfSkIHzAhVhCjQIHY-SAeIQ9QF6BAgHEAE#imgrc=EJNHhDRYoVHDHM

Look at the countries around Afghanistan. Which ones is the US friendly with? Do you suppose the US failed because it has absolutely no interest in those countries succeeding? What would trade agreements with those countries look like? Afghanistan is land locked so how is it going to trade with the rest of the world? And darthbarracuda, might you tell us what can be expected if there is no trade because you may understand this better than I do.

Indeed. Apo has a strong bias in favour of Christianity and against Islam. It colors everything he says about history. He's basically a Christian apologetic.
7 hours ago — Olivier5

He is very well informed and makes good arguments and he really makes me think. There is a thread about what we want from philosophy and he gives me everything I want. I just worry about offending him. We all feel passionate about something and it is really hard when someone is attacking what we feel passionate about. I would settle for some Christians have done wonderful things, and some Muslims have done wonderful things, and most people mean well. However, the success of a nation is about resources, climate, and trading.

One other point I want to make is, our efforts in Afghanistan may have succeeded if we had built on Islam. It is just as good for democracy as Christianity is. When everything is made legitimate with a belief in a God it goes much better. That is what people will fight for.

↪Athena And good science depends on good observation. — Olivier5

No, we must NOT stop at observation. For so many reasons we can be totally wrong and the link I posted is an excellent explanation of that. Please, pay attention to the explanation of fast and slow thinking before making another argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqXVAo7dVRU

The Greek East itself, whose Christian rulers provided the Muslims with all the medical, scientific and philosophical corpus of the Classical (Greek and Roman) tradition, was under extreme external pressure. It had already become greatly weakened as a result of endless wars with Persia and lost two important provinces, Syria and Egypt, to the Muslim Arabs early on. In addition to being under constant attack from Arabs, Slavs, Bulgars, Germanic and other tribes, the East was infamously attacked by the West. — Apollodorus

That seems like a distorted history to me. Christians destroyed the pagan temples that were places for studying math and medicine and they clung to Jesus's word that we do not have to wash our hands or follow the laws practiced in Judism that were based on experience and health issues. A problem for the Jews, was an incomplete understanding of the science of sanitation and avoiding food poisoning. Moses took his people through a desert where burying human waste was a good health practice, but in a wetter Juresalem, it meant contaminating the water supply and lead to spreading disease and death. At the same time, Christians picked up the eastern notion of demons and demons possessing us and making us sick and that lead to returning to superstition and an inferior understanding of health issue that the Greek medicine. Come on, Christian Europeans dumped their waste in the streets, and burned Jews as witches because they were using herbs for healing, and when plagues came they really persecuted Jews, because the Christians had a very superstitious notion of disease, and to this day some of them are rejecting science and refuse to wear masks or to get vacinated while they pray to Jesus to protect them.

If Evanical Christians and Texas Republicans were not so anti science and anti education for indepentent thinking, I would not care so much about how the religion effects our lives. But there is also knowing how Christians displacing all the indignous people in their path. Not even converting to Christianity saved some of these people, and certianly not people with dark skin who the Bible said were cursed by God and justified their slavery. Please, can we get away from religion? The subject has been very damaging to my friendships with Christians. I am so torn between keeping friends and everything thing I think is very important like liberty and justice and what truth has to do with all our understanding of the world and our decisions, such as occupying Aghanstan with a complete disrespect of Islam and totally failing to help them achieve a strong and united nation. What we did was wrong and we seriously need to give up the notion that we are superior. Our superiority is only temporary as civilizations rise and fall. Our democracy and the search for truth was supposed to avoid the pit falls of previous civilizations, but instead of this making us stronger, it has us pitted against each other as strongly as Sunni and Shia Muslims and the Taliban are pitted against each other. I stand for democracy and that necessrialy is a stand against religion. God did not reveal knowledge of health and good government. Both were the result of human beings trying to figure things out.

Well, the reason I am using history to make a point is that you cannot philosophize about a topic that involves historical events without first establishing what the historical facts are.

History is largely open to interpretation of historical evidence and it can become subject to misinterpretation and distortion.

The idea of “European Dark Ages” is a case in point. Precisely because it is often used to denigrate European or Western history and culture, it is necessary to see what the truth of it is.

The first thing that becomes obvious is that there is a curious tendency among present-day Westerners to forget that the Roman Empire in the 300’s AD was split in two halves: the Eastern part centered on Constantinople (Greece) and controlled by the Greeks, and the Western part centered on Rome (Italy) and controlled by Romans.

Equally forgotten (or deliberately ignored?) is the fact that the Eastern part lasted for more than a millennium and largely preserved the Greek and Roman culture of the original Roman Empire, including the civic structures, public baths, forums, monuments, and aqueducts of pre-Christian Rome in working condition.

In contrast, the Western part from the 400’s onwards was overrun by Germanic tribes, disintegrated into many separate kingdoms, and lost much of its Greek and Roman heritage.

The second thing that becomes evident from this is that if there was anything like a “Dark Ages”, it was a) in the Western half of the Empire only and b) it was not the result of Christian rule but the result of rule by Germanic warriors who were among the greatest fighters Europe had ever seen, but had no advanced culture and no knowledge or experience of running an empire based on urban civilization.

Meantime, the so-called “Golden Age of Islam” came about in Muslim-dominated Persia, through the cultural fusion of mostly Greek and Persian traditions.

For example, all the Greek medical works available to the Muslim rulers of Persia were obtained from the Christian Eastern Roman Empire and translated into Arabic by Christian scholars like Hunayn ibn Ishaq:

Various translations of some works and compilations of ancient medical texts are known from the 7th century. Hunayn ibn Ishaq, the leader of a team of translators at the House of Wisdom in Baghdad played a key role with regard to the translation of the entire known corpus of classical medical literature. Caliph Al-Ma'mun had sent envoys to the Byzantine emperor Theophilos, asking him to provide whatever classical texts he had available. Thus, the great medical texts of Hippocrates and Galen were translated into Arabian, as well as works of Pythagoras, Akron of Agrigent, Democritus, Polybos, Diogenes of Apollonia, medical works attributed to Plato, Aristotle, Mnesitheus of Athens, Xenocrates, Pedanius Dioscorides, Kriton, Soranus of Ephesus, Archigenes, Antyllus, Rufus of Ephesus were translated from the original texts.

Medicine in the medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia

Moreover, this cultural fusion had already started in pre-Islamic times in urban centers like Harran, Ctesiphon, Gundeshapur, Bishapur and Nishapur, where Christian, Sabian, Zoroastrian, Pagan, Buddhist, and other scholars cooperated in the advancement of learning.

So, the Muslim rulers merely continued what the Persians, Greeks and others had already started centuries before, and only after they were forced to do so by the Persian-Arab revolution of 751 that put the Abbasids in charge. At the same time, the Muslim Arab conquests cut off Europe’s links with Asia, arguably imposing a period of relative isolation on the whole continent. The Greek East had established contact with Persia and India, sending emissaries to China to obtain silk worms for the production of silk in the 500’s. Now all trade with India and the Far East had to be conducted through Muslim-controlled lands.

The Greek East itself, whose Christian rulers provided the Muslims with all the medical, scientific and philosophical corpus of the Classical (Greek and Roman) tradition, was under extreme external pressure. It had already become greatly weakened as a result of endless wars with Persia and lost two important provinces, Syria and Egypt, to the Muslim Arabs early on. In addition to being under constant attack from Arabs, Slavs, Bulgars, Germanic and other tribes, the East was infamously attacked by the West.

The Western attack on the Greek East happened as follows. On becoming Pope in 1198, Innocent III called for a Crusade to liberate the Holy Land from Muslim occupation. Unlike in the previous Crusade when the kings of England, Germany and France had personally led the armies, the new call to arms was answered by French and Venetian knights and barons. En route, a plan was hatched to reinstate Eastern Emperor Alexios Angelos (who had been deposed) in return for financial and military assistance in the campaign against the Muslims.

The Greeks rejected the new emperor and the plan ended with the Crusader army in 1204 attacking, conquering, plundering, burning down, and largely destroying Constantinople, with priceless works of art being lost in the process, and many of its citizens slaughtered. The Crusade against Islam turned into a Crusade against Christians and the Pope himself called it “the work of darkness”. The Greeks finally recaptured their capital in 1261 but their empire never recovered.

Fourth Crusade - Wikipedia

We can see why, in these circumstances, Christian Europe at the time was unable to produce a Golden Age of its own. The causes of this were not religious but political. Europe was cut off from the rest of the world by Muslim states in North Africa and the Mid East. The West was too divided and caught up in internal conflict. The East was forced to defend itself against external attacks and gradually lost all its territories to finally fall to the Turks in 1453.

So, I think it is critical to maintain a balance and some degree of objectivity when dealing with historical events that are at the center of the discussion.

Besides, if we are saying that “Islam saved us from the Dark Ages”, then on what basis can we tell the Taliban that they are wrong to enforce Islam in their own country? IMO the “Dark Ages Theory” tends to undermine the Western claim that we can “enlighten” or “civilize” the Islamic world and seems to be the wrong strategy. — Apollodorus

Your account of history is not the same as mine and I rather we stay on good terms than be right about a different account of history. But I think there are somethings we need to consider that are releviant to today and Aghanistans chances of surviving.

All advanced nations are dealing with a barbarian invasion today. In the past, some of those invaders were Christian, just not the same Christianity as Rome had settled on. You know the fight over if Jesus was God or the son of god and when a person must be baptized, etc..

Many of those invading barbarians were people fleeing the Huns or disease, and they did not move in to fight with Rome, but as in the US they were just trying to survive, and some were treated very badly, leaving them to starve to death and to a buffer against violant invaders.

The Celts were not insane and violent people but they did not have a centralized government. Instead, they were spread out and had an amazing road system connecting them. An argument can be made for them being morally superior to Romans because of how they cared for the young, injured, and elderly. And the Romans were chasing after tin the mineral resources held by Celts and others.

After the Romans
Celtic Britain was a valuable asset to Rome, producing significant amounts of grain and beef to feed the military. Its mineral reserves, especially iron, lead, tin, gold and copper, were also successfully exploited.Aug 18, 2020
The Celts in Britain: everything you need to know - History Extra — Historyextra

Constantine moved east because the silver and gold mines of the west were depleted and there was a huge gold mine in the east. Constantinople was closer to the gold and easier to defend and Rome in the west was bankrupt and hard to defend. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/currency-and-the-collapse-of-the-roman-empire/ Rome in Italy had been the center of world trade until its supply of silver and gold was exhausted. And here is Constantinope as the center of trade routs. https://www.google.com/search?q=constantinople+trade+routes&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&sxsrf=AOaemvJK8ZM_-CAGs9tDY31ZpiZ27iYaRw:1631634801596&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=MR5YwuA3bIXkbM%252CirPXjD8s2xW4BM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kSouV1aKEJhWJtTpCX5ZsW-jeQX3g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjz9oGm6f7yAhXMxZ4KHaKgBUAQ9QF6BAgIEAE#imgrc=MR5YwuA3bIXkbM

Aghanstan benefitted from the Silk road and cultural exchange, but the Silk road, and all cities along it, declined when shipping replaced the need for this land route. https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/countries-alongside-silk-road-routes/afghanistan . Afghanistan is land locked and I can not think of any landlocked nation that has done well.

We can not expect landlocked and poor nations to succeed as Roman succeeded long before it was Christian. That is totally unrealistic. And so is the notion that Christianity is what causes nations to succeed and that not being Christian is why nations fail. The success of a nation does not depend on religion. The success of a nation depends on resources, trade routes, liberty and cultural exchange. We are in serious trouble if people believe national success is about religion. That just is not so, however, liberty is very important to success, and Christians who became literate in Greek and Roman classics did become more liberal and did replace Biblical kingdoms with democracy.

So how do you propose determining what is a fact and what isn't, if you cannot trust what you see? — Olivier5

In a trial, this is done by calling in many witnesses and questioning each one of them, and a jury of peers listens to the arguments and then debates a person's innocence or guilt. This is not perfect and it would be a whole lot better if attorneys were wo/men of integrity who understood the importance of knowing the truth and trial by jury, and if they lived for these values instead of a quick easy buck. Sigh, I think my love of the principles of democracy colors my arguments. But let us move to science.

When Moa became the leader of China he had absolute power and made very bad farming decisions. This was called the Great Leap.

The Great Leap resulted in tens of millions of deaths, with estimates ranging between 15 and 55 million deaths, making the Great Chinese Famine the largest famine in human history. — Wikipedia

In modern countries today we have leaders who ignored the science of dealing with a pandemic and millions of people are dying. Something that could be avoided with leadership that relies on science. Truth in science is about observation and testing what is thought to be true with experiments and peer review. That is the best we can do to have some certainty about facts and our survival and liberty can depend on good science.

If we have different definitions of the term 'fact' what would determine who is right? I would say the only reasonable answer to that would be common usage, and from what I have observed common usage is on my side.
— Janus

I don't think so. The common usage is rather: "a statement recognized as true by many folks, and beyond reasonable doubt". And for that to be the case, there needs to be evidence for the statement, therefore some accurate observation must be done. — Olivier5

Excellent comments and Olivier I want to highlight your use of the legal term, "beyond a reasonable dought". However, Janus, you immediately made a Black man's trail in the South flash to mind. Horrible things have happened in the South because prejudice can so interfere with our judgment.

As we shift from believing Darwinism to an understanding of the effect of poverty, our approach to social justice is changing. The democratic characteristic of equal opportunity requires things like free lunches because hunger interferes with the ability to learn and for sure we need to work on equal education because our children do not have an equal opportunity without equal education. Our understanding of facts makes a huge political difference.

I thought long ago it was agreed we can not trust what we think we see and our experience of the same thing may not agree. Just because we think it, it does not make it true. If Israel and Palestine taught the same history there would be less friction between them and the US is waking up to a different understanding of confederate statues.

My copy of the Democracy Series grade school textbooks begins each book with a list of democratic characteristics. One character of a democracy is the pursuit of truth. We can see from the examples I have given that agreeing on truth can lead to peace instead of war. That makes determining what a fact is very important.

The universe can't be there (even if eternal and infinite) if not created by gods. — Laguercina

How do you validate the existence of gods?

Olivier5
2.8k
your definition of fact still relies on truth; just dishonestly.
— Banno

Of course, and so does yours. And there no dishonesty about it. You should try and relax a bit. — Olivier5

If it can not be validated how can it be an accepted fact?

Apollodorus
2.5k
↪Athena

1. If none of those religions are superior then it seems pointless to talk of "Islamic Golden Age" vs. "Christian Dark Ages".

2. Greek and Roman religions were just as patriarchal as Christianity.

3. If you define patriarchy as oppression of women by men and matriarchy as oppression of men by women, where is the difference?

Christianity did not carry the math and knowledge of medicine, because they were destroying all that.
— Athena

This is not supported by the historical evidence:

Study of Hippocratic and Galenic texts all but disappeared in the Latin West in the Early Middle Ages, following the collapse of the Western Empire, although the Hippocratic-Galenic tradition of Greek medicine continued to be studied and practiced in the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium). Beginning in the late eleventh century, the Hippocratic-Galenic tradition returned to the Latin West with a series of translations of the Classical texts, mainly from Arabic translations but occasionally from the original Greek. In the Renaissance, more translations of Galen and Hippocrates directly from the Greek were made from newly available Byzantine manuscripts.

Ancient Greek medicine – Wikipedia[/quote]

I love your post. Our disagreements seem more paradoxical than the head-on conflicts I was dealing with yesterday. I suspect maturity and education have a lot to do with this.

I think the subject of Christianity should go in another thread. I know I am always wondering off topic but I am in favor of keeping threads comprehensible and maybe even good files that can be referred to later if we stay on topic. Also, I think you are I are the only ones participating in this thread and if we start a new one, that might attract others.

However, comparing Islam's golden age with the want was happening in Europe at the time is directly related to this thread, because the success of Islam's golden years proves Islam can be just as successful as Christianity. It is not religious differences that determine their success or failure, but circumstances. Today we can see Muslims in some parts of the world doing very well and nowhere near the mentality of the Taliban. The difference in mentality is a difference in cultures- Islam finds itself in many different cultures, as the Jews existed in many different cultures. And there is the difference of rural or city people. And the difference of national wealth and technological advancement. It is by looking at all the influences other than religion, that we can see a path for the success of Afghanistan or why it can not succeed. It is a mistake to think the only thing that matters is the religion. Let us keep in mind, God's chosen people were sacrificing animals and stoning women, and those who followed Jesus are not God's chosen people. God did not choose the Christians, the Christians chose God.

Greeks and Romans were very patriarchal! Spartan women were liberated but not Athenian women. And Rome, well "Our father who art in heaven" is very Roman! So is conformity very Roman, "When in Rome do as the Roman's do. Any universality of Christianity is Greek and Roman, not Hebrew.

I do not define patriarchy as oppression of women and matriarchy is not oppression of men. Males organize in hierarchies of authority and power/ leaders and followers. Females organize in families. If people are patriarchal or matriarchal is very much about who owns and rules the home/property and that can lead to oppression but I don't think native American males were oppressable. Being submissive is not a male trait. But women in a patriarchy will be submissive when that appears to serve their interests well.

I love your use of history to make a point. You are right, Orthodox Christianity in the east maintained ties to Greek and Roman culture and the West did not. The split of which you spoke is very important, and this goes back to the conditions of success or failure. Western Christians separated themselves from the Greek and Roman philosophy, and then they moved north into Europe where there never was advanced civilizations with global trading partners sharing technology and cultures. Basically the condition of the Taliban in Afghanistan with no ties to the cultures and advancements of Islam, except a book written long ago. Russia had Orthodox Christianity and none of the advancements that the west experienced after the renaissance and I think the Russian communist hatred of Christianity was at least in part the result of church-supported serfdom. Instead of Orthodox Christianity bring out the best in people, it brought the worst and I think climate had a lot to do with that, but also its distance and separation from the ancient civilizations.

:lol: With all that thinking, I am exhausted, but I am also very, very happy. Communicating with someone who is refined, mature, and well informed and I can trust to meet my points of argument with facts and a different perspective is worth living for. This is totally different from what I was dealing with yesterday and that makes me extremely appreciative of your difference. Thank you!

I was concerned that I was straying out of the limits of philosophy but philosophy does draw on all fields of study. However, the discussion today has not been the fun I was I having until today, so I will leave.

I think everyone's thinking is both intellectual and emotional. You clearly are emotional in your opinions. — T Clark

Yes, but voting with our feelings instead of a deliberate attempt to understand the choices, does not lead to a healthy Republic and it puts our liberty in jeopardy.

Oh no, this is a thread about democracy and the survival of humanity. — Athena

And if you don't like it, I hope you stay out of it instead of continuing to make it unpleasant..

I don't think reason is the controlling force of the universe, if that's what you're asking. I don't really think there is a controlling force. — T Clark

You do not think gravity is what holds things to the earth? You don't think we have day and night because the earth turns? You don't think plants and animals die when they do not get water? You think all the forces of nature could suddenly be completely different for no reason at all? Like I know quantum physics gives us portability and not certainty but to think there are no controlling forces opens the possibility that nothing is predictable and I don't think that is very scientific.

In that case, I don't think we can say that Islam is superior to other religions. — Apollodorus

How could any one of these religions be superior when they all are based on the same supernatural beliefs including a humanized god and supernatural beings Satan and demons? They all are patriarchies that suppress women.

He is simply stating a fact. He doesn't say he wants conflict to happen, he only predicts that it will happen. He introduced what he thought was a better religion that promoted higher values instead of sacrifices and rituals. So, of course there were going to be tensions between those who accepted the new religion and those who kept adhering to the old one.

"I have come to divide people against each other!" Why did Jesus come to do that? Maybe we should move this to the thread about patriarchy and matriarchy because that is not a goal of matriarchy. Or we could start a new thread and talk about how changing circumstances changed people's concsiousness? There was a big change in consciousness when the Hebrews went from being nomadic herders to an agrarian society and being landowners. Then when they go from small-town farmers to big-city merchants there is another consciousness change. These changes increased their separation from nature and God. City dwellers focus intently on "the law" not people living in small towns and close to nature.

[qutoe]Sure. But it did happen. And if the Germanic tribes hadn't taken over the West, Greek and Roman culture would not have been lost and there would have been no "Dark Ages".[/quote]

Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire began during the reign of Constantine the Great (306–337) in the military colony of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem), when he destroyed a pagan temple for the purpose of constructing a Christian church.
Status: Vassal state of the Eastern Roman Em...
Historical era: Late Antiquity and Early Middle ...
Legislature: Roman Senate
Religion: Arianism; Chalcedonian Christianity

Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire - Wikipedia — wikipedia

Those pagan temples were seats of learning. That is where people studied math and medicine and philosophy that later became science. The break between the knowledge of Athens and Roman began with the Christians. Christianity did not carry the math and knowledge of medicine, because they were destroying all that. Medically this set back Christians and kept them in the superstitious darkness of believing it is demons that make us sick.

Have you read Jesus Wars by Philip Jenkins? The beginning of Christianity was anything but peaceful! People were killing each other over the disagreement about Jesus being the son of God or God himself. Constantine was horrified by how viciously Christians were fighting each other. He called the first Council of Nicaea with the hope of stopping the fighting, but it didn't stop the fighting, and in away it made matters worse because the Council of Nicaea ended the free and open unions of Christians, and put them all the control small group men who dictated the restrictions on Christians and held the all under a hierarchy of authority, exactly what Jesus stood against! And under this hierarchy of authority the God who told Hebrews they were not to be slaves because of their special relationship with Him, tells the Christians they honor God by being good slaves! :gasp:

From there Christianity was spread across Europe wiping out all the people that were in their way, The Celts and others had a choice, be Christian or die. If they were not killed by the sword, they could die of starvation resulting from economic warfare. Christians would not do business with non-Christians. Finally, only Christians remained and that seemed to prove God favored them and they had God's truth.
For a while, the Catholics were very much in the wrong, and Protestantism pushed them out of some areas, but they were no more tolerant of religious freedom nor were they respectful of people around the world. Spain, Portugal, and Britian subjected the natives and in the New Land Protestants drove them away and starved them to death on reservations.

People lived in fear of Satan, demons, and God! God did not become the loving God he is today until our bellies were full. When people were starving to death and leaving their children in the forest with the hope they could fend for themselves, God was a fearsome and punishing God, who sent the Mongols and plagues to punish them. I am totally blown away by how Evangelic Christians swoon in the ecstasy of their God as though this loving God who blesses them, is the same God people once feared.

Is reason the controlling force of the universe? There are lots of reasons. Not only the scientific one. — Inplainsight

Yes, there are reasons for things being the way they are and science helps us learn the reasons. The number of reasons is unimportant. There are many reasons for life on earth being in big trouble right now. Our only hope is to understand them and if there is anything we can do to make a difference. This is not an emotional response, although our feelings may motivate us to learn and take action, but it is a response that requires a lot and learning and a lot of reasoning, and a willingness to cooperate with others.

Do you mean I ignore you information and that I'm ignorant? — Inplainsight

Let's see can we check the logic of what you said?

If you ignore information that you asked for, can you be well informed, or might it be necessary to pay attention to that information to be well informed? Like how can know something you know nothing about? There is a serious difference between basing our thinking on our feelings, or basing what we think on facts and reasoning. To base what we think on facts and reasoning, we need to learn the facts and the reasoning. To react emotionally requires nothing of us and it does not equal good judgment nor good arguments.

I don't get your point. I value democracy. I value reason. I just don't see that they are necessarily strongly related. — T Clark

Do you think knowledge of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, is connected with moral thinking and democracy and liberty? As I understand things that is a very important connection.

That's all I don't have to do. I still have no answer why it's not good to base politics on emotion. — Inplainsight

I know there is far more I do not know than what I do think I know. I do not have a problem when a person does not know something, however, when someone asks for information and ignores that information, that tells me the person is not being honest about having a discussion but is playing a game I do not want to play.

There is a saying "do not argue with ignorance". I think that is good advice when someone asks for information and then ignores it.

Again, I don't get your point. I don't and never did support Donald Trump. I think he was a bad president. What does that have to do with this discussion? — T Clark

It is not just about Trump, but what has happened to our nation. A huge portion of our population is voting emotionally and is lead by people intentionally using emotion not reason, to lead them. If we do not realize the difference between emotional thinking verse logic and reasoning nor the difference between non-fiction and fiction, I don't think democracy and liberty have a chance.

I may be in the wrong, but I come to forums with a sense of purpose and hope to engage with those who might share my sense of purpose and are able to expand my knowledge.

Not to look askance at a compliment, but are you implying my previous posts were not sane? — T Clark

I did not mean to post before completing my thought. And the comment about sanity was a reaction to someone else's posts. Thinking emotionally driven thinking is equal to logical thinking is not the quality of post I have been enjoying until today. I think it is time for me to take a walk.

I gave you the answer and if you do not pay attention to it, I am not replying again.

Again, I don't get your point. I don't and never did support Donald Trump. I think he was a bad president. What does that have to do with this discussion?

Nothing is more important to this thread than understanding the importance of science, and citizens who understand what science has to do with our survival and democracy.
— Athena

If that's the point you've been working toward, you set the OP up badly. This thread so far has not been about what you refer to. It's not what I've been talking about. It's a bit late to turn it in that direction. — T Clark

Thank you. I am glad to learn. How should I have begun this discussion? Do you want to start a better thread for looking at the importance of being able to understand the difference between facts and fiction?

Perhaps I was wrong for saying why this subject is so important to me. But I do feel passionate about the importance of understanding logic and science and what that has to do with being a democracy.

What's wrong with appealing to emotions? What's so important about the brain? Emotions need a brain to flourish too. — Inplainsight

Here is the answer to your question.

The story is a fact. — Inplainsight

A librarian would put it on the fiction shelves, not the non-fiction shelves. Would you mind stating how older you are? I am betting you were educated after 1958, when we began educating for a technological society with unknown values and changing the organization of our institutions to take care everything for the people who can not be left to think for themselves because life is too complex. Don't worry dear, you do not need to know the difference between fiction and non-fiction because all you have to do is obey the authorities who handle everything for us.