Perhaps we could look at our argument in a new way? How were European Christians educated? — Athena

Good idea. European Christians were educated in institutions run by the clergy. The catechetical schools founded in the early days of Christianity at Alexandria and Antioch were run by the Church. Professors from ecclesiastical and lay schools later formed universities like that of Bologna. This shows that Christianity did value and promote knowledge and explicates the important fact that science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.

The Bible is not a revealed work of God but the work of men, as are all holy books. — Athena

The Bible does not need to be a revealed work of God. It is sufficient to be the eye-witness account of certain events that manifested divine revelation or were interpreted as such. Matthew says:

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about …

So the Christian Bible is not God dictating things, it is a record of eye-witness accounts related to the writer.

Regarding the subordination of women to men, this was not the teaching of Jesus, but the opinion of the author of Timothy which reflected the prevailing situation of the time. And subordination does not necessarily equate “oppression”. The lower ranks of the military are not “oppressed” by the higher echelons just because they are subordinate to them.

The Koran, on the other hand, seems to be a totally different story. It is supposed to be the direct word of Allah as dictated to Mohammad:

This is the book! There is no doubt about it —a guide for those mindful ˹of Allah˺ who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and donate from what We [Allah] have provided for them and who believe in what has been revealed to you, O Prophet!˺

St John of Damascus, a Christian scholar who lived in the early days of Islamic rule in Syria, investigated the current claims regarding the Koran and was told that the Koran was given to Mohammad in a dream. He also found out that Mohammad obtained knowledge of Christian scriptures from his close companions some of whom were Christians (of whom there were many in Arabia at the time). He concluded that "This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments, devised his own heresy".

And we know that St John is not lying because it is confirmed by Islamic tradition (Hadith). Mohammad did in fact have Christian friends and relatives and used to spend time on his own in caves in the mountains. When someone hears stories about prophets from his friends, and then spends time on his own thinking about those stories he will likely dream about them and may even conceive the thought that he could be a prophet himself!

In any case case, why did Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him) claim that Allah said that of all men he alone could have an unlimited supply of women? And why did Allah tell Mohammad’s wives to be submissive to their husband or else Allah will replace then with better and more submissive ones? What could this mean?! Was the Prophet unable to control his wives and needed some assistance from Allah to subdue them? I think these are important questions that should not be ignored.

Good idea. European Christians were educated in institutions run by the clergy. The catechetical schools founded in the early days of Christianity at Alexandria and Antioch were run by the Church. Professors from ecclesiastical and lay schools later formed universities like that of Bologna. This shows that Christianity did value and promote knowledge and explicates the important fact that science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else. — Apollodorus

Are you crediting Christianity for science? I really don't think so. It absolutely did not carry the logical structure for science. Aristotle gave us a good structure for logic and it was the foundation of scholastic education, but there was a huge backlash to Aristotle because it supported church authority, and did not advance scientific thinking.

Aristotle's logic - Why Aristotelian logic does not workhttps://www.abelard.org › category › category
This false 'logic' lies at the heart of authoritarianism, conflict, and a great deal of inadequate 'science'. You are either for us or against us. He 'is' 'good ... — abelard

Granted for awhile the school at Alexandria relied on philosophers to bridge between the rich philosophical conscoiusness including knowledge of math and an attempt to understand the natural world and medicine free of superstitutions notions, but the was ended by... "The Council of Constantinople, convened in 381", a little while after the death of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, "had far-reaching effects for Egypt". After declaring the primacy of the Bishop of Rome at the expense of Alexandrian authority, riots destroyed the school. — Wikipedia

And the west slide into the Dark Ages because the Church cut off the wisdom of older civilizations. Let us be clear about this. The Dark Ages were dark because of the power struggle and who it. You can not claim the pagan progress as the Christian good, because the Church cut us off that.

Not even the later decision to once again use Aristotle to support Church authority can give the Church credit for the scientific thinking that followed the renaissance because Aristotle's logic was not good for science. Aristotle's logic is deductive reasoning. Science is inductive reasoning. Francis Bacon is the father of inductive reason and this would not have been possible when the Church was persecuting anyone who spoke of something not approved by the Church.

His works are seen as developing the scientific method and remained influential through the scientific revolution.[6] — Wikipedia

We could not have good reasoning for science until the Protestant Reformation weakened the power of the Church. At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, there was hope that science would reveal God, but this was dashed when it became obvious the earth was not the center of the universe. This truth was harder for the Protestants to accept than the Catholics because the Protestants depended on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Catholics were comfortable with rationalizing reality and the word of God to fit their theology. Protestants continue to stand in the way of science with Texas attempting to force schools to teach creationism as science. Texas teachers had to turn to the supreme court to stop that.

So while you might want to give Christians credit for the wisdom of pagan civilizations, only by eliminating facts can this be done.

St John of Damascus, a Christian scholar who lived in the early days of Islamic rule in Syria, investigated the current claims regarding the Koran and was told that the Koran was given to Mohammad in a dream. He also found out that Mohammad obtained knowledge of Christian scriptures from his close companions some of whom were Christians (of whom there were many in Arabia at the time). He concluded that "This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments, devised his own heresy". — Apollodorus

Both Jews and Christians were abundant in his region.

Muhammad's views on Jews - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › Muhammad's_views_on_Jews
The Islamic prophet Muhammad's views on Jews were formed through the contact he had with Jewish tribes living in and around Medina. His views on Jews ... — Wikipedia

I think it is ridiculous to believe Muhammad got his ideas through supernatural means. To me, it is ridiculous to believe in revealed religion. At least 5 Biblical stories are plagiarized Sumerian stories including the Garden of Eden and the flood. Abraham coming from Ur, a former Sumerian city where any literate person could study the archives created by the Sumerians.

If anyone committed heresy it was the Christians! I think Christians have some gall to create a new "revealed religion" and pick and choose what they wanted from the revealed religion of Jews and then say the Muslims committed heresy because the Muslims did the same thing the Christians did. Adjust the religion for their culture, just as Hellenism made it necessary to adjust Judaism. That is some nerve. Then you all kill each other with the egotistical notion of being God's favored people and the only ones to know God's truth. I am sorry but this nonsense that is taking people's lives is not acceptable.

So while you might want to give Christians credit for the wisdom of pagan civilizations, only by eliminating facts can this be done. — Athena

But this is not what I am doing. What I am saying is that Christian culture (and to some extent religion) is based on Classical (Greek and Roman) culture.

Christianity emerged within the cultural context of the Hellenized Roman Empire. Christians had a different religion but they had the same Graeco-Roman culture as Pagan citizens of the Roman Empire. And science as we know it today emerged within Christian society.

If anyone committed heresy it was the Christians! I think Christians have some gall to create a new "revealed religion" and pick and choose what they wanted from the revealed religion of Jews and then say the Muslims committed heresy because the Muslims did the same thing the Christians did. — Athena

But why single out Christians? The Jews got much of their religion and culture from neighboring peoples.

Christianity is not a form of Judaism, it is a different religion with core beliefs and practices that are totally different from Judaism.

In contrast, Islam saw itself as the heir to Judaism and Christianity and a lot of the narratives found in the Koran are taken from those religions, which was the point made by St John.

And, as I said, it is important to bear in mind that the Christian Bible does not claim to have been dictated by God, but the Koran does claim to have been dictated by Allah to Mohammad and there are difficulties with this claim.

If we look at the Koran verse before the one quoted in my previous post, it says:

But if you back each other against him, then verily, Allah is his Mawla (Lord, Master, Protector), and Gabriel and the righteous of the believers and the angels, moreover, are his helpers.” (Al-Tahrim 66:4)

We are told that Mohammad had 13 wives in total:

Muhammad’s wives - Wikipedia

At the time, however, he apparently only had two, Hafsah and Aishah. Why would the Koran threaten two women with the might of a whole army, terrestrial and celestial, from Allah and the Angels down to the faithful?

To get to the bottom of it, we must consult the Hadith for additional information. And there we find the following interesting statement:

Narrated Omar:
“Once the wives of the Prophet made a united front against the Prophet and I said to them, 'It may be if he (the Prophet) divorced you, his Lord (Allah) will give him instead of you wives better than you.' So this verse (the same as I had said) was revealed." (Sahih al-Bukhari 8.402)

So, the speaker in the Koran is not Allah but Mohammad’s father-in-law Omar! The situation must have been serious enough for it to be included in the Koran. Whatever may have caused it, it is interesting to note that Mohammad’s wives, though said to be “jealous”, were united against their husband and prophet.

In light of the incontrovertible evidence, it would seem that the Koran was not, after all, revealed by Allah to Mohammad and that St John is right.

However, another critical point is, what are the lessons that the women of Afghanistan could draw from this as a basis for political action?

Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan has said that "Afghan women are strong" and they will get their rights in "two or three years". But to do so, political action will be needed.

But this is not what I am doing. What I am saying is that Christian culture (and to some extent religion) is based on Classical (Greek and Roman) culture.

Christianity emerged within the cultural context of the Hellenized Roman Empire. Christians had a different religion but they had the same Graeco-Roman culture as Pagan citizens of the Roman Empire. And science as we know it today emerged within Christian society. — Apollodorus

For sure Christianity is a blend of Judaism and Hellenism. It is also a blend of Egyptian religion and Persian religion. However, that does not make Christianity God's truth. It is not a revealed religion but the work of many minds building on stories others have told. Christianity went through a period of clarifying its theology and rejecting anything that was pagan. That is when it went into the Dark Age. It did not come out of the Dark Age until the rediscovery of pagan documents and the genius of men like Bacon who picked up the philosophical ball and ran with it. Christianity does not get the credit for our progress and growing human potential. It would hold us back in the days of Jesus's time, just like the Taliban are trying to do, if it could. It is about a kingdom with slaves, not a democracy and liberty. The US experiment in democracy with liberty was not expected to succeed.

But why single out Christians? The Jews got much of their religion and culture from neighboring peoples — Apollodorus

That is a delicious question. Why single out the Christians? Because they rebelled against the law and gave us a different truth from the revealed religion the Jews followed. Either the Hebrews had a special connection with God and knew God's truth or they did not. Changing it is heresy.

"Heresy is a belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine". Oxford languages. Whoo, what a cheat that is to say "especially Christian" as though it were not the Christians who committed the heresy when they stole the authority to define God's truth from the Jews. And then deny the Muslims their definition of the same God's truth.

Well in the first two hundred years of Islamic rule nothing was created. Only when Ommavid Califate was replaced with a more tolerant Abbasid they started to produce significant scientific and philosophical content.
There is a lot of discussions about the early military success of Islamic armies, the main two reasons:
50 years of devasting war between the eastern roman empire and Sasanid Persia, and egalitarian preachment and equality (of men). Military success is not a sign of civilization, for example, look at Mongols victories.

Christianity emerged within the cultural context of the Hellenized Roman Empire. Christians had a different religion but they had the same Graeco-Roman culture as Pagan citizens of the Roman Empire. And science, as we know it today, emerged within Christian society. — Apollodorus

That is an excellent argument. Our only disagreement at this point appears to be about the Dark Ages.
However, it also goes with Islam encouraging learning and it lead to many Muslims having private libraries filled with the knowledge that was Roman and Greek. And we might say here, that Athenians kept their women home. I think the higher class Romans kept their wives home too, but during the time of Jesus, there was sort of women's liberation movement. None of the females were got the status of disciples but they were important enough to be mentioned in the New Testament and it seems women played a strong role in the acceptance of Christianity.

To say science reemerged in a Christian society seems to deny what the rest of the world achieved and what the achievements of others has to do with the advancements that the west made. Perhaps we could discuss why the west became a leader? We are dealing with Christians opposing science so how can we see them as the friend of science?

To get back to the subject of this thread, we could discuss the Muslims who think they are morally superior, and do they have justification for this? I think they do. However, there was a time when Christians were just as opposed to the materialism, and therefore, the capitalism of today. The industrial revolution came with extremes in wealth and poverty and strong arguments against the lack of morals or industry. We might find it easier to have peace with the Muslims if we look at what they share in common with Christianity, instead of painting them as the enemy. Jews became the money dealers so Christians didn't have to get their hands dirty. You know a lot so perhaps you know of the history of which I speak?

Aristotle's logic is deductive reasoning. Science is inductive reasoning. — Athena

Math is considered to be science. You think all math is inductive reasoning?

To say science reemerged in a Christian society seems to deny what the rest of the world achieved and what the achievements of others has to do with the advancements that the west made. Perhaps we could discuss why the west became a leader? We are dealing with Christians opposing science so how can we see them as the friend of science? — Athena

If I could add something to this. When it comes to science and scientific thought, either the collapse during the Dark Ages or the Renaissance of it later, religion isn't the sole culprit or reason. Yes, it is part of the reasons, but not the only actor. I would think that simply the in the first case the collapse and then a rebirth of a globalized economy is a far more important reason. Science and scientists, just as artists and engineers, need an economy where there is a demand for such highly advanced professions and enough revenue to pay for their services. A poor, regional economy that basically just survives won't create such highly specialized professions. There simply has to be those patreons and their wealth.

That the artists or scientists aren't killed as heretics is of course one issue....

:lol: That last line was said so delicately it made me laugh. I love to begin the day with a good laugh. I also love it when someone says what I am thinking better than I have. One of the most obvious things in history is when people are trading, things begin to happen. War also seems very helpful We know they are not trading just objects, but thoughts as well, and that stimulates everything.

About math and inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning. I have several hours of lectures done by a math professor and he is a joy to watch because he loves math so much and we seem to be naturally programmed to love math and solving puzzles when it is presented well. That involves pi and our perception of beauty which actually makes us feel joy. The professor can talk for at least two hours about invisible knots such as knots in DNA and how maths helps us see the invisible knots. If we have a question we can use math to get an answer. I really think the Greeks got everything moving in the right direction because they began exploring maths and the notion of proofs. THAT IS WHAT SEPARATED THE GREEKS FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT WAS TRAPPED IN SUPERSTITION.

The Greeks also had many gods and I think this was highly important to stimulating thinking. I don't think we would have gotten to where we are today if we began with one god. Many gods, is seeing life through many perspectives and like trading, when one idea bounces into another there are new ideas. Trinity-
"The Triad is the form of the completion of all things". Nichomachus of Gerasa c. 100 A.D. Greek neo- Pythagorean philosopher and mathematician. Greek concepts were essential to accepting a trinity of God and Romans could not do this until they created a word for it, bringing an end to the Jesus wars with those who insisted Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were three gods not one. Islam rejects the trinity that can be understood as 3 gods. In Islam Jesus and Mohammed were prophets and they were not deified.

Anyway,can we have an agreement that trading is important to stimulate both the mind and the economy and the US failed to establish regional relationships that are essential to Afghanistan being a healthy country? Agree the problem is Afghanistan's economic and trading problem and its isolation from others, not Islam? Yes?

Anyway,can we have an agreement that trading is important to stimulate both the mind and the economy and the US failed to establish regional relationships that are essential to Afghanistan being a healthy country? Agree the problem is Afghanistan's economic and trading problem and its isolation from others, not Islam? Yes? — Athena

Let's remember that we are talking about Afghanistan.

Trade didn't even come to be an issue: trade and economic issues are mainly for peacetime. Not when you are fighting a war (and utterly losing it), you don't care about trade and the economy. These are issues mentioned in rosy speeches.

I'll just repeat myself, but I think it ought to be really looked at how absolutely dysfunctional the whole Afghan policy has been.

I think the real fact is that the US failed utterly to establish any relationship with the neighboring countries by simply not caring at all about these countries and their objectives. It is really no surprise that the US now does not have ANY bases in any of the neighboring countries (unlike Russia, btw). It has to operate from Qatar that is on the Persian Gulf. And because the Taliban had a safe haven in Pakistan (and Pakistan had nuclear weapons), the US was in a very bad situation strategically. And then it simply lost it's will, which was the final nail in the coffin for the "Westernized" Afghanistan.

Simply put it: Americans created their own narrative about the war and for the reasons to fight the war without any interest or thought given either to Afghans, Afghan internal politics or neighboring countries and their objectives. That's the real reason. And you can see it in the commentary now given by Joe Biden extremely well.

A war fought with so much hubris and self centeredness simply will fail.

Trade didn't even come to be an issue: trade and economic issues are mainly for peacetime. Not when you are fighting a war (and utterly losing it), you don't care about trade and the economy. These are issues mentioned in rosy speeches. — ssu

Who was fighting a war other than the neocons? Other than making things worse and a guilty conscience what else have we gotten out of our investment in the mid-east? Good results require right thinking. I don't see what we have done, as right-thinking. The results sure have not been good!

WASHINGTON – The U.S. government has never provided a full accounting of the costs of America's so-called “forever wars” in Afghanistan and Iraq. But researchers at Brown University estimate that the U.S. has spent $5.8 trillion on the war in Afghanistan and other conflicts stemming from the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.Sep 1, 2021 — USA Today

Simply put it: Americans created their own narrative about the war and for the reasons to fight the war without any interest or thought given either to Afghans, Afghan internal politics or neighboring countries and their objectives. That's the real reason. And you can see it in the commentary now given by Joe Biden extremely well. — ssu

We have plenty of agreement. What happened was all about the neocon agenda that included Cheney and Bush jr. and the New Century American Project with the goal of securing military control of the mid-east. The neo-cons defined their goal and how they would achieve it, long before 9/11.
https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/project_for_the_new_american_century/.

These folks should have been charged with war crimes long ago, and the Christian Right needs to see how they have been manipulated to achieve military goals that were not about national defense, but the "Power and Glory" the neocons wanted. I am hoping for a history book that reveals the truth including the manipulation of the Christian Right and the real abortion rights political goal. These right to lifer's were thrilled to watch us destroy Iraq with bombs of mass destruction calling this our "Power and Glory" associating it with the power and glory of God. No civilization has more innocent blood its hands than Christian America.

That is why I reacted strongly to you saying "These are issues mentioned in rosy speeches". I do not feel rosy about the lies we were told and the reason the lies could be sold to Christians. It is obvious we were not there for our defense nor to help Afghanistan succeed. And throwing money at these problems is not the answer either. Maybe if we drop religion and start thinking about how the world really works, we might come up with solutions.

Who was fighting a war other than the neocons? — Athena

As I said on another thread, also the hypothetical Gore administration would have gone to Afghanistan. And to respond to a terrorist attack with a military attack was something that already the Reagan administration had done. It's really, really difficult to think that Americans would have after 9/11. If Bush would have negotiated with the Taliban and gotten them to hand over Osama bin Laden to the US, likely then he would have lost the next election. Even ironic is the Peace-deal that Trump made with the Taliban: they would immediately accepted such a paper in September/October 2001.

The issue never was what to do with Afghanistan. Or how to win...an insurgency of one's own making.

However, that does not make Christianity God's truth. It is not a revealed religion but the work of many minds building on stories others have told. — Athena

But that doesn’t mean that there is no truth in those stories.

Christianity went through a period of clarifying its theology and rejecting anything that was pagan. That is when it went into the Dark Age. — Athena

I don’t think there is any evidence for that. There was no “Dark Ages” in the Greek East.

Why single out the Christians? Because they rebelled against the law and gave us a different truth from the revealed religion the Jews followed. — Athena

They didn’t rebel against the Law. Christians rebelled against animal sacrifices, rituals and dietary regulations that in their opinion distracted from true spiritualty. The core of the Law, consisting of the Ten Commandments, was preserved intact.

To say science reemerged in a Christian society seems to deny what the rest of the world achieved and what the achievements of others has to do with the advancements that the west made. — Athena

Not at all. There is no connection between one and the other. As already stated, Christianity built upon what was already there in Classical and other traditions. And we can’t deny the fact that modern science developed in the West, not in Arabia.

Jews became the money dealers so Christians didn't have to get their hands dirty. You know a lot so perhaps you know of the history of which I speak? — Athena

I think this may be another modern era myth. Of course some Jews were involved in monetary transactions. But large-scale money lending (at interest!) was already practiced by Christian estates controlled by monasteries and the Church.

There was some initial opposition to commercial activities by the clergy and monks but by the 1100's this was no longer the case and capitalism was able to develop without hindrance from the Church. There was nothing comparable in the Islamic world where production and exchange came increasingly under the control of the state. It was the economic freedom in Christian Europe that made the difference IMO.

As I said on another thread, also the hypothetical Gore administration would have gone to Afghanistan. And to respond to a terrorist attack with a military attack was something that already the Reagan administration had done. It's really, really difficult to think that Americans would have after 9/11. If Bush would have negotiated with the Taliban and gotten them to hand over Osama bin Laden to the US, likely then he would have lost the next election. Even ironic is the Peace-deal that Trump made with the Taliban: they would immediately accepted such a paper in September/October 2001.

The issue never was what to do with Afghanistan. Or how to win...an insurgency of one's own making. — ssu

ago — Athena

Well thank you for mentioning Reagan. Let us take this back a little further to Eisenhower and the establishment of the Military-Industrial Complex in the US. The Germans, or actually the Prussians gave us the model for this, so I wanted to clarify the intentional US adoption of what we defended our democacy against.

Bush had no desire to avoid war because he was with the neocons. The neocons fully understand the power and glory of the Military-Industrial Complex and I think about 99% of US citizens are complete ingnorant of it and what their tax dollars are supporting.

I have no idea why you said Gore would have invaded a country that did not pose a threat to the US? If Kucinich had won the election and become our democratic president, the US would not have gone to war. Kucinich would have lead the US in mourning 9/11 and he would have encouraged the sympathy of all nations including Muslim ones that had not yet become our enemy. Our nation would have taken a completely different path and we would not be in the mess we are in now. And I want to point out the neocons did their best to get Bill Clinton to go to war with Iraq and he opposed such a war.

Reagan was 100% in favor of US military control of the mid-east. He was so supportive of this that he slashed domestic budgets at the height of a long recession caused by OPEC embargoing oil to the US, and poured all our money into military spending. Texas was behind Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush, and Cheney. And by the way, the most important reason for you to elect someone for being President is this person's stand on abortion. Those right to lifers are the biggest supporters of wars that kill thousands of non-Christian people and display the Power and Glory of their God and their nation.

However, that does not make Christianity God's truth. It is not a revealed religion but the work of many minds building on stories others have told.
— Athena

But that doesn’t mean that there is no truth in those stories.]/quote]

Right, and the stories of Tory turned out to be true, so does that make the ancient understanding of the gods is true? All religions and philosophies support the human good. The Christian deification of Jesus and belief that somehow we must be saved by him is not true, and that Christian belief is extremely problematic because it denies so many truths, such as the shared goodness of people and the truth of evolution.
— Apollodorus

Christianity went through a period of clarifying its theology and rejecting anything that was pagan. That is when it went into the Dark Age.
— Athena

I don’t think there is any evidence for that. There was no “Dark Ages” in the Greek East.

The modern argument is the Orthodox Christians are still in the Dark Ages.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/opinion/the-orthodox-church-stays-in-the-dark-ages

Why single out the Christians? Because they rebelled against the law and gave us a different truth from the revealed religion the Jews followed.
— Athena

They didn’t rebel against the Law. Christians rebelled against animal sacrifices, rituals and dietary regulations that in their opinion distracted from true spirituality. The core of the Law, consisting of the Ten Commandments, was preserved intact.

:grimace: How is that different from rebelling against the law? When God commands something, isn't that the law? Did not God speak through Mose who gave us the commandments? The whole belief is based on believing human beings got revelations from God. Some of those revelations were scientifically correct and Christianity began harmful when it said those commandments did not need to be followed, putting faith in miracles and fear of demons, above good health practices, and eventually burning Jews as witches.

To say science reemerged in a Christian society seems to deny what the rest of the world achieved and what the achievements of others has to do with the advancements that the west made.
— Athena

Not at all. There is no connection between one and the other. As already stated, Christianity built upon what was already there in Classical and other traditions. And we can’t deny the fact that modern science developed in the West, not in Arabia.

:grimace: This is so hard, if it had been for what others achieved Europe would still be in the Dark Ages. It would not have the math that made a huge difference. It would not have printing nor the paper essential to making books, so it would not literacy. And the huge difference is not the religion people have, but their natural resources, a seaport, and good trade routes, and Christians would not have had those trade routes without eastern technology that made it possible to fenture far from land. In no way did Christianity make things better in the west, except for the Hellenism and Roman imperialism that separated Christianity from Judaism.

Jews became the money dealers so Christians didn't have to get their hands dirty. You know a lot so perhaps you know of the history of which I speak?
— Athena

I think this may be another modern era myth. Of course, some Jews were involved in monetary transactions. But large-scale money lending (at interest!) was already practiced by Christian estates controlled by monasteries and the Church.

That is denying the Christians were as opposed to usury and being materialistic as the Muslims. And it also denies the evils that came with industrialization, the very reason both Christianity and Moslems had moral restraints. Puritans came out of Calvinism and Calvinism flipped the whole money issue from being an evil to being proof that one is blessed and chosen by God. We have a problem when a belief is not grounded in facts and in this care that includes denying the evils that go with the pursuit of money to argue our wealth is because God blesses us. :shade: :naughty: There for our military is God's" power and glory" and it is our destiny to eliminate those who block our pursuits of wealth, such as the USSR, the oil-rich nations and Cubans.

There was some initial opposition to commercial activities by the clergy and monks but by the 1100's this was no longer the case and capitalism was able to develop without hindrance from the Church. There was nothing comparable in the Islamic world where production and exchange came increasingly under the control of the state. It was the economic freedom in Christian Europe that made the difference IMO.

Yes, and the British merchants became increasingly under the control of the British government because self-centered people focused on profit are not good people. Want they were doing in India was terrible!
You are effectively saying it is a good thing for landowners to throw people off the land and fence in that land to keep people off it so that it can be used for raising sheep and having a bigger profit than the old agrarian system. And there is nothing wrong with industry buying people's children to use as slave labor with no regard for the health and emotional well-being of the children. You might want to deal with our ugly history and immediate problems, instead of staying within a religious fantasy. We did not get here through the blessing of a God. Our wealth is the result of a lot of human suffering, and giving God credit for our blessings might be a problem with logic. :brow:

↪Olivier5
Well in the first two hundred years of Islamic rule nothing was created. Only when Ommavid Califate was replaced with a more tolerant Abbasid they started to produce significant scientific and philosophical content.
There is a lot of discussions about the early military success of Islamic armies, the main two reasons:
50 years of devasting war between the eastern roman empire and Sasanid Persia, and egalitarian preachment and equality (of men). Military success is not a sign of civilization, for example, look at Mongols victories. — Hooman

Thank you for stating the importance of liberty and entrepreneurship to scientific advancement and wealth.

:lol: Your statement about civilization and the Mongols is delightful! Also, Sparta is well known for its military strength and failure to develop in other ways. Our education for technology for military and industrial purposes has the US on the path of being Spartans rather than Athenians, with a mass dependent on government and industry to provide them employment, rather than their own entrepreneurship and community ties. Who can compete with the big box stores and third-world cheap labor? It is my understanding Islam has a different understanding of a good economy.

You might want to deal with our ugly history and immediate problems, instead of staying within a religious fantasy. — Athena

I don't know what "religious fantasy" you are talking about, as to my recollection I have never discussed my religious beliefs! I am simply pointing out what I think are inaccuracies and inconsistencies in your statements.

I do admit that you have an interesting interpretation of European history. But it isn’t very convincing. My interpretation is slightly different.

The Celts were disorganized, disunited, and often sided with Rome against other Celts. This is how Rome conquered and colonized them and Celtic language was replaced with Latin.

The Germanic tribes were a different story. They were never colonized and preserved their language to this day. To begin with, they were better organized and disciplined. Some had served as auxiliaries in the Roman army or as Roman allies (foederati) where they learned strategy and tactics, becoming as good if not better than the Romans.

They defeated the Celts, formed independent kingdoms on the outskirts of the Empire and eventually supplanted the Romans. The Western Roman Empire became a Germanic empire consisting of dozens of Germanic kingdoms that later developed into modern European states.

However, even after the fall of the Latin West to the Germanic tribes (in 476), parts of Italy remained under the control of the Greek East which did not go through any “Dark Ages”!

The Republic of Venice, for example, had its capital at Heraclia, named after Eastern Roman Emperor Heraclius. Already in the 700’s it had expanded its trade links with the Eastern Roman Empire and had become a major trading center.

Under Byzantine protection and privileges (exemption from taxes and duties, etc.) Venice was able to establish a commercial monopoly throughout the Eastern Roman Empire.

It was first under the influence of the Greeks and later of the Germanic Franks (the new European power who held the title of Emperor of the Romans till 1806) that Italian city-states acquired the wealth that led to the birth of the Renaissance.

And, of course, Portugal and Spain became empires in their own right not during but after they freed themselves from Arab occupation.

Anyway, take a look at Byzantine, Italian, and German architecture during the “Dark Ages” when the “destruction of Roman culture by the Church” is supposed to have taken place. I think you will see that “Dark Ages” is a misnomer:

Byzantine architecture - Wikipedia

Ravenna - Wikipedia

Charlemagne’s Palatine Chapel (805 AD) – Wikipedia

(Click on image to enlarge, click again to enlarge further, and scroll up and down for full view)

Charlemagne’s Palatine Chapel at Aachen (Germany), which incidentally, is just a small part of the original royal palace, has a plan and decoration based on Roman and Greek elements.

As can be seen from the multicolored marble veneer, the bronze decorations, etc., the materials, styles, and techniques used show not only a continuation of Classical architecture but a high degree of sophistication and exceptional craftsmanship that is inconsistent with the concept of “Dark Ages”.

None of this would have been possible had Christianity destroyed Classical culture.

Far from being destroyed, the Classical architecture inherited by the Christianized Roman Empire led to the emergence of several Renaissance periods between the 700’s and 1400’s followed by the Baroque and Neoclassical periods.

The centuries following the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West did not see an abrupt disappearance of the ancient schools, from which emerged Martianus Capella, Cassiodorus and Boethius, essential icons of the Roman cultural heritage in the Middle Ages, thanks to which the disciplines of liberal arts were preserved. The 7th century saw the "Isidorian Renaissance" in the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania in which sciences flourished and the integration of Christian and pre-Christian thought occurred, while the spread of Irish monastic schools (scriptoria) over Europe laid the groundwork for the Carolingian Renaissance.

Carolingian Renaissance - Wikipedia

In addition to the Church itself, the Christian Carolingian and Habsburg royal houses were particularly involved in the promotion of Classical and Neoclassical architecture and culture.

In the 1600’s and 1700’s it was customary for Northwest Europeans to go on a Grand Tour of Italy as part of education, precisely to acquaint themselves with Classical culture. Greece was under Turkish occupation and therefore less accessible. However, there were plenty of Greek temples in Italy some of which are still standing and this would not have been the case had Christianity wiped out all Classical culture.

At any rate, having seen the breath-taking splendor of ancient architecture and medieval churches, cathedrals, and palaces, people were less inclined to speak of “Dark Ages” than they are today.

Grand Tour – Wikipedia

Unfortunately, after WW2 the Hippie Trail that took the place of the Grand Tour led further and further east, and Europe was forgotten in the mist of counter-culture and political propaganda ….

By the way, Plato’s Academy was razed to the ground by the Romans in 86 BC, not by the Christians.

Afghanistan's success depends on the level of conflict within its borders as much as on the Taliban's government methods. Development and conflict do not mix, and if we have a level of violence that preceded the withdrawal, there is no way of saying where it will go. If the humanitarian crisis is not alleviated, it could cause problems for the Taliban.

Apart from unrest, much depends on external factors: Afghan Central bank assets, humanitarian aid, infrastructure development not to mention agriculture.

None of these is uniquely Muslim. As has been pointed out there are several 'more developed' Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia and Malaysia.

If it was simply a case of Afghanistan and Islam things would be much simpler.

As an Afghan citizen, I am really tired of this war, suicide and explosions. How long do we have to endure this misery? — Sayed Ahad (BBC)