volgadon Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 The Muslims have a better case. They had universities while Christians were still hiding in the catacombs. Umm, Islam did not exist when Christians were hiding in the catacombs. 3
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Umm, Islam did not exist when Christians were hiding in the catacombs.http://wiki.answers.com/Q/First_Islamic_university_was_established_in_which_Islamic_country
mfbukowski Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Oh, not everyone was Catholic. Read about all the excommunications and anathemas decreed against various heretical sects But yeah, the glory of the Middle Ages is the glory of Catholicism Oh well- who can argue with that?
mfbukowski Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Umm, Islam did not exist when Christians were hiding in the catacombs.Details, details..... 2
mfbukowski Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) http://wiki.answers.com/Q/First_Islamic_university_was_established_in_which_Islamic_countryI think maybe you need to date when the Christians were hiding in catacombs. It was just a teeny weeny bit before that. Just 6 or 7 hundred years, and what's that between friends? Edited July 1, 2014 by mfbukowski 2
Stone holm Posted July 1, 2014 Author Posted July 1, 2014 For some reason my quote function is not working, but I agree with Sometimessaint -- the Muslims were more advanced in many ways during the relevant time period. Its the first time I have heard of the Dark Ages described as the Glory of Catholicism, but whatever.
Damien the Leper Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 When Christianity was struggling in the dark ages with commingled Church and State, Islam exploded across the Southern shores of the Mediterranean bringing with it mathematics and scientific break throughs. Then it began to turn conservative. Meanwhile the Enlitenment theology and the Protestant Reformation triggered a change and Christianity blossomed with advances. But it also began to go conservative. The Restoration blossomed in America and grew introducing or reintroducing radically new concepts and an explosion of new thinking and then.... Why does this tendency go from radical innovative thinking to orthodoxy to conservatism to stagnation, and will we follow this pattern? You must first start with your false assumption that Mormonism is a conservative religion and then sort out your historical issues.
Damien the Leper Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Oh, not everyone was Catholic. Read about all the excommunications and anathemas decreed against various heretical sects But yeah, the glory of the Middle Ages is the glory of Catholicism If only we could celebrate St. Nicholas's feast everyday and slap a few heretics...well, can't really put a number on such a good time.
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 I am a progressive with a tinge of libertarianism. I tend to not want to get entangled in foreign wars, which was a conservative position until after WWII. I tend to take exception to the war on drugs which is a libertarian position. I tend to think we over do welfare which is a conservative position, but I tend to favor governmental investment in education, healthcare, environmental protection, and infrastructure which are all progressive issues. But I don't think government should be telling consenting adults how to behave in the bedroom , so I dislike establishment of religious morality by legislation...so I guess I am not a true progressive. I'm just a moderately conservative liberal.
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 I think maybe you need to date when the Christians were hiding in catacombs. It was just a teeny weeny bit before that. Just 6 or 7 hundred years, and what's that between friends? At worst it was only 2-3 centuries and only in what was to become Byzantium.
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) You must first start with your false assumption that Mormonism is a conservative religion and then sort out your historical issues. We are conservative in a nonpolitical way. For example we are a top down organization where the direct line of that authority starts with its upper most echelons of the Church, and presumably God. Edited July 1, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Damien the Leper Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 We are conservative in a nonpolitical way. For example we are a top down organization where the direct line of that authority starts with its upper most echelons of the Church, and presumably God. That's still not a conservative qualifier. Jesus's church in the first century was top-down but led by a liberal free-loving socialist hippie who hung out with lepers, whores and the marginal.
volgadon Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 At worst it was only 2-3 centuries and only in what was to become Byzantium. In other words, your statement was incorrect. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 In other words, your statement was incorrect. Being overly precise doesn't invalidate the claim.SEE http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/private/cmje/heritage/History_of_Islamic_Science.pdf
mfbukowski Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 You must first start with your false assumption that Mormonism is a conservative religion and then sort out your historical issues.I would not call Theistic Humanism "conservative" either. The ideas that we are daughters and sons of God literally, and can become like him, and that humans have infinite potential is hardly "conservative". Most of Christianity is mired in the notion that humanity is inherently evil, while we preach that human nature is divine nature. That is about as audacious a notion as anyone on this planet has come up with. 1
mfbukowski Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 At worst it was only 2-3 centuries and only in what was to become Byzantium. Oh gosh, come on. Christians in Rome were building cathedrals in the early 4th century.- like 330. If they were building cathedrals they were hardly hiding in catacombs. Your own article says the founding of the earliest Muslim university was 859. Let's be sloppy in the math and call it 500 years, to account for the fact that clearly Muslims were advancing toward that point before that, and so were Christians. Clearly Islamic scholars were the leading scholars of the age- no debate but your timing was off. It's no biggie-
3DOP Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) At worst it was only 2-3 centuries and only in what was to become Byzantium. Catacombs are underground burial places. The Christians of Rome held worship there sometimes because they couldn't do so above ground without persecution from the authorities. This stopped by the time of the Council of Nicea at the latest (325 AD). Far from being concurrent with Muslim universities, the first Muslim university, according to your source, did not appear until a period of time had elapsed close to three times as long as the entire existence of the Restoration founded by Joseph Smith. Its fine to take note that Islam discovered the Greek philosophers before the Christians and that Muslim thinkers like Averroes and Avicenna influenced later Christian thinkers like Thomas Aquinas. Muslims also made early strides in medicine. That can be granted. But it seems like you're attributing achievements to a religion based on the dubious assumption that pre-modern scientific advancement must be attributable to the religion predominant in an area. Maybe the Arabs would have discovered the Greeks even if they had been Christians. Maybe the Europeans wouldn't have discovered the Greeks even if they were Muslims. In any case, none of these scientific advancements were achieved through changes to the authoritative teachings and the accepted moral values of the religion held by European or Arab. They are in every religion including mine. They think novelty is an indication of life. In reality, the desire for novelties is nothing more than dissatisfaction with a particular faith tradition and the morals of the generations that came before. But instead of starting something refreshingly and "radically new" themselves, they want to change an existing religion into something it has never been. They forget that most committed religious souls are happily attached to a faith tradition that changelessly stretches back a long way. They don't seem able to understand opposition that springs from another's earnest intention to retain a faith that has been reverently and carefully handed down as from fathers to sons. There are some things which are given to us in trust, that we may pass them on to those who follow. If the 21st Century isn't cool with that, too bad. Somebody needs to try to start a 21st Century religion I guess. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. Which some promising, have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. (I Tim. 6:20, 21) Edited July 1, 2014 by 3DOP 2
mfbukowski Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Being overly precise doesn't invalidate the claim.SEE http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/private/cmje/heritage/History_of_Islamic_Science.pdfAnd who would believe anything that comes out of USC??
mfbukowski Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. Which some promising, have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. (I Tim. 6:20, 21)Sounds like a condemnation of Greek philosophy to me, and a proof for the need for a Restoration, but what do I know? The older an institution gets the more time there is for words to get in the way of the pure message of the gospel.
3DOP Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 Sounds like a condemnation of Greek philosophy to me, and a proof for the need for a Restoration, but what do I know? The older an institution gets the more time there is for words to get in the way of the pure message of the gospel. Sounds like a condemnation of post-modern philosophy to me!
mfbukowski Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 (edited) Sounds like a condemnation of post-modern philosophy to me!Then you gotta read this book- fifteen bucks and download the free kindle app, and you can read it on your pc. http://www.amazon.com/The-Return-Mystical-Wittgenstein-Christian/dp/1441104445Postmodernism is the friend of all faiths. You gotta know that. The correspondence theory of truth= badDeflationary theory of truth= good. Essentially what that scripture says agrees with the deflationary theory of truth- it's all just words. I am sure that will get picked up by the grocery clerks at the trailer park. If you want to save faith based "truth"- that is the only way to do it. We need a crusade. Catholics are good at those. Did you know that Wittgenstein was a Catholic? (sort of.....) And that GEM Anscombe was a Catholic theologian and a Wittgensteinian? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._M._Anscombe Edited July 1, 2014 by mfbukowski
thesometimesaint Posted July 2, 2014 Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) That's still not a conservative qualifier. Jesus's church in the first century was top-down but led by a liberal free-loving socialist hippie who hung out with lepers, whores and the marginal Jesus while liberal for the times. He also told the Scribes and Pharisees to render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and render unto God that which is God's. Peter was more conservative than Paul. Peter was the Judaizer. Paul was more liberal in his theology.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaizers Paul still recognized Peter as the head of the Church after the death of Jesus.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_Simon_Peter Edited July 2, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Recommended Posts