Quoted from the Quotes 2 thread. (And so people stop hijacking it too)

Christianity was invented(compiled/organized are better words) in the first place to suppress people at the decaying end of the roman empire/rise of the Byzantine empire.

I don't think its possible to look at the world today and say religion is a force for peace.

That doesn't mean that religion can't be a personally worthwhile, satisfying and comforting thing... just that telling people how to think often attracts those who would abuse that power.

The problem is, having a faith-proof reason to tell people what to do is a really good excuse to tell people to do bad things. As you cannot prove (or give negative proof) that Enlightened A has not direct contact with God, you cannot prove that said person is wrong when he says "God told me to go and send our army to kill those infidels".

The moment Faith kicks in, reason and logic jump out of the window in most cases, by definition, because if you refuse to believe the rules of Faith somebody very human has set, with the theoretical inspiration/enlightement of a God, then you aren't a good follower of said Faith.

And as I said, even in the medieval age, it was much more respectable to say that you were burning those infidels for religios reasons than say that you want to keep all their wealth for yourself.

War, by far religion has caused more death than anything else in the world since the start of time no question about that.

After reading the Da vinchi code twice in 3 days, and doing some extra info gathering i'm leaning towards the version of history outligned in those books, but as always there is more to read up on.

Using the Da Vinci code as study book on religion story is akin to using The Sun 50 years from now as a history book on Diana de Gales death, in my humble opinion.

Half the facts he cites are false or heavily biased, or just unproven theories (specially the extra dose of misticism) with a base of what could be considered historical truth. More or less similar to saying that it was an ancient alien civilization who built the piramids, and the end of the world date is hidden in the number of stones used.

But reading is always good, and as I said there's a historical base of truth under some of the conspiracy theories. The part about catarism, though, it's quite wrong from what I've managed to read (I live near the area and plan on doing some historical holidays visiting castles and ruins in there). Simplifies way too much the european and christian history, at a moment where there was a different sect of cristianism under each stone, most of them squashed for being against the rich and wealthy Rome/Avignon religious centers.

What? What a load of (with apologies to cattle) bull testicles.

Would you like to explain your reasoning so that I can flame it? That would be easier for me than just attacking your opinion without any understanding of why you hold it.

gee for someone who plays a text game, you sure are bad at reading.

I said, I'm leaning towards it with a heap of extra reading and thinking PLUS i said there's more to read on about it.

I mainly enjoyed the book for its details on symbolism and the fact its a good read.

Various symbols (such as the cross) are corruptions of other "pagan" symbols; and dates of holidays (such as Christmas) are placed on the former dates of various pagan religions, so the transfer from one to the other would be easy for people.


Edit:It happens all the time, all across history even. The Nazi's took a former benign symbol as there own when they came into power.

EditEdit: Didn't you ever wonder why it was so convient that Christmas fell so close to the end of the year?

Mmmm Christianity was invented about 2000 years ago (give or take a few) in palestina, in a small geographical area centered around Jerusalem.

From the wikipedia:


The fall of the Western Roman Empire is dated at about the 5th century with the start of the nordic invasions and fall of Rome if I remember right (Lots of years without studyng history).

There's no need to flame. He must be confused with something else.

You stated that: "Christianity was invented (compiled/organized are better words) in the first place to suppress people at the decaying end of the roman empire/rise of the Byzantine empire.

The quoted evidence does not support that argument. (It certainly does not support your argument when it is posted without explanation.)

It shows that when a new religion is introduced into a culture, there is an inevitable blend of old and new. I hardly see that is shows that Christianity was 'invented... to suppress people'.

Give me an argument to argue with.


Edit:

I see you've added an edit.



I'm well aware of what you are pointing out to me. I'm well aware of most of the arguments about it. I don't understand how it shows that Christianity was intended to suppress people.

I, of course was talking about around the time of the splitting to the roman empire and the "founding" of the Eastern empire.

And in response to a couple of the other posts in the quotes thread: 1) They were going for their sacred cities, which does say something about religion. Also, the fact that they were just calling it religious when they truly weren't does not matter- the point is that they still *called* it that, and the little peon folk believed it.

Don't do it, starve him of an arguement and just post on like you've already stated your arguement previously...that will be sure to make his head explode.

Back on topic though, Relgion was the best way to control the masses, hence probably why one would sayit was invented to supress people. Controlling the masses and supressing people are 2 different things.

It would make sense for the religous dates to coincide with one another, as to please both pagan and christian religous groups. I also however believe that Christians were incredibly insecure about a lot of things, hence the burning of 'women of intelligence, scholars, herbalists and any other woman suspiciously in tune with nature'. Or at least trying them as heretics. Anyway I have it no secret Christianity leaves a sour taste in my mouth after hearing and reading much of their exploits.

Religon has to be one of man's worst theories/inventions (if you'd use that word) Moreso the convert the infidel type than the i believe this, you're welcome to join me but if you don't then that's your problem.

I read the first post of this thread. Here comes the moron parade. And yes, I'm allowed to be slightly insulting to the slightly insulting militant atheists who started the thread.

Go go Karl Marx!

Religion is an invention of society to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. It is easier to convince someone to accept their f-ing miserable living conditions, life, watching their family starve, etc. when you can sleep at night with the hope that it will be better in the next life.

Karl Marx may have been off with other theories, but I find this one difficult to challenge.

bah. ninja'd by Iridel.

But the thing is, the roman empire split before the western part of it fell victim of invasions (200 years before) for political reasons, and the origins of christianity are like... another 200 years _before_ it even splitted.

So I don't get your point.

The christian symbol (the cross) comes from the way Christ was executed (in a + like wooden structure) wich happened to be the normal way of executing criminals under the roman government when they had not a circus handy with lions.

The dates for christmans and so on were based on old festivities of the Roman Empire, because the roman empire did to christianism the same they did to the Greeks, eat their religion and adapt it to their tastes (each roman God has a Greek original counterpart, with a different name). They also did it with other northern and eastern Gods. They were very adaptative people.

Oh God.

^^^^^

I wonder if he would get offended should people start to suggest Jesus was married, and that the church recast mary magdelene as a prostitute to discredit her and all that jazz. Hmm?

go go gadget Amaru.