Page 1 of 1

hell the place not the word

Posted: Wed Nov 05, 2008 6:24 pm
by shadow_8818
I am considering that this place was created to scare people to the Christian religion this also aided in the stopping of the flow of knowledge by giving the church more power this stopped human advancement to its current position. Imagen a world where there was never dark ages no black death and maybe just maybe the Mayans may have survived and helped advance in there field. sorry had started with a topic but then just rambled on and i lost my focus.

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:29 am
by Jebus
WHAT. THE. F*CK.

WHAT... THE... F*CK...

WHAT THE F*CK?

I... you... the f*cking MAYANS? Jesus Christ...

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:11 am
by Luet
Hehehehehehehe.

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:12 am
by lyons24000
I am considering that this place was created to scare people to the Christian religion this also aided in the stopping of the flow of knowledge by giving the church more power this stopped human advancement to its current position. Imagen a world where there was never dark ages no black death and maybe just maybe the Mayans may have survived and helped advance in there field. sorry had started with a topic but then just rambled on and i lost my focus.
I am considering that this place was created to scare people to the Christian religion. Hell has also aided in the halt of the flow of knowledge by giving the Church more power. This stopped the advancement to its current position. Imagine a world where the Dark Ages never occurred, there was no Black Death, and maybe, just maybe, the Mayans survived and advanced in their knowledge.

(Sorry! I started with a topic in mind but then just rambled on and lost my focus)

What is funny about this is Christianity is not the only religion that believes in hell. Did the Islamic belief in hell contribute to the fall of the Muslim Empire?

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:48 pm
by Darth Petra
Hello, Trollie.

Thank you for translating, Lyons. Now it makes even less sense. :?

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:07 pm
by Eaquae Legit
I am considering that this place was created to scare people to the Christian religion this also aided in the stopping of the flow of knowledge by giving the church more power this stopped human advancement to its current position. Imagen a world where there was never dark ages no black death and maybe just maybe the Mayans may have survived and helped advance in there field. sorry had started with a topic but then just rambled on and i lost my focus.
I am considering that this place was created to scare people to the Christian religion. Hell has also aided in the halt of the flow of knowledge by giving the Church more power. This stopped the advancement to its current position. Imagine a world where the Dark Ages never occurred, there was no Black Death, and maybe, just maybe, the Mayans survived and advanced in their knowledge.

(Sorry! I started with a topic in mind but then just rambled on and lost my focus)


The "Dark Ages" weren't dark. Particularly in the 11th century and onwards, medieval Europe created the university and developed a systematic natural philosophy that (while scientifically incorrect) is still perhaps the most detailed and well thought out in history. Not bad, considering how technologically limited they were. And while the Black Death was unquestionably devastating, it also spurred exploration and contact with the Orient.

I'm sorry, but I get real tired of people ragging on the Middle Ages.

Also, the Mayans? What the heck is that all about? I'd far rather see the survival of Arabic science and better transmission of oriental mathematics.

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:21 pm
by Jayelle
I love your defense of the middle ages, EL. It's like how the desert is not a barren wasteland, it's a rich eco-system, damnit!
Also, the Mayans? What the heck is that all about?
It means someone's been reading Pastwatch.

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:33 pm
by lyons24000
The "Dark Ages" weren't dark. Particularly in the 11th century and onwards, medieval Europe created the university and developed a systematic natural philosophy that (while scientifically incorrect) is still perhaps the most detailed and well thought out in history. Not bad, considering how technologically limited they were. And while the Black Death was unquestionably devastating, it also spurred exploration and contact with the Orient.

I'm sorry, but I get real tired of people ragging on the Middle Ages.

Also, the Mayans? What the heck is that all about? I'd far rather see the survival of Arabic science and better transmission of oriental mathematics.
I hope you don't think that I wrote that, E_L. I was just fixing the many errors in Shadow_8818's post and then adding my own little bit on the matter. I said nothing about the Middle Ages.

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:33 pm
by Eaquae Legit
Badly, apparently. The Mayans had pretty much zip to do with Pastwatch.

Whoops, no. I just felt like quoting your translation because it was more coherent.

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:02 pm
by Rei
I'm pretty sure Christianity and Hell had little to nothing to do with the Black Death happening. Unless it was genetically built by the Popes (whom the anti-Popes fought valiantly against!) to subjugate and kill vast portions of Europe!

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:14 pm
by surditate_vero
What you're basically suggesting is a parallel universe, shadow. Ergo, your question can't necessarily be answered because we can only really answer it in terms of this universe. Anything else would be supposition.

Perhaps in the parallel universe shadow mentions, we had the Popes v the Anti-popes, Rei? In that case, my money's on the Antis, as Urban VI didn't exactly have sterling credentials to begin with. :P[/i]

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 9:18 pm
by shadow_8818
Wow, lots of replies. I was just bored. The Mayan comment was because I was watching a special on 2012. :o :o :( :( :) :) :D :D. I was also working on a big history report for the Middle ages.

Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:34 pm
by surditate_vero
Wow, lots of replies. I was just bored. The Mayan comment was because I was watching a special on 2012.

Good grammar and syntax would be MUCH appreciated, shadow.

Aristotle must indeed be spinning in his grave.

Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 8:52 pm
by shadow_8818
What are you talking about.

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:51 am
by surditate_vero
Do you have anything meaningful to bring to a discussion on heaven and hell and its role in religion, shadow? I'm sure people would be glad to discuss such a topic if you would take it seriously long enough to engage in said discussion.

As for your post asking me what I'm talking about, I quote:
Wow, lots of replies. I was just bored. The Mayan comment was because I was watching a special on 2012. Surprised Surprised Sad Sad Smile Smile Very Happy Very Happy. I was also working on a big history report for the Middle ages.
_________________
Daniel- you know speaking in the third person has proven that your crazy.
Rodney- crazy like a fox

Last edited by shadow_8818 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:54 pm; edited 2 times in total
I hope you do realise that pweb noted that you edited your post on the 7th, after I outfitted it with proper grammar and syntax at 10.34 pm on 6 November. If your intention was to look silly, you've done well, but I suspect you're merely trying to raise everyone's hackles for your personal amusement.

I presume you're writing your history report with proper grammar and syntax; I hope you see fit to bring your knowledge of these items to bear on future posts.

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:10 am
by shadow_8818
I am considering that this place was created to scare people to the Christian religion this also aided in the stopping of the flow of knowledge by giving the church more power this stopped human advancement to its current position. Imagen a world where there was never dark ages no black death and maybe just maybe the Mayans may have survived and helped advance in there field. sorry had started with a topic but then just rambled on and i lost my focus.
I am considering that this place was created to scare people to the Christian religion. Hell has also aided in the halt of the flow of knowledge by giving the Church more power. This stopped the advancement to its current position. Imagine a world where the Dark Ages never occurred, there was no Black Death, and maybe, just maybe, the Mayans survived and advanced in their knowledge.

(Sorry! I started with a topic in mind but then just rambled on and lost my focus)


The "Dark Ages" weren't dark. Particularly in the 11th century and onwards, medieval Europe created the university and developed a systematic natural philosophy that (while scientifically incorrect) is still perhaps the most detailed and well thought out in history. Not bad, considering how technologically limited they were. And while the Black Death was unquestionably devastating, it also spurred exploration and contact with the Orient.

I'm sorry, but I get real tired of people ragging on the Middle Ages.

Also, the Mayans? What the heck is that all about? I'd far rather see the survival of Arabic science and better transmission of oriental mathematics.


The catholic church destroyed almost anything it found that had threating to there power,including history it was dark that is why it is called the dark ages it pursed all people who thought outside the religion. It also hid all knowledge in monasteries that were eventually destroyed losing valuable knowledge. It may have its ups but it also had loads of downs. It was a bad time. when you near the 11th century you get closer to renaissances.

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:02 am
by locke
The "Dark Ages" weren't dark. Particularly in the 11th century and onwards, medieval Europe created the university and developed a systematic natural philosophy that (while scientifically incorrect) is still perhaps the most detailed and well thought out in history. Not bad, considering how technologically limited they were. And while the Black Death was unquestionably devastating, it also spurred exploration and contact with the Orient.
.
The final period when the most sophisticated naturphilosophie was coming into conflict with the rationalism of the new breed of scientists in the 1800s is a really fascinating period as the two tried and failed to unify then wound up defending their own turf while denigrating the other approach. Luckily for us the rational folks won out and we got the scientific method controlled experiments and incredible advances in understanding. Interestingly, naturphilosophie has survived, devolved in a way, in the sorts of tautological alternative medicine therapies and beliefs.

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:57 pm
by wigginboy
I came here expecting to read something about hell. Where is it or are you just using words to get people to read your posts? I have to go, but when I come back, I have some actual hell related questions/commentary. I may just start a new thread though, this one was derailed before it began.

Tris

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:44 pm
by Eaquae Legit
The catholic church destroyed almost anything it found that had threating to there power,including history it was dark that is why it is called the dark ages it pursed all people who thought outside the religion. It also hid all knowledge in monasteries that were eventually destroyed losing valuable knowledge. It may have its ups but it also had loads of downs. It was a bad time. when you near the 11th century you get closer to renaissances.
No, it didn't.

It's called the "Dark Ages" because a bunch of renaissance propagandists wanted to make themselves look good. All respect to Adam there, but modern historians are guilty of the same prejudice - the main difference being that they don't generally do it deliberately anymore.

So let's break this down, shall we?

The Church did not destroy everything that was a threat to their (note spelling) power. Early monasteries are responsible for the survival of an obscene amount of Classical literature. If the Church didn't copy it, no one else was going to. That includes magical and astrological texts, by the way.

"It was dark that's why it's called the dark ages" barely even makes sense. The sun still shone, you know. And while Imperial Rome had imploded, there was still learning and literature and discourse. The Carolingian Renaissance in the ninth century made great improvements in handwriting, let me tell you. Augustine of Hippo didn't "purse" Jews, he wrote tracts urging Christians to leave them alone. And with the Crusades, people tend to forget that Christianity and Islam lived in peace for some centuries, originally.

It didn't hide all knowledge in monasteries - it saved it. So many priceless works would have been lost if not for the monks and nuns who patiently copied it out, spending years on a single text. Looking at your posts, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have the patience to copy out the entire Aeneid, so why don't you keep that glass house of yours intact, mm?

The eleventh century isn't "close to renaissances." It's the beginning of the high Middle Ages. Anything that happened in the eleventh to sixteenth century belongs to the Middle Ages, unless you're using the terms to mean Middle Ages = Bad, Renaissance = Good, which is completely inappropriate. The medieval period was cultured, progressive, and pretty dang awesome on its own terms. It doesn't need to be relabelled "renaissance." To be completely honest, "the" renaissance kind of sucked in a lot of ways.

****

Adam, I'm honestly not 100% sure what you're getting at. We may be using terms in different ways. Reason is not a modern concept. Medieval philosophers practically deified Reason (some of them conflated it with God himself, IIRC). They were rationalists to the very core. It's too bad they didn't have access to the factual knowledge available in the 19th century, because I'm sure what Albert the Great would have done with it would blow our minds. Medieval natural philosophers weren't stupid people - they were brilliant people limited by the knowledge available to them.

The intellectual attitude of the 18th century has very little to do with the medieval period. I've never looked at "naturphilosophie" much in the past, but a quick wikipedia skim* firmly convinces me that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "natural philosophy" as I've been using the term. In the Middle Ages, natural philosophy was simply the study of nature and the physical universe. Wikipedia again: "Major branches of natural philosophy include astronomy and cosmology, the study of nature on the grand scale; etiology, the study of (intrinsic and sometimes extrinsic) causes; the study of chance, probability and randomness; the study of elements; the study of the infinite and the unlimited (virtual or actual); the study of matter; mechanics, the study of translation of motion and change; the study of nature or the various sources of actions; the study of natural qualities; the study of physical quantities; the study of relations between physical entities; and the philosophy of space and time. (Adler, 1993)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

When something's a bit kooky, I prefer to blame the renaissance. The Enlightenment was a little better but not all it proclaims itself to be, either. A really awesome sci-fi/history sort of book that I can recommend is Michael Flynn's Eifelheim. Rather than the usual garbage that is set in the Middle Ages, this one is quite accurate in its depiction.



* I am nothing if not rigorous. ;)

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 7:02 pm
by surditate_vero
...it [the so-called "Dark Ages"] was dark that is why it is called the dark ages...
They had candles back then, you know. They gave off light. They helped at night. When it was actually dark outside. And when the candles went out, they just made more.

Otherwise, they had the sun.

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 8:03 pm
by locke
Adam, I'm honestly not 100% sure what you're getting at. We may be using terms in different ways. Reason is not a modern concept. Medieval philosophers practically deified Reason (some of them conflated it with God himself, IIRC). They were rationalists to the very core. It's too bad they didn't have access to the factual knowledge available in the 19th century, because I'm sure what Albert the Great would have done with it would blow our minds. Medieval natural philosophers weren't stupid people - they were brilliant people limited by the knowledge available to them.

The intellectual attitude of the 18th century has very little to do with the medieval period. I've never looked at "naturphilosophie" much in the past, but a quick wikipedia skim* firmly convinces me that it has nothing whatsoever to do with "natural philosophy" as I've been using the term. In the Middle Ages, natural philosophy was simply the study of nature and the physical universe. Wikipedia again: "Major branches of natural philosophy include astronomy and cosmology, the study of nature on the grand scale; etiology, the study of (intrinsic and sometimes extrinsic) causes; the study of chance, probability and randomness; the study of elements; the study of the infinite and the unlimited (virtual or actual); the study of matter; mechanics, the study of translation of motion and change; the study of nature or the various sources of actions; the study of natural qualities; the study of physical quantities; the study of relations between physical entities; and the philosophy of space and time. (Adler, 1993)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

When something's a bit kooky, I prefer to blame the renaissance. The Enlightenment was a little better but not all it proclaims itself to be, either. A really awesome sci-fi/history sort of book that I can recommend is Michael Flynn's Eifelheim. Rather than the usual garbage that is set in the Middle Ages, this one is quite accurate in its depiction.



* I am nothing if not rigorous. ;)
yeah we're coming at this from different directions entirely. I was equating natural philosophy with the German University systems philosopohie of nature (naturphilosophie) that descended from vitalistic traditions particularly with proto-biologists who were still trying to legitimize biology as a hard science.

To quote from a paper of mine I wrote on this back in college:

"Naturphilosophie is a complex framework of ideas and philosophies. It was not effectively systematized until Friedrich Schelling’s Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Natur (Ideas on a Philosophy of Nature, 1797) was published. Schelling’s philosophies built heavily on Kant and Fichte; however Schelling envisioned Naturphilosophie to have a systemizing effect on science, not replace it outright. Schelling hoped that Naturphilosophie would create a unity between empirical science and the spiritual realm. If physical and empirical science investigates the relationships of the body to the world, then Naturphilosophie investigated the relationships of the mind and human spirit to the world. Schelling later conceived Naturphilosophie as a separate philosophy, independent of transcendental speculations and theology—although he never believed this was achieved in his lifetime. "

Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:16 pm
by surditate_vero
I wonder what Albertus Magnus, Aquinas, Ockham, et al would make of naturphilosophie.