Historical Myths Thread

[timoneill]

Jun 3, 2010 5:02:33 GMT penguinfan said:

As for the Byzantines, that a band of Bedouins were able to route the empire's hold on much of the middle east, including Egypt and Syria, could be used as a nice argument that the Byzantine's were more than just exhausted from extensive warfare against the Persians, the Romans were rotting from the inside out.

So why did it take over 400 years for Christianity to cause this "rotting from the inside out"? In the Sixth Century the Eastern Empire not only underwent an economic boom but successfully went on the offensive against Persia and then turned west and won back Sicily, Africa, Italy and parts of Spain. Why wasn't Christianity holding them back then? Or in the previous 200 years when it maintained itself nicely while the Western Empire collapsed? Was it somehow less "Christian" in these centuries than it was in the Seventh Century?

Sorry, but this idea makes no sense at all.

[merkavah12]

PZ Meyers takes the bait:

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/i_want_to_see_this_movie.php

"She's definitely a wonderful subject for a movie, they've got a big name, Rachel Weisz, playing the leading role, and the film is done and looking for a distributor. No one wants to give it wide release. I wonder why? It could be that it's badly made (not likely, since it was the highest grossing film in Spain for 2009), or it could be that a movie about an intelligent godless woman who is persecuted and slaughtered by a mob of mindless fanatical Christians with the approval of the church is a poor fit to the American political climate."

*sigh*

Oh, Meyers....you never learn do you?

[acornuser]

Wasn't Agora supposed to be an allegory about Muslim fundamentalists and the (perceived) threat to Europe anyway? I seem to recall reading an interview with the director where he said that.

[merkavah12]

Jun 12, 2010 13:19:49 GMT acornuser said:

Wasn't Agora supposed to be an allegory about Muslim fundamentalists and the (perceived) threat to Europe anyway? I seem to recall reading an interview with the director where he said that.

Yep. Tim noted it as well.

[merkavah12]

You know what I love? People who have this misty eyed view of Roman history and believe that they can do no wrong.

You know what I really, really love? People who justify Roman atrocities by basically saying "hey, at least they weren't those damn xians!".

Case in point:

thatguywiththeglasses.com/community/blog/23678

The gold star ends up right here:

But if one actually looks at history correctly and unbiased one sees that the Romans were fairly tolerant unlike the victims of their oppression like the Christians (who would go and destroy any religion that was not theirs). The main reason is that this is because the Romans always liked to hedge their bets on everything and religion was no different, and it was common to see a Roman citizen worshiping many gods from many religions. There was a flexibility in their worship since there was no dogma or bible of their religion. An example of this would be Constantine the Great, who not only legalized Christianity, but also worshiped the Sun God Apollo till his death. Another novel technique the Romans developed was the to combine the local deities on the fringes of the empire with their own deity. In Aquae Sulis (now modern day Bath) the Romans combined their goddess Minerva (who herself was a combination of prehistoric Rome and the Greek goddess Athena) with the local Britannia goddess Sulis, who was similar to Minerva in style and in role to the people. Now why did Romans persecute the Christians and Jews? Because they refused to worship the Emperor which symbolically meant they refused the current regime and Romans saw this as insubordination. I find it ironic that a people talk so much about their persecution by an empire and yet when they hold significant power, the Christians would use it to destroy any religion that didn't have Jesus or God. Now to end this with the advice that the Romans left us: "It is okay to have beliefs in different gods, just don't overuse your privilege or we will come and murder and rape you in the ass.

Noble hosts, behold: the state of education in the world today. Weep for the future.

[turoldus]

Now why did Romans persecute the Christians and Jews? Because they refused to worship the Emperor which symbolically meant they refused the current regime and Romans saw this as insubordination.

Okay. Let me know if I get it. Xians denying people their freedom of religion: bad. Romans denying people their freedom of conscience: good. Xian regimes demanding absolute submission and obedience: bad. Roman Empire demanding absolute submission and obedience: good.

I find it ironic that a people talk so much about their persecution by an empire and yet when they hold significant power, the Christians would use it to destroy any religion that didn't have Jesus or God.

What I find ironic is that this guy fails to see the cause/effect relationship at work there...

Now to end this with the advice that the Romans left us: "It is okay to have beliefs in different gods, just don't overuse your privilege or we will come and murder and rape you in the ass.

Intolerance in the name of tolerance, what a great notion!

[merkavah12]

James, I think you'll find this most...amusing:

From www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/06/the-perniciously-persistent-myths-of-hypatia-and-the-great-library, Charles Freeman writes

Readers of my books who see me as anti -Christian are a minority and much of correspodence in England is with Thoughtful Christians. I have a dialogue with anAnglican monk to continue when I get back to England .
One of the strongest points I made in Closing was that it was the emperor Theodosius I who was responsible for making a lively and diverse. Christianity subject to imperial laws a nd I don't regard any review. That does not respond to this argument as inadequate. Reviewers who leave this point out make it look as if I blame Christians ALONE for the Closing. I have taken one James Hannam to task for this approach in his review of Closing. I have no reason to believe that Hannam has a wide following but his approach seems to have been copied uncritically by some who have not read Closing. I decided the best thing to do was to write a more focussed sequel,AD381 ,which made the legislation of Theodosius the central feature.Hannam seems not to have seen it. So I think I can plead that I have been misrepresented and you will find reviewers who cannot detect any anti-Christian bias in my work . Many see my work as essentially a study of the relationship between Cbristianity and political power.

Is he serious? Is this guy serious?

[perplexedseeker]

Jun 13, 2010 10:52:44 GMT merkavah12 said:

Noble hosts, behold: the state of education in the world today. Weep for the future.

Don't lose hope yet. If you check the comments thread he accepts the criticisms some people brought up, admits a "pro-Roman" bias and stands corrected. That's a rare thing on the internet.

[merkavah12]

That warms the cockles of my heart, Seeker. It's nice to know that some people are open to learning and dialogue.

[merkavah12]

Everyone remember Brettongarcia from the Agora thread over at "First Things"?:

It seems he's not only immune to listening to criticism but also is a budding conspiracy theorist:

For now, if Freeman is going to opt out, I'd like to simply cite once again, but now foreground, the really central piece of historical evidence, that Hart suppresses: the quotation by Orosius (f. 410 AD). Who, regarding the possiblity of books having been destroyed in the 391 demolition of Alexandrian temples, said, first person, in the sixth book of his History:

'[T]oday there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen, and, when these temples were plundered, these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our time, which, indeed, is a true statement.' (Orosius, History).

Hart selectively, does not quote Orosius, a first-person witness from the times of Hypatia; and Hart asserts but does not prove that Gibbons "misunderstood" this first person witness, from the times. But in fact it's clear enough; there HAD been significant books/libraries in Alexadandria; until they were lost, in the destruction of all pagan templesthere, as ordered and carried out by Christians, in 391.

[hawkinthesnow]

May 26, 2010 14:06:56 GMT merkavah12 said:

Speaking of Wagner, is there any truth to the story that Nietzsche physically assaulted him?

I am currently reading a book about Wagner by Bryan Magee "Wagner and Philosophy" It has a chapter about his relationship with N. There is nothing in it about any physical assault on Wager, which if it had happened, would most certainly have been recorded by Cosima Wagner in her voluminous diary. N. became disenchanted with Wagner because of "Parsifal", which N regarded as too Christian, and a betrayal by Wagner of his earlier views (at least according to N.) And also because of what he perceived as Wagner's sycophantic behaviour towards his rich and famous admirers.

N. always regrded Wagner as a genius and a father figure, and was devoted to Cosima Wagner, with whom he was probably in love.

[merkavah12]

Thanks the information, Hawk!