How the Greeks' abandonment of religion led to science and technology

Pelern

Sparrow
We still hear a lot the common complaint that the Church kept the Scripture from the masses while seeing everywhere what is has become in the hands of the masses, where anything and everything can be argued from Scripture, even the most aberrant and demonic things.
Is that why they kept it secret?

Or was it to keep the common man ignorant and a slave? The Catholic church in particular was quite corrupt and used the ignorance of it's flock against it to accumulate wealth. They fleeced their ignorant flock and would still do that to this day in the same way if the bible wasn't given to the masses.

You are basically arguing that the masses need to be kept in the dark and ruled by their betters. The only reason why you could want this is if you believe you would be part of the elites ruling over the masses.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Is that why they kept it secret?

Or was it to keep the common man ignorant and a slave? The Catholic church in particular was quite corrupt and used the ignorance of it's flock against it to accumulate wealth. They fleeced their ignorant flock and would still do that to this day in the same way if the bible wasn't given to the masses.

You are basically arguing that the masses need to be kept in the dark and ruled by their betters. The only reason why you could want this is if you believe you would be part of the elites ruling over the masses.

Just because I believe in hierarchy does not mean I believe I should be at the top of it. I believe in it because it is the sacred order of things.

So, you say, that when the Church had power to keep certain things, the common man was ignorant and a slave? As opposed to when? Now? Now that he is free, what is he free to do and from what? Free from the bonds of large families, community, church, folklore? Free from the natural world, which he does not understand anymore because he's enslaved in an artificial one, on which he is but a lifeless cog? Or is it free to choose his own self-destruction? Free from the knowledge of God, of sin, of Christ's sacrifice? He is indeed free of all those things. And how sad a freedom it is.

As St. Paul wrote, one is either free from sin or free from virtue, and a slave to one or a slave to the other. We are meant to have bonds. The ones we had with the Church at the top were healthy. The ones we have now are not. And yet, even saying that, the common man was certainly much freer himself simply because of the kinds of freedoms that the Church curtailed elsewhere: like the freedom of the usurer, the capitalist, the scientist.

As for ignorance - there is a very specific type of ignorance we see now, and it is precisely that which conflates literacy with intelligence. It reduces the world to words because it doesn't understand what words are supposed to be. It reifies them, and it almost deifies literacy itself as a panacea for all the world's problems. This is what ends up happening when something powerful, like literacy, is democratized. The same has happened with everything else in the modern world - that demonic world that was only allowed to appear and thrive after and because the authority of the Church was weakened.

According to the democratic theory, you would think that with twelve years of compulsory schooling, a few more of college and widespread availability of information about the Middle Ages (for example), the idea that the common man of the era was more ignorant and less free (in a general sense) than we are now would be completely and utterly debunked and laughed at. And yet, despite this availability of knowledge, the ignorance prevails.

If this does not prove that literacy is wasted on most, I do not know what will.
 
Last edited:

Pelern

Sparrow
Just because I believe in hierarchy does not mean I believe I should be at the top of it. I believe in it because it is the sacred order of things.

So, you say, that when the Church had power to keep certain things, the common man was ignorant and a slave? As opposed to when? Now? Now that he is free, what is he free to do and from what? Free from the bonds of large families, community, church, folklore? Free from the natural world, which he does not understand anymore because he's enslaved in an artificial one, on which he is but a lifeless cog? Or is it free to choose his own self-destruction? Free from the knowledge of God, of sin, of Christ's sacrifice? He is indeed free of all those things. And how sad a freedom it is.

As St. Paul wrote, one is either free from sin or free from virtue, and a slave to one or a slave to the other. We are meant to have bonds. The ones we had with the Church at the top were healthy. The ones we have now are not. And yet, even saying that, the common man was certainly much freer himself simply because of the kinds of freedoms that the Church curtailed elsewhere: like the freedom of the usurer, the capitalist, the scientist.

As for ignorance - there is a very specific type of ignorance we see now, and it is precisely that which conflates literacy with intelligence. It reduces the world to words because it doesn't understand what words are supposed to be. It reifies them, and it almost deifies literacy itself as a panacea for all the world's problems. This is what ends up happening when something powerful, like literacy, is democratized. The same has happened with everything else in the modern world - that demonic world that was only allowed to appear and thrive after and because the authority of the Church was weakened.

According to the democratic theory, you would think that with twelve years of compulsory schooling, a few more of college and widespread availability of information about the Middle Ages (for example), the idea that the common man of the era was more ignorant and less free (in a general sense) than we are now would be completely and utterly debunked and laughed at. And yet, despite this availability of knowledge, the ignorance prevails.

If this does not prove that literacy is wasted on most, I do not know what will.
I think you are extremely ungrateful for the gifts you have been given. You are not so different from those that you believe literacy is wasted on. The only difference is you want it taken from you whereas they bury themselves in noise to ignore it.

If you believe the natural order is that we should all serve and be kept ignorant then should be happy with how the world is progressing. You should applaud where we are headed. The same place we were when the Catholic Church was the ultimate authority. Just make sure to save enough money to pay for the indulgences needed to get you and your loved ones into heaven.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
I think you are extremely ungrateful for the gifts you have been given. You are not so different from those that you believe literacy is wasted on. The only difference is you want it taken from you whereas they bury themselves in noise to ignore it.

If you believe the natural order is that we should all serve and be kept ignorant then should be happy with how the world is progressing. You should applaud where we are headed. The same place we were when the Catholic Church was the ultimate authority. Just make sure to save enough money to pay for the indulgences needed to get you and your loved ones into heaven.

I try to be grateful, which includes how I use it, precisely because I know it is a gift. It is those who use it indiscriminately, to discuss the most vacuous things, who do not recognize the gift. Though it is quite possible that literacy is indeed wasted on me as well, and I don't know what I would be if circumstances were different like they were in the Middle Ages - I know I wouldn't be a royal, as I have no royal blood. And I accept that just as I accept my family, my race, my sex, and all the other determinants which make up our identities. This type of rejection of hierarchy springs from the same diabolical source which, in our days, has evolved to reject even the determinant of sex and, soon, of humanity itself (through transhumanism).

The rest of your post just shows your absolute ignorance of the Medieval world. To compare what is hierarchical (again, it means sacred rule) to the rule of the antichrist which is what we are under, is to completely invert the reality of our times. Although that inversion itself and its popularity is a sign of the times.
 

Pelern

Sparrow
The rest of your post just shows your absolute ignorance of the Medieval world. To compare what is hierarchical (again, it means sacred rule) to the rule of the antichrist which is what we are under, is to completely invert the reality of our times. Although that inversion itself and its popularity is a sign of the times.
This is because you ignore the evil that existed back then and romanticize the past. You excuse the sins of the Catholic church when they acted as the "elites" today act. The only difference being that today you are cancelled from participating in society whereas in the past you were condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake.

Life in the medieval world was short and brutish. Chances are that we wouldn't be having this conversation or any conversation because both of us would be dead by the time we reached the age we are now.

In my opinion you spend far too much of your time fighting monsters and staring into the abyss. I would start to spend more time seeing the beauty and gifts God has given us. Be thankful for what you do have instead of obsessing over what you don't have.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
This is because you ignore the evil that existed back then and romanticize the past. You excuse the sins of the Catholic church when they acted as the "elites" today act. The only difference being that today you are cancelled from participating in society whereas in the past you were condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake.

Life in the medieval world was short and brutish. Chances are that we wouldn't be having this conversation or any conversation because both of us would be dead by the time we reached the age we are now.

In my opinion you spend far too much of your time fighting monsters and staring into the abyss. I would start to spend more time seeing the beauty and gifts God has given us. Be thankful for what you do have instead of obsessing over what you don't have.

You are once again revealing your ignorance of how life in the Middle Ages was (not to mention the extreme prejudice against the Catholic Church, which is par for the course in people who do not understand the Middle Ages, since the Church and the Age are inseparable). Not least of which is the quip about the burning of heretics, which was a practice that only appeared at the tail end of it and only became customary in the 14th Century, which although most historians consider still the last part of the Middle Ages, it is really the beginning of the modern period for a variety of reasons.

Everything else you said is targeted toward emotions and emotional perception. All it shows is that this conversation is pointless.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
For fun I went to check numbers - according to Wikipedia, which is hardly sympathetic to the Catholic Church. The more you investigate, the more ridiculous the standard narrative becomes.

On the Spanish side, the estimates - which are attested by very unreliable sources themselves, like the English government when it was at war with Spain- are of 30 to 50 thousand burned at the stake during the 300 years of the Inquisition (most of them, however, not burned alive - but rather hanged before their bodies were burned). This, of course, all took place already AFTER the Middle Ages, not during it.

At the height of the Portuguese Inquisition, between 1560 and 1773, a total of 57 people were burned. Fifty seven. In total, however, estimates - which are, again, not reliable - say 1200 (and if you check the sources they do not distinguish between burning alive or in effigy, again).

So the picture that becomes clear is that the Inquisition was a big nothing, and the barbaric image that is imprinted in our minds is nothing more than propaganda (as are so many other images and ideas), especially without considering the crimes themselves (many times desecration of Holy places by Jews and Muslims, for example, or homosexual rapes of children), and even more when compared to secular mass killings from the French Revolution and other 'enlightened' movements, much larger in numbers and incomparably more barbaric, not only in themselves, but on the reasons behind them.

This is of course is not to defend (though also not to condemn) the Inquisition. Just to show that this narrative of the horrible things the Church did, along with many others are painted in such a way which is not realistic nor within context and without any kind of perspective, and the only intention, which should be clear, is to denigrate the Roman Catholic Church. And I should stress, I say this without being a Roman Catholic myself.
 
Last edited:

Pelern

Sparrow
For fun I went to check numbers - according to Wikipedia, which is hardly sympathetic to the Catholic Church. The more you investigate, the more ridiculous the standard narrative becomes.

On the Spanish side, the estimates - which are attested by very unreliable sources themselves, like the English government when it was at war with Spain- are of 30 to 50 thousand burned at the stake during the 300 years of the Inquisition (most of them, however, not burned alive - but rather hanged before their bodies were burned). This, of course, all took place already AFTER the Middle Ages, not during it.

At the height of the Portuguese Inquisition, between 1560 and 1773, a total of 57 people were burned. Fifty seven. In total, however, estimates - which are, again, not reliable - say 1200 (and if you check the sources they do not distinguish between burning alive or in effigy, again).

So the picture that becomes clear is that the Inquisition was a big nothing, and the barbaric image that is imprinted in our minds is nothing more than propaganda (as are so many other images and ideas), especially without considering the crimes themselves (many times desecration of Holy places by Jews and Muslims, for example, or homosexual rapes of children), and even more when compared to secular mass killings from the French Revolution and other 'enlightened' movements, much larger in numbers and incomparably more barbaric, not only in themselves, but on the reasons behind them.

This is of course is not to defend (though also not to condemn) the Inquisition. Just to show that this narrative of the horrible things the Church did, along with many others are painted in such a way which is not realistic nor within context and without any kind of perspective, and the only intention, which should be clear, is to denigrate the Roman Catholic Church. And I should stress, I say this without being a Roman Catholic myself.

I didn't know they hanged them before they burned them, that makes things much better. Definitely absolves the Catholic church of any wrong doing.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
The Cathars were a satanist sect that took over southern France, they were dealt with properly, the same manner the heretic homos Templars were.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
The Cathars were a satanist sect that took over southern France, they were dealt with properly, the same manner the heretic homos Templars were.

The destruction of the Templars was the beginning of modernity. I take some pride in the fact that Portugal resisted this by immediately creating the Order of Christ, which absorbed a large part of them. The slander about the Templars is normal given that modernity won but I thought you would know better. You keep disappointing me to be honest.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
The destruction of the Templars was the beginning of modernity. I take some pride in the fact that Portugal resisted this by immediately creating the Order of Christ, which absorbed a large part of them. The slander about the Templars is normal given that modernity won but I thought you would know better. You keep disappointing me to be honest.

I heard and read varied things about the Templars and could never really make up my mind about them.
Most common theme I heard in my youth was that the Templars were yet another innocent group of victims of the evil Catholic Church - there must be a couple predictable Hollywood movies on that theme IRIC.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
I heard and read varied things about the Templars and could never really make up my mind about them.
Most common theme I heard in my youth was that the Templars were yet another innocent group of victims of the evil Catholic Church - there must be a couple predictable Hollywood movies on that theme IRIC.

As usual, the truth is in neither side of superficiality.

The destruction of the Templars was itself an attack on the Church by temporal power (specifically the King of France, who lobbied the Pope for it, against the authority of the Church and against the Holy Roman Emperor). This marked the beginning of nationalism, the hatred of mystery that led to Protestantism, the authority over currency from the Church to the State, and basically every bad trend that would continue in the West. It is no coincidence that it was more or less at this time that the East stopped compiling their lists of errors, as they probably saw the deviation being too deep to reconcile and salvage.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
that includes not painting the Church as the MIT. Its function was as much to keep as to hide.
Interesting point, like often.
I'm not sure where I stand myself on this issue, however it took me some time to remember where I heard it already before : from a good friend of mine, who's rather deep into occultism .. you know, "hiding" stuff :)

It's also funny to see that enlightenment was called like this (well in french anyway, no idea about english) because the philosophers of the time thought that all this suddenly openly available knowledge would light the world like a beacon of truth - a vast underestimation of the general population's IQ obviously ..
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Interesting point, like often.
I'm not sure where I stand myself on this issue, however it took me some time to remember where I heard it already before : from a good friend of mine, who's rather deep into occultism .. you know, "hiding" stuff :)

It's also funny to see that enlightenment was called like this (well in french anyway, no idea about english) because the philosophers of the time thought that all this suddenly openly available knowledge would light the world like a beacon of truth - a vast underestimation of the general population's IQ obviously ..

There's a difference between esotericism and occultism - the first being always nested in a religious tradition, the second a modern counterfeit perfectly in line with the antichrist. Roman Catholics in particular should go read people like Joseph de Maistre, if they can understand him, instead of modernists who only get the most superficial things, bow to the world that hates Christ and, worse, deem the superficial to be the only acceptable level of understanding. This is the protestantization of Catholicism, which is really everywhere.

Hatred of secrecy is the mode of modernity and it's incredible to me how one can participate in a traditional religion like Catholicism and yet not understand that it entails necessarily levels of unveiling, as so many do here (I mean, what would be the meaning of Chrismation for example, without this understanding - but again, modernity is itself against meaning as such, and recognizes only the mechanic). This is why one cannot go by himself into hesychasm, for example, but has to be initiated and led by a Spiritual Father. But in fact, having a Spiritual Father to begin with is already a form of initiation. This pattern is evident in all of Medieval society, from its architecture to its economic structure - and, on this, it's no surprise that modernity destroyed the traditional apprenticeships with its hatred of initiation, relegating it to its enemies (just as it did with its symbols), which is the occult (itself a form of superficial spirituality).

To be honest I don't know if you can understand what I just wrote, since you are a committed materialist (by choice or chance I don't know), but hopefully others might.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Roman Catholics in particular should go read people like Joseph de Maistre, if they can understand him, instead of modernists who only get the most superficial things, bow to the world that hates Christ and, worse, deem the superficial to be the only acceptable level of understanding.
My experience with catholicism was the other way around, I was basically told that if I was to follow any spiritual path it could only be one which would serve their interests - oh, and also that they wouldn't answer my questions but maybe god would eventually :)
Their followers were also obviously happy with this braindead state of affairs, so I viewed the whole thing more like a cult to be honest.

Also, hating christ is a bit of a strong word, in science if the presence or absence of one thing does not change anything to the observable world, of course the first question which comes to mind is does it exist at all ? And I've never seen a real answer to that, so first things first, will you.
The only people I've met who hate christ are those who actually believe deep within themselves that he exists and are willingfully refusing to follow - to me that's more like schizophrenia than anything else ?
Anyway, who cares about those crazies ..
Hatred of secrecy is the mode of modernity and it's incredible to me how one can participate in a traditional religion like Catholicism and yet not understand that it entails necessarily levels of unveiling, as so many do here (I mean, what would be the meaning of Chrismation for example, without this understanding - but again, modernity is itself against meaning as such, and recognizes only the mechanic). This is why one cannot go by himself into hesychasm, for example, but has to be initiated and led by a Spiritual Father. But in fact, having a Spiritual Father to begin with is already a form of initiation. This pattern is evident in all of Medieval society, from its architecture to its economic structure - and, on this, it's no surprise that modernity destroyed the traditional apprenticeships with its hatred of initiation, relegating it to its enemies (just as it did with its symbols), which is the occult (itself a form of superficial spirituality).
I don't see any hatred of secrecy in the "modern world" - it's just illegitimate plotters who want the secrets of the elite for themselves (without having to, or being able to, or being allowed to, jump through the hurdles), but they are not willing to share anything more than the ones they are trying to oust if they ever get in the know.
I see one master trying to replace another but for the slaves it's nothing new or improved, that was never the goal apparently.
It's just crab mentality and mediocre people all the way to the top.

A very materialistic question to end my post maybe, but where would you find a spiritual father if you were looking for one ?
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
I don't know what I would be if circumstances were different like they were in the Middle Ages - I know I wouldn't be a royal, as I have no royal blood. And I accept that just as I accept my family, my race, my sex, and all the other determinants which make up our identities. This type of rejection of hierarchy springs from the same diabolical source which, in our days, has evolved to reject even the determinant of sex and, soon, of humanity itself (through transhumanism).
Sorry for the multiple posts but I'm still reading the thread so : what we are is not purely deterministically based on the factors you mention.
I know some smart parents who had mediocre children, and I know stupid people who sired a champion.
Accidents happen, all the time.
How a society handles its exceptions is important.
Any rigid hierarchy is bound to fail with time, for that reason amongst others.

Transhumanism is another subject, basically morons trying to become gods - materialistically speaking anyway.
That's both cheating and against the laws of nature, and thus bound to fail sooner or later.
Hopefully sooner but I'm not holding my breath.

Oh, la crise du monde moderne arrived this week by the way, I'll start it tonight.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
In science if the presence or absence of one thing does not change anything to the observable world, of course the first question which comes to mind is does it exist at all ? And I've never seen a real answer to that, so first things first, will you.

Not sure what you're thinking of here, but the presence/absence of Christ certainly changes a tremendous lot of things ...
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
I don't see any hatred of secrecy in the "modern world"

Oh yes it's there - everywhere. It's especially apparent in materialism itself, which refuses to see anything just a little bit hidden to the senses. It's also very obvious in the leftist cry for "Equality" and the "lowest common denominator" mentality.
 
Top