Message from @Jake the Exile
Discord ID: 617650333845291018
@Jake the Exile Pardon?
What do you mean?
People weren't completely illiterate, The early church spread through letters.
A lot of which only the local noble could read for them
And the Old Testament was read widely, and publicly.
By the local noble, or pastor.
You act like everyone involved with Christianity was stupid and uneducated.
Paul was a Pharisee.
Easier to pay a smaller workforce
The illiteracy rate of the middle ages was extremely high. Nearly 100%. Only a few chosen were able to read. Rarely any of the commoners could. Let alone Latin. They had to rely on pastors, preachers and monks.
Blaise Pascal Quotes. There are two kinds of people one can call reasonable: those who serve God with all their heart because they know him, and those who seek him with all their heart because they do not know him.
That's why Martin Luthers translation of the Bible into common German sparked a revolution or two.
The people who spread the teachings and wrote to churches with instruction (which is the bulk of the New Testament) were all literate in several languages.
Yeah, but not the common farmer
The people that made the bulk of any population before the industrialization
The comon farmer could still listen.
And those who spoke were not exempt from abusing their position
Hey, not everyone involved with Christianity was stupid and uneducated. A few of them went on to become great scientists, who then after becoming intelligent and educated, denounced Christianity, or were just plain persecuted for learning too much and tainting the populace.
#ListenAndBelieve
Christianity is a cultural stabilizer, not so much a scientific one
@Lios Oh please. The only time when Christianity actively denounced science is when it went out of its way to create an openly contrary dogma.
Best way to shut someone uneducated up is to give them a ridiculous answer they have no reason to deny.
You realize that lasted for hundreds of years, right, Jake?
It never stopped. The anthropologists basically created their own sect.
So if you disagree with that stance, why stand up for it now? :^)
Because the dogma of Darwinism is just that, a dogma. It's not science.
It's a presumption.
It's fairly well proven.
A dogma with a rational approach, a lot of which simply adopted the concept of skepticism.
With what? Spontaneous generation?
Or rather the darwinian theory of evolution.
A good amount of it has also been disproven, so it isn't taken as gospel like Christianity likes to do.
I agree with @Lios
``Christians are more tolerant of atheists, because they failed to suppress the rebellion, because they wanted to be more subjugative by passive law, rather than oppressive force.
See Islam``
That's the key with the sciences, they're malleable, they change. Science is always open to new information. Dogma is not. Religion is not.
No, no. It still operates on a purely naturalistic mindset that everything came from nothing with no guiding force whatsoever and that people are no better than monkeys.
Evolution is not open to being questioned.
We are better than monkeys
I will never like to see people not been given choice, like they have in this second evolution cycle of the UK which has included gay marriage
We're also not monkeys
We're primates, sure, but not monkeys
We discovered that, and learned it by disproving skeptical claims