# What period in history would you have loved to go back and see for yourself



## MorningStar

HI there, I was just thinking if we had a chance to go back in time just for a week, which period would you like to visit?

I think I would love to visit the Tudor/Elizabethan era. I have always had a love of this age and sometimes feel I must have been around in them times in an earlier life. The music, housing and clothing were so beautiful and the times themselves were so interesting with so much going on.

 Let me know what you think.


----------



## Plo Addonnas

I'd love to go to Norway or Sweden during the latter part of the ninth century.  I'd love to go on a raid in England or Ireland or Scottland.  The height of the Viking Age...I'd love to be there, basically in charge of Europe, taking what we want, an entire continent afraid of us.

(No offense all you Britts, Scotts, and Irishmen.)


----------



## Brian G Turner

1st century Imperial Rome - no contest.


----------



## MorningStar

I said:
			
		

> 1st century Imperial Rome - no contest.


 why would you like to go back to that time?


----------



## MorningStar

No offence taken.

Would that include usual Viking prejudice of rape and pillage all


----------



## Princess Ivy

Greece in the time of gods and kings

or 

Egypt in the time of the pharoes


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

I'd have to agree with Brian, Rome for me to (although I'd also be tempted by Medieval Britain - circa 11th Century - see if I could spot Wart as he's trying to pull a sword out of a stone...  )


----------



## LadyFel

The Wars of the Roses, but I'd like to be there for the long haul...from Edward IV's entering the fray after gis father's death to the Battle of Bosworth...a week just wouldn't be long enough...


----------



## Brian G Turner

MorningStar said:
			
		

> why would you like to go back to that time?



It just rings me like a bell.


----------



## Tsujigiri

Damn!

I'd be torn between !st Century Rome and Japan during Sengoku Jidai....

Can I do both 

Please


----------



## a|one

The battle of Troy, just to see for myself what REALLY happend.


----------



## djdonegal

The Battle of the Boyne, as long as my presence would win it for the Irish.  Otherwise I would go to Imperial Rome, maybe the 2nd Century though, you know, when Gladatorial games were held in arenas and not just the courtyard in front of the forum buildings.

DJ


----------



## Rosemary

I would love to go back to 7th century Anglo-Saxon England.  Only the Priests had scribes and usually only wrote about church affairs in Roman.  The early British relied on the Bard to tell or sing the history of the country or the greatness of their leaders.  It wasn't until Bede began translating in about the 8th century that there was any mention of the 7th century.  Even that was not a true account for Bede wrote with a different dialect than most translators, a northern dialect.  Then of course there were all of King Arthur's translations of the old histories, written in a southern dialect which is so different than Bede's.  So much of the history of 7th century England has been lost because of the differences in the translations, which is why I need to go there!!


----------



## Zan

It would be Japan in the era of the Samurais before the tokugawa era Feudal Japan seems very interesting, and if I have another option a would be in the crusade of he Kings


----------



## kyektulu

*I would love to see aincent greece... just to check out the truth behind the legends.

*


----------



## nixie

Batle of the Roses.I'd loved to have meet Richard III.Mind you I'd love to watch all of British history unfold.So when someone invents a time machine please give it to me


----------



## fallenstar

lol...so I am not the only fan of the Wars of the Roses (note the line below my name: the Sun in Splendour)...

I would like to go back to the Middle Age Ireland(ah..the charm of the merry Irish people..I want to see the Druids too!so perhaps earlier for Ireland), Scotland and England, not that much of a fan for France or the rest of the continent at that time, certainly later periods, perhaps the Enlightenment is when the French became somewhat charming...

Don't want to go back to Rome that much...

Oh yes I would like to see the haydays of Imperial China, want to meet the Confucius himself...and to see the glory that is of the Emperor..perhaps Tang dynasty and the North Song dynasty would be wonderful...I would like to meet all those great poets and court officials(usually both are the same person) and even perhaps the Emperors themselves...

hmmm...actually I really want to be EVERYWHERE to witness EVERYTHING...and I agree with *nixie* that I would like to see the unfolding of the British history especially...it would be painful for me to see the Middle Kingdom(China) in its decline and the rest of Europe or Asia is just not as interesting...


----------



## the_faery_queen

17th century, (think that's it!) the time of fops and dandies and highway men and guys in powdered wigs and frock coats. i LOVE that look, that whole romantic thing.

i wouldn't want to go back to ancient greece, after studying it for so long i dont' think i could cope with the way they percieved women. same goes for rome. egypt would be fascinating, to watch them build the pyramids.


----------



## ETDC

I'd love to go back to "...a long time ago..."

In a galaxy far, far away.


----------



## cornelius

go back to about 200.000 BC and see how the Neanderthales got extinct
go to Egypt and witnees the building of a pyramide ( and answer all those scientific questions, especialy the ones on the vase, and the tomb)
go to the Azain empires
go to the Greek and skip between the and the Romans and The Belgicae( need the beer)
ans then sit back and anjoy the other progressses...


----------



## cornelius

cornelius said:
			
		

> go back to about 200.000 BC and see how the Neanderthales got extinct
> go to Egypt and witnees the building of a pyramide ( and answer all those scientific questions, especialy the ones on the vase, and the tomb)
> go to the Azain empires
> go to the Greek and skip between the and the Romans and The Belgicae( need the beer)
> ans then sit back and anjoy the other progressses...


can't seem to edit the previous post, I'd like to add that all of the previous would be intreguing for me to see how Europe was affected by this. There wasn't any real European structure until about 1000 BC, so I'd like to spend some time in the times mentioned above first. doesn't quite stroke this thread though...


----------



## kyektulu

*Not a particular century but I would love to go back to a time before alot of technology when man lived in harmony with the earth.
 When Paganism was the prominent religion.
I know it would be practically impossible for us as a race to go back but I would like to of seen this time.*


----------



## Esioul

I would like to go back to ancient Rome and meet Cicero. And go back and find out exactly how and why agriculture started. And to various places to find out some family history. And to ancient Sumer.


----------



## Gwydion

medievil Japan at the height of the samurai's glory.


----------



## Esioul

That would be interesting.

I wouldn't mind haveing a snout round the Byzantium empire, either.


----------



## HieroGlyph

Two weeks in Paris 1788 or so, just before the guillotine... So that I could get a feel of what it was like for all the common peoples to have a dream on their doorstep...

Of course, soon after it all went awefully sour...


----------



## littlemissattitude

cornelius said:
			
		

> go back to about 200.000 BC and see how the Neanderthales got extinct


 
Cornelius...you'd have to go much later than that (much closer to our own time). The Neanderthals stuck around until approximately 29,000 to 30,000 years ago. They were just getting started at 200,000 BC.

I agree, though, it would be interesting to go back and see how they really lived, how smart they really were (probably pretty smart), and to see how much language they really had (I'm betting more than they are sometimes given credit for). Oh, yeah, and to see if there really was any interbreeding going on between the Neanderthals and _H. sapiens_. Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## weaveworld

I would love to have been at the Easter Uprising


----------



## Kettricken

Viewing the earlier posts, I must say it's a difficult question... there are so many periods I'd like to visit! 

After having been to North-Wales recently, I would like to go back to the late 13th, early 14th century in Wales. I'm really curious about the difference in culture between the Welsh and the English in that period. Also, I would like to visit the castles, which I only saw as ruins, see how life was then.


----------



## cornelius

littlemissattitude said:
			
		

> Cornelius...you'd have to go much later than that (much closer to our own time). The Neanderthals stuck around until approximately 29,000 to 30,000 years ago. They were just getting started at 200,000 BC.
> 
> I agree, though, it would be interesting to go back and see how they really lived, how smart they really were (probably pretty smart), and to see how much language they really had (I'm betting more than they are sometimes given credit for). Oh, yeah, and to see if there really was any interbreeding going on between the Neanderthals and _H. sapiens_. Inquiring minds want to know.


 
i know I accidentally put one 0 to many


----------



## Paige Turner

I'd love to go back to the days of Stonehenge and check out what the Druids had going on. Before the Romans and the Popes came traipsing in and messed it all up.


----------



## Fagal

> I'd love to go to Norway or Sweden during the latter part of the ninth century. I'd love to go on a raid in England or Ireland or Scottland. The height of the Viking Age...I'd love to be there, basically in charge of Europe, taking what we want, an entire continent afraid of us.
> 
> (No offense all you Britts, Scotts, and Irishmen.)


Yer great fun in an open boat with no compass wind howling around your short and curly's rain, wind, spray, vomit, piss, and other bodly evacuations slushing about your feet, cramp, aching musles from rowing, bad tempered smelly, pissed grumpy old men, eager to slit your gullet if you fart near them, tired from lack of sleep, cold, hungary, wishing you were home in a nice soft bed curled up against a soft warm female body. Then the sight of land after a couple of days if not a week of the above, hostile inhabitants some skilled in the art of warfare, armed, blood, the above over again, injuries (which probebly would kill you in the long run or maim you for life and leave you an out cast in your own war orientated society, yer very romantic. Life is not fiction or fantasy, there is no glory or romance in death, misary and hardship.


----------



## Fagal

Paige Turner said:
			
		

> I'd love to go back to the days of Stonehenge and check out what the Druids had going on. Before the Romans and the Popes came traipsing in and messed it all up.



StoneHenge was built over a 2000 year period approx 6000 years ago in the British Neolithic (New Stone Age) Period, whilst the Celtic Druids (the priest classs of the Iron age Celtic peoples of Pan Europe) lived approx 4000 years later, a little like saying the Bible was wrote just before the internet was invented by a dude named Jesus as its his autobiography he must have been important when he wrote it on the internet as its said to be really popular as every one knows his birthday, LOL but seriously, read if you can,

The Stonehenge People - Aubrey Burl 
The Celts - Frank Delaney
The Early Barrow Diggers - Barry M Marsden
Prehistoric Europe - Alasdair Whittle et al
The Blood of the british - Catherine Hills

or type the authors names into a search engine to learn more.


----------



## Paige Turner

Fagal said:
			
		

> StoneHenge was built over a 2000 year period approx 6000 years ago in the British Neolithic (New Stone Age) Period, whilst the Celtic Druids (the priest classs of the Iron age Celtic peoples of Pan Europe) lived approx 4000 years later, a little like saying the Bible was wrote just before the internet was invented by a dude named Jesus as its his autobiography he must have been important when he wrote it on the internet as its said to be really popular as every one knows his birthday, LOL but seriously, read if you can…



Are you helping me, or making fun of me? I can't tell.

If it's helping, thanks for the references.

If it's making fun of me, "Oh, yeah?"


----------



## heron

ok this might start trouble but... Atlantis a week before the fall


----------



## j d worthington

heron said:
			
		

> ok this might start trouble but... Atlantis a week before the fall


Why not Mu? For that matter, Pompeii when Vesuvius is beginning to burp? Any catastrophic thing would be fascinating to see (to answer questions, learn about how the societies were, etc.) as long as you could get out of it when the crunch comes, I agree. But if you were stuck there?

(Heck, I figure if I showed up in even a relatively civilized milieu such as Button's Coffee House -- or Will's -- with Dr. Johnson & Co., I'd soon find myself behind bars as a heretic.)

Fascinating as such an idea is, barring being an uncorporeal observer, the majority of history would be just blamed _dangerous_, folks. Even a few words of speech would get a modern person into hot water -- perhaps literally. As an unbodied observer (though in that case, how would one see?) -- I've always been fascinated by the causes behind the Salem witch scare: was it the socioeconomics, as some historians have argued (the rich trying to take land from the poor). Lord knows the Rev. Parrish's sermons weren't meant to do anything but pour fuel on the fire (have any of you read any of those things? talk about poisonous!). Was it ergot poisoning, as has been posited (with, I understand, a fair amount of evidence)? Or the terrible famine and drought of the preceding two years, followed by severe troubles with the native tribes just a few months before the outbreak of the hysteria? A combination of all these? Or are there factors we simply don't know yet? That one, or finding out what happened at Roanoke in the 1580s (though that one seems to have been solved). Those would be high on my list, though being able to see without danger opens up far too many things to pick ONE!!!


----------



## j d worthington

*we seem to have an echo again...*


----------



## heron

j. d. worthington said:
			
		

> I've always been fascinated by the causes behind the Salem witch scare: was it the socioeconomics, as some historians have argued (the rich trying to take land from the poor). Lord knows the Rev. Parrish's sermons weren't meant to do anything but pour fuel on the fire (have any of you read any of those things? talk about poisonous!). Was it ergot poisoning, as has been posited (with, I understand, a fair amount of evidence)? Or the terrible famine and drought of the preceding two years, followed by severe troubles with the native tribes just a few months before the outbreak of the hysteria? A combination of all these? Or are there factors we simply don't know yet? That one, or finding out what happened at Roanoke in the 1580s (though that one seems to have been solved). Those would be high on my list, though being able to see without danger opens up far too many things to pick ONE!!!


 
could be all the non corporial time travelling observers that caused all the trouble


----------



## j d worthington

heron said:
			
		

> could be all the non corporial time travelling observers that caused all the trouble


Now, there's an interesting idea for a story. Not the ones who showed up physically, but the ones who were only there immaterially. How would one go about that, though? How would they effect things?

(Good response.)


----------



## heron

j. d. worthington said:
			
		

> Now, there's an interesting idea for a story. Not the ones who showed up physically, but the ones who were only there immaterially. How would one go about that, though? How would they effect things?
> 
> (Good response.)


 
the vibrational frequencys caused by the portable quantum(always a good word when your not sure of the real mechanics)time machines (could be some kind of suit) could cause adverse effects on certain local people or livestock and may even cause small gravity fluctuations in small areas(ghosts) some of the people may be able to hear the time travellers on a subconcious level thereby gaining access to information they should not have thereby stoking the local populations paranoia thus leading to accusations of witchcraft. just a thought.


----------



## j d worthington

You know, for a "flying-by-the-seat-of-your-pants" schema -- that ain't at all bad!


----------



## heron

scarey isnt it


----------



## j d worthington

heron said:
			
		

> scarey isnt it


By God, I _like_ the boy!


----------



## Milk

1400's Central America.

I would attempt to teach the natives how to manufacture gun powder, guns,  and all the modern vaccines.

 Once every native has enough bio hazard suits, and repeating rifles,  we sit and wait for Columbus with clenched teeth.


----------



## lea27

All good answers.

For me it would be back to the glorious times of the Pharoah's in Egypt. Especially in the time of Akhenaten and the religious upheaval just to experience what a dramatic time it must have been for all!

Or to walk with heroes in Ancient Greece!


----------



## electricdragon

The tudor age, would be cool to see mary,elizbeth and edward get on and off the throne  

Viva Revolution!would love to see the french revolution

The Defeat of napolean, that would be a gd time period


----------



## carrie221

Okay, ummm....

First, I would like to go back to the high point of the Roman Empire the Golden Age 1st or 2nd century Rome, to see the society and grandour of the empire

Next, I would like to go back to the start of the American Civil war and be there as states were leaving the union; I would love to watch the debates over states' rights and parallels to the American Revolution

After that, I would like to go back to Ancient Greece and talk to Socrates and Plato and Aristotle and Alexander the Great; just to see the chain of knowledge and also the laws of the era

Jumping around again, I would like to go to Ireland during the time right when Saint Patrick came so that I could see the changes in society and way of thinking

Hopping next to England, I would like to be there during Henry VIII's battle for his divorce from the first Catherine

Lastly, I would like to go to the early 1940s and see WWII

Okay, I know that is more than one but I have a degree in history instead of anything useful because I love history and find it interesting. This is my whittled down absolute lists of times to see.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli

It's a tie between Imperial Rome at the height of her glory in the First Century C.E. and _La Belle Epoque_ Paris.


----------



## English Rose

Definitely Renaissance England... from Henry VIII's marriage to Katherine of Aragon through the end of Elizabeth's reign... ah, the magnificence of the Renaissance...

I'd also love to go back to the time of King Arthur, to see the Isle of Avalon...


----------



## mosaix

No question - The Garden of Gethsemane just after the crucifiction of Jesus.

In my view the one single event that has had the most significance to mankind over the past 2,000,000 years is the empty tomb.

I would watch very, very carefully.


----------



## mosaix

mosaix said:
			
		

> No question - The Garden of Gethsemane just after the crucifiction of Jesus.
> 
> In my view the one single event that has had the most significance to mankind over the past 2,000,000 years is the empty tomb.
> 
> I would watch very, very carefully.



That should be 2,000 years.....


----------



## littlemissattitude

I actually think it would be really interesting to see the time just after the Crucifixion as well, but taking it a little farther than just immediately after, I'd like to witness the time when Christianity was being born, the time talked about in the Bible in the Book of Acts.

I'm really fascinated with the interplay during that time between the very first Christians, who most of them were Jews, and the non-Jews who were the second wave of converts.  Who really set Christianity on the road to what it is today?  What were the politics involved?  Should it really be called Pauliantiy (I know, no such word) rather than Christianity?  Or did others besides Paul have just as much influence in the institution that was created then?  Those are the sorts of questions I'd like to see the answers to.

And, like you said, mosaix, I'd watch very carefully.


----------



## Cozener

Well...if were talking about just going back and _seeing_ I'd like to see the different stages of the evolution of man, starting all the way back to the australopithicenes and on up to the neandertals. It would also be great to go back and see dinasaurs and maybe even some Cambrian animals...talk about freaky.  But if we're talking about going back and actually living in a particular time I'd probably pick the Pax Romana (assuming I couldn't live in this age.  I don't really want to live my life out in some technologically primitive era.  I love my computer games too much to say nothing of modern medicines, transportation, communications, etc).


----------



## aarti

I've been obsessed with Georgian and Regency England for more than a decade now, so I'm pretty determined on going there- but only if I could be a rich aristocrat ;-)

I also think seeing Mughal India would be fantastic.

As would seeing Ancient Rome, particularly with Marcus Didius Falco as a guide!

Oh, dear, I can't pick ...


----------



## Briareus Delta

Recent history for me, England around 1950 -1965. A more innocent age. The end of wartime rationing and the onset of the consumer society. Full employment, low crime rates and anything seemed possible. And, of course, the birth of rock 'n' roll.  I could live there quite happily.


----------



## Joel007

I'd go back about 50 years after taking down historical information about things like horse races and other such gambling opportunities... then bank it all and come back here to recieve the interest


----------



## Briareus Delta

Joel007 said:
			
		

> I'd go back about 50 years after taking down historical information about things like horse races and other such gambling opportunities... then bank it all and come back here to recieve the interest


 
Phillistine! Besides, you'd create too many chronoclasms and the Time Police would never let you get away with it.


----------



## mightymem

I would love to go back and experience the ottoman empire durings its height under suleyman, and maybe Rome during the republican times. I would just like to view though not actual live and interact as the times are most likely to be less glamorous then is in my head


----------



## Nesacat

Ancient India when the vast temples were just being built and the Gods walked the land.

Cambodia in the time when Angkor was being built and Bali when Borobudur was being built.

Egypt during time when the Sphynx was first built I can see for myself what the Sphynx and all the legends surrounding it are really about.

Japan during the Tokugawa era and the samurai. That has always been a fascinating period of history.

England when Stonehenge was first raised.


----------



## Esioul

I wouldn't mind seeing Stonehenge being built, too. Might clear up a few mysteries.


----------



## manephelien

Somewhere in pre-Roman Europe. I've always been fascinated by the Celts.


----------



## Harpo

Leonardo da Vinci used to put on elaborate performances, with dancers dressed as planets and so forth - I'd love to see those, as well as witnessing that entire world he lived in.


----------



## Cozener

That reminds me...it would be kinda nifty to go back and see an early Genesis show when Peter Gabriel was in the band.


----------



## Talysia

I know a few people have mentioned it, but I'd love to go back to Tokugawa era Japan as well.  I've been fascinated by the culture for a while, so to see part of the history I've read about would be wonderful.
Coming back to England, though, I wouldn't mind seeing what the first reactions of the people were when chocolate was discovered and brought over here!


----------



## Valko

I would go back to the birth of every religious prophet and do away with them.
Yes I know it sounds stupid but think of the lives that would have been saved without religious wars, inquestitions and persecution. The scientific advances we would have made without religious doctrines.


----------



## Enadil Moonweaver

I would love to go back to the roaring twenties, The civil war era for usa **Is a southern girl**  Elizabethan era Medival and Rennisance eras.


----------



## The Ace

I'd like to do garrison duty on the Antonine wall. And leave a few surprises for archaeologists who take themselves too seriously.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli

The Ace said:


> I'd like to do garrison duty on the Antonine wall. And leave a few surprises for archaeologists who take themselves too seriously.



How about a bronze Pez dispenser with the likeness of Kirk Douglas as Spartacus on top?


----------



## paranoid marvin

It's gotta be the time of the dinosaurs - the real Jurassic Park!


----------



## Happy Joe

Actually go back?... no way.
The languages would be unintelligible, even the olde English linguistic recreations of the English language of a few hundred years ago are almost impossible to understand.
The filth, dirt, disease, slavery, smells, etc. would be truly offensive to our modern senses (and sensibilities). (Wear your wide brimmed hat for a little protection from the second story chamber pot contents (typically flung, into the streets, from windows.))
The lawlessness and abysmal medicine (small pox, polio, tetanus, yellow fever, typhus, any infection and many other diseases) would be killers.
To view history, sure I'd like that, but to actually go there... no thanks!
I'll stay here, or possibly go forward, a bit, in time.

Enjoy!


----------



## Pyan

Yes, what most people mean when the say that they'd like to live in a different era, is that they'd like to be a rich person/noble of that era - this is about the only time in history when life at the bottom of the pile needn't be nasty, brutish and short.


----------



## sergios

1555 The Netherlands  the wars of the religion. To see how brutal fanatic religious people can be and how to stop it from happening again.


----------



## YoYo

11th-12th century - the Crusades, they've always seemed interesting to me


----------



## deletrix

I'd love to see the English Regency period, I was borderline obsessed with it as a teen.


----------



## The Ace

OK, I'd have to admit it, but I'd love to see the 1974 Bay City Rollers gig at the Apollo, or Perth City Hall.


----------



## Revelation

pyan said:


> Yes, what most people mean when the say that they'd like to live in a different era, is that they'd like to be a rich person/noble of that era - this is about the only time in history when life at the bottom of the pile needn't be nasty, brutish and short.



Even then, some things we take for granted would just not be available to nobles, no matter how much money or influence they have:

Sugar
Chocolate
Plumbing (boiling water for bath, crapping in outhouse/chamber pot)
Electricity
Toothpaste
Soap (no shampoo either)
Dentistry (tooth hurts?  Have the barber will pull it out)
Eyeglasses
Medical (No competent doctors/methods, antisceptic, aspirin, antibiotics, pills of any kind)
Mirrors
Rights (freedom of speech, voting, women's rights, etc)

Some of these things might be available in the later periods, of course, but pre 1500, well...



Myself, I would have loved to go back to 1095 to join the First Crusade.  I think it would have been life changing to participate in such a spiritual journey.  Just thinking about it gives me chills.

Also, I want to say something to the person who wanted to go back in time to kill every prophet there ever was.  

Don't adopt or have kids.  Thanks.


----------



## Marvolo

MorningStar said:


> HI there, I was just thinking if we had a chance to go back in time just for a week, which period would you like to visit?
> 
> I think I would love to visit the Tudor/Elizabethan era. I have always had a love of this age and sometimes feel I must have been around in them times in an earlier life. The music, housing and clothing were so beautiful and the times themselves were so interesting with so much going on.
> 
> Let me know what you think.


 
First crusade


----------



## PTeppic

As a genealogist I'd love to see how my family REALLY lived, notwithstanding how I view their lives as a result of my research.... and that's only the 50-150 years ago parts. But I'd also be interested in much/most/all of recorded history: what was Da Vinci/Mozart/Newton etc really like as a person, what were the major religious figures like, what really happened in Roswell, how did they actually build the pyramids / was there alien help, who was Robin Hood, how closely do our impressions of "famous" periods of screen-time history map to reality, and so on... a history omnivore really.


----------



## bruno-1012

There are so many periods I would love to visit due to my background in engineering - 

Going roughly backwards....

The great civil engineering periods of the 18th & 19th century with Brunel, telford, Smeaton, Newcomen and Watt.

The medieval cathedral buildings

Stonehenge -  how the stones were transported and how it was built

The great Pyramid & Sphinx under construction

The Colossus of Rhodes

And also the great library at Alexandria - just for a browse you know.....


----------



## The Ace

Roman soldiers had hot baths, toilets that flushed, superb medical care and a healthy, well-balanced diet.


----------



## bruno-1012

Ace,

I would love your take on the fact that the greatest war machine in the world at that time got to here and instead of continuing on or ignoring the people they built a great big wall across the country to control movement.

Was it fear/financial or political motivation?

Then they moved forward a few years later and built another wall...


----------



## The Ace

Antoninus Pius just needed a military victory.  The Antonine Wall was abandoned because it was pointless.


----------



## Thessaly

*newbie thread-resurrection alert*
What an interesting topic! This is something I think about probably far too much as a medievalist, but I would love to experience life in the 12th century at the Angevin court in England and France. Then I could ask the authors of the books I study what they really thought about the romances they compiled, the compositional process, the patrons they may have had, audience reception, the list is endless! From a slightly less nerdy perspective, I'd just love to suck in the atmosphere of a French tourney, eavesdrop on Henry II's privy council after the death of Thomas Becket, see if there was anyone matching Robin Hood's description lurking round Nottingham, wave Richard I off on crusade, and maybe throw in a visit to the Kingdom of Jerusalem via Constantinople and Antioch. 

NB: I'd like to do all this as a ludicrously wealthy and well-connected noblewoman of course, no peasant hovels for me thanks!


----------



## tangaloomababe

Gee this is a hard one, I want to see it all. I guess if I had to chose it would be either ancient Rome or Egypt, then I would know for sure how those Pyramids were built.
However I also have a strong passion for English History so I am torn between them.
Then again imagine being an early explorer........................... ah to hard I want to see it all.


----------



## andyn

I would loved to have been in the court of Count Roger of Sciliy. As the First crusade brutalised its way through the middle East sowing the seeds of bitter enmity that exist between East and West today. Roger in Sciliy and Southern Italy built a domain, that was incredibly tolerant - Muslims, Jews, Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics were equal under law and their religious rights were protected. He defied the Byzantine Emperor, The Holy Roman Emperor, The Emir of Tunis, the Pope and despite everything they could not beat him.


----------



## Revelation

andyn said:


> I would loved to have been in the court of Count Roger of Sciliy. As the First crusade brutalised its way through the middle East sowing the seeds of bitter enmity that exist between East and West today. Roger in Sciliy and Southern Italy built a domain, that was incredibly tolerant - Muslims, Jews, Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics were equal under law and their religious rights were protected. He defied the Byzantine Emperor, The Holy Roman Emperor, The Emir of Tunis, the Pope and despite everything they could not beat him.



The First Crusade didn't brutalize or sow anything.  It was a response to hundreds of years of muslim aggression against the Christian lands.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli

andyn said:


> I would loved to have been in the court of Count Roger of Sciliy. As the First crusade brutalised its way through the middle East sowing the seeds of bitter enmity that exist between East and West today. Roger in Sciliy and Southern Italy built a domain, that was incredibly tolerant - Muslims, Jews, Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics were equal under law and their religious rights were protected. He defied the Byzantine Emperor, The Holy Roman Emperor, The Emir of Tunis, the Pope and despite everything they could not beat him.



Yes, it was a golden (but, sadly) short-lived era in a brutal time. Sicily is now a mostly bitter and burned-out land, still clinging to it's ancient heritage and moment of cultural glory. A good choice!


----------



## Allegra

Well Curt, Mount Etna is not burned-out yet!


----------



## Curt Chiarelli

Revelation said:


> The First Crusade didn't brutalize or sow anything. It was a response to hundreds of years of muslim aggression against the Christian lands.



I'm afraid that I must disagree with this assessment. 

An even-handed appraisal of the situation in 1095 C.E. demonstrates that Muslim conquest of large tracts of the Mediterranean basin to be both alarming and swift. However, Europe had no legitimate claim to the Levantine region either. Although Pope Urban II's religious fervour and belicose declaration, "Deus Vult!" may have reverberated throughout Christian Europe's soul, it was the temporal greed and avarice of the European aristocracy that propelled the enterprise forward into the pages of history.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli

Allegra said:


> Well Curt, Mount Etna is not burned-out yet!



Uh, uh!


----------



## Revelation

What are you talking about?  The Pope called for the crusade because the emperor of Byzantium finally swallowed his pride and asked for help against the muslim invaders.  

As to not having any legitimate claim, the muslims were razing monasteries, defacing churches, killing and forcibly converting Christians and jews in the territories they conquered.  

A lot of people believe that the Crusaders went on the Crusade in order to plunder.  But recent research shows that many sold much, if not all of their land and other property, in order to afford the journey in the first place. 

Your knowledge seems outdated.  I suggest these two books:

Amazon.com: First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading: Books: Jonathan Riley-Smith
Amazon.com: The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Islam (and the Crusades) (Politically Incorrect Guides): Books: Robert Spencer


----------



## andyn

The crusades raped, robbed and pillaged through what is eastern Europe - exterminating Jewish communities on the way.  The christian states also were doing force conversions, defacing mosques, burning people at the stake for having a different take on Christianity - just look at the treatment handed out to the Cathars in France.
The crusades on arrival in Jerusalem promptly killed every single Moslem and Jew regardless of age or gender.


----------



## Revelation

It is certainly true that excessive acts have been committed by misguided men, but the opposite is true as well.  Like catholic priests hiding Jews from overzealous German crusaders in the First Crusade.  

Anyway, If it wasn't for the crusades keeping back the muslim aggressors we wouldn't have free speech, democracy, freedom of religion, individualism, etc.

We'd all be living in some sharia law country where the legal age to marry a girl is 9 years old (like it is the law in present day Iran), or where the possession of a Torah or Bible is punished with a lengthy jail term (like in present day Saudi Arabia), or where saying Mohammed is not the true prophet is punishable by death or a lifetime in prison (like in present day Pakistan)


----------



## andyn

Revelation  not all Moslem leaders were or are like that. The Ottoman Turks, Saladin etc were exceedingly enlighted and allowed freedom of worship for all creeds. There is only 2 Christian states in this time period who is even close and that was Byzantium and Roger's Sicily. And the Fourth Crusade actually physically removed the Byzantium bulwark against Islamic expansion when it sacked Constantinople, the capital city of a Christian Empire and effectively sealed its fate.
The Spanish intoduced forced conversions on one of the most enlighted molsem states -Granda - they forcibily converted all Jews and Moslems on the pain of death. Many choose death.Then a few years later introduced the Inquisition to torture and murder those who had converted, thus resulting in the ethnic cleansing of Spain when all those who were Jewish, Moslem or had converted to Islam were removed from the land of their Birth. 
The Christian states were no more tolerant to each other; you only have to look at the wars of religion over Catholism and Protestantism which have continued up until the present day.
The irony of History is that we were the intolerant states and now it has been reversed. But then we supported these states as they were anti-communist and could provide us with OIL. We encouraged General Zia to overthrow and murder Pakistan's democratic elected leader. He introduced the islamic fundamentalism we see today, but it was OK because he was anti-Russian. Remember when the Russians invaded Afghanistan we armed and trained the Talibian. Many of the weapons they use today to Kill NATO forces in Afghanistan we gave to them.
In the words of one wise man- "Remove the Mote from your own eye, before complaining about the splinter in your neighbours."


----------



## Revelation

LoL @ Saladin.  Did you watch "Kingdom of Heaven" yesterday or what?

You know you're talking to an expert when his views are based on Hollywood movies.

As to Moorish Spain, read some Bernard Lewis.  He's considered to be the foremost expert on the period, and he'll tell you something that will surprise the heck out of you.

And as to who introduced islamic fundamentalism, well the prophet mohammed did!  If you do some research into his life, you'll find that he 

1.  Led armies
2.  Robbed caravans
3.  Ordered assisinations
4.  Ordered executions
5.  Raped slaves/captives
6.  Raped his 9 year old wife

And millions of people name their male child after this man!

There are hundreds of suras in the Koran that tell muslims to kill/enslave/convert/lie to/backstab/subdue non-muslims.  Google them if you like, because that's the lines Osama Bin Laden quotes in every one of his videos.
  Guess who wrote the Koran?  The prophet mohammed!

So no, no pakistani introduced islamic fundamentalism. In islam, fundamentalism is built-in.

Read a book.  I suggest one of the two I posted above.


----------



## Marvolo

There were good men on both sides, and from what I read of Saladin, he was one of them.

And Andyn didn't mean that the Pakastani General Zia introduced fundamentalist Islam as a new thing. He only meant that General Zia introduced it to that particular state creating the haven for terrorism that now exists there.

The crusades are an awful time period, but you cannot judge both sides with blanket statements. Saladin was a good man by every account I've come across.

Islam committed atrocities before the crusades began and after, but the christians marauded through the holy land with God on their side putting men, women, and children to the sword.

That was the way of it then. The only difference is that one group grew out of it, the other still hasn't.


----------



## j d worthington

Let's watch some of the tone, folks. Arguing the points is fine, but avoid casting personal aspersions....

Marvolo: this was not addressed to you or your post, which appeared while I was entering mine, but to some of the things that have been said above....


----------



## Revelation

So christians marauded through the holy land with God on their side putting men, women, and children to the sword?  

Here's something that will blow your mind: Three hundred years before the crusades the Middle East was predominantly Christian/Jewish/Zoroastrian.

So how did islam spread so fast through the middle east in the first place? With missionaries preaching the word of allah? No, it was spread with the sword.  With bloody conquest, rape, enslavement and forced conversions, their prophet taking part in the action.

The blood spilled by crusaders was a drop in the sea when compared with the muslim zealots shouting ALLAHU ACKBAR (PRAISE TO ALLAH) as they killed or enslaved their non-muslim neighbors over hundreds of years in the Middle east.

And the scariest part is this is still going on in the Middle East every day.
Here's one of many examples:
14 Year Old Assyrian Boy Decapitated By Muslim Group


----------



## Brian G Turner

Revelation said:


> So how did islam spread so fast through the middle east in the first place? With missionaries preaching the word of allah? No, it was spread with the sword. With bloody conquest, rape, enslavement and forced conversions, their prophet taking part in the action.



Because the Byzantine Empire and Persian Empire had effectively exhausted one another, creating a huge power vacuum neither had the resources to push back into.

Islam did not need to conquer by the sword, because the areas they took were effectively leaderless and without direction as the great powers either side grew back.

Also, before you attempt to take the moral high ground on marriage on Mohammed's time, I'd respectfully suggest you research how old Mary was before she was supposed to have conceived Jesus - the conservative view is no older than 14. Following your example invective, the counter claim that either Joseph or the Christian God is a statutory rapist would be logical conclusions - and just as full of bull.

I'd suggest reading some history books on the Middle East from accredited historical scholars, not hate lit from Christian fundamentalists.

I'd also suggest you keep the hate off chronicles as well. Trying to find extreme examples to demonise any religion is not welcome here. 

We don't allow people to use the IRA, US foreign policy, or Uganda's God's Army to demonise all Christians. Therefore I'm not going to allow the same for Islam.


----------



## andyn

Well said Brian. Revelation you need to read a little more. The Crusades were never this great Romantic drive to liberate the middle East from the perils of Islam. In Fact Islam had occupied the so called Holy Land for 350 years or more and no one in Christedom was that bothered. I will recommend a couple of Books for you-Firstly read John Julius Norwichs masterful account of the History of the Byzantine Empire. In this 3 volume history you will get the Greek Orthodox view of the Crusades and that is just as disparaging of them as any Islamic writer. 
You will read how both the Emperor's Alexi and Manual Commeni struggled to keep their so called brothers of the faith from ripping their own country apart. Then we have the third crusade where Richard 1st invaded Cyprus and took it by force from the Christian Byzantines before marching into Palestine and let us not mention how he massacared all his unarmed prisoners after the battle of Acre. Despite all of this Saladin did not seek brutal revenge, but an understanding with his enemy. In fact our view of Saladin comes from the English Chroniclers who marched with Richard the Lionheart at the time. 
Then you can read about the piratical 4th Crusade which sacked Constantinople, on behalf of the Venetian Doge who wnated to remove Byzantium as it was a trade rival to Venice's domination of Mediterranen trade. 
Then read either Stephen Runiceman or Zoe Oldenbourg excellent histories of the crusades. Then read Eric Christansens account of the Northern Crusades and all the murder rape and pillaging that was done in God's name. And finally read Stephrn O'Shea's moving account of the Albigensian crusade and the destruction of the Cathars - a pacifist brand of Christianity embracing tolerance and poverty. 
Read from a variety of sources and you will gain a greater understanding.


----------



## j d worthington

Revelation -- such early marriages were (and in some places still are) quite traditional and accepted. We don't have to agree with them, may feel they're wrong... but it's their culture, not ours. We wouldn't want them dictating to us on how we handle ours, either. Don't forget, too, that in the U.S., not that long ago, it was quite legal to marry 12-year-olds and, in some states, girls even younger (this last with their parents' consent).

As for the Bible not saying to kill off people of other faiths... where on earth do you get that? The Bible is full of such things! Nearly everywhere the Jews went, this ended up being the case, from Canaan on. Just because their god told them to do so, does not make it one bit different... in fact, it's very much the same.

If you look through your Bible without preconceptions, you'll find it is every bit as violent as any other holy book can be... New Testament not excluded (though it is somewhat milder there than the Old). Such religions, with their origins in such early times, almost invariably tend to be divisive by nature. After all, each thinks they have divine revelation to guide them, and the others are wrong to a lesser or, in many cases, greater degree.

The contemporary accounts of the Crusades are full of brutality on both sides; and Christians throughout history have perpetrated barbarous acts against those not of their creed, always backing it with scriptural authority. Look into the origins and history of the Inquisition; read the Malleus Maleficarum; read the sermons of the New England Divines, or Mather's Magnalia Christi Americana or Wonders of the Invisible World. These are all chock-full of biblical support for such actions. One may argue that "Suffer thou not a witch to live" is a bad English translation from the original (which would more closely be translated "necromancer", perhaps), but it does condone the killing of those who commune with the dead... a practice of many religions in history. There is also the passage which tells how, should anyone -- your friend, your wife, your children, seduce you from your worship of God, then your hand should strike the first blow, they are to be killed, taken out and stoned to death. The number of such passages is frankly quite staggering. And to say that "That was the Old Testament, not the New" is both disingenuous and undermines the very basis of the New Testament and the New Covenant Christ's birth, death, and resurrection was intended to create... not to mention the entire support of St. Paul's teachings.

Before going hammer and tongs after any other religion, I'd strongly suggest you re-read the Bible carefully, thoughtfully, and critically... look at it anew, as it were. You'll find that, on the subject of violence to one's fellow human beings, there's precious little difference between it and either of the other two religions which sprang from the same common source.... None of the three has the market cornered on either virtue or villainy....


----------



## Revelation

So..my post was deleted.

Why was I censored?

What's the matter, can't find anything to say so you decide to pretend like it never happened?


----------



## j d worthington

Revelation said:


> So..my post was deleted.
> 
> Why was I censored?
> 
> What's the matter, can't find anything to say so you decide to pretend like it never happened?


 
No, simply that part of the material there either came seriously close, or stepped over the boundaries. Remember, this is a family-friendly site, so please keep that in mind when posting.

As for some of the other comments... I'd suggest you pull back a bit, as you've become not only heated, but personally derogatory with some of your comments; something quite frowned on here. It might be much better if you came back with a cooler response to continue the debate.

On posting the biblical citations... Aside from the fact I did cite one of the more famous ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch", etc., which comes from the Christian Bible), I'd only just read your post and not had a moment to look up the correct citations for the others that come to mind.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Revelation said:


> So..my post was deleted.
> 
> Why was I censored?
> 
> What's the matter, can't find anything to say so you decide to pretend like it never happened?



It wasn't actually deleted - it actually got caught by the anti-spam filters for some reason, possibly because you were hotlinking to an image.

However, with that in mind I have removed both that post and the one before, and will take this up via PM.


----------



## Hypes

> 1. Led armies
> 2. Robbed caravans
> 3. Ordered assisinations
> 4. Ordered executions
> 5. Raped slaves/captives
> 6. Raped his 9 year old wife



Sounds like any proper statesman back then.

As for raping his 9 year old wife - the fact that she was 9 would make it rape by our standards no matter how it went down. However, we cannot apply our standards to the realities of 1500 years ago. 

The spread of Islam was a violent process, and so was the spread of Christianity throughout Europe. The norwegian national anthem still sings _and so he painted the cross in blood across the land_ (link) - speaking of Olaf the Holy who brought us Christianity. It's what happened, and it's how Christianity defeated the old religions of Europe: by the sword.

Christianity has a long history of prosecution against other religions or of people with different denominations rather than the mainstream Church. See the Jews, Protestants, etc. Islam does have blood on its hands, but promoted a much more lenient and pragmatic relationship towards peoples of differing faiths.   

Accept the realities of history, please. And read more than two books, it'll give you a far more balanced version of events.


----------



## Marvolo

The most important thing for each person to remember here is that the acts comitted by people who belong to the religion do not speak for the religion. Christianity is a beautiful faith and one I am part of. From what I see and hear, there are peacful Christians and Muslims by the droves for every violent one. The problem is the violent get the press coverage and one violent person can kill hundreds of peaceful people if the circumstances are right.

People are easily led and religion isn't the problem, it is the tool used by those who would lead people to evil deeds. It only takes 3 1/2 seconds for an entire stadium to take up a chant and be in sync with one another to root for their team. Riots are similar and wars in the old days aren't much different. Spreading the faith by the sword was the motto, but at the heart of it was the rulers using the easiest available tool to lead the masses, their faith.

I just wanted to point that out since a lot of Christians did this and Muslims did that comments were floating around. People did this and people did that, they just happened to be Christians or Muslims and led by people who used that as a tool to incite the desired violence.


----------



## mosaix

Marvolo said:


> The most important thing for each person to remember here is that the acts comitted by people who belong to the religion do not speak for the religion. Christianity is a beautiful faith and one I am part of. From what I see and hear, there are peacful Christians and Muslims by the droves for every violent one. The problem is the violent get the press coverage and one violent person can kill hundreds of peaceful people if the circumstances are right.
> 
> People are easily led and religion isn't the problem, it is the tool used by those who would lead people to evil deeds. It only takes 3 1/2 seconds for an entire stadium to take up a chant and be in sync with one another to root for their team. Riots are similar and wars in the old days aren't much different. Spreading the faith by the sword was the motto, but at the heart of it was the rulers using the easiest available tool to lead the masses, their faith.
> 
> I just wanted to point that out since a lot of Christians did this and Muslims did that comments were floating around. People did this and people did that, they just happened to be Christians or Muslims and led by people who used that as a tool to incite the desired violence.



Good post Marvelo. I would like to say however that belief systems will, by their very nature, lead to conflict.

When people get into a discussion or argument, resolution can be brought about by quoting facts. 

Sport for instance. 'A' says "My team is better than yours", 'B' says "No, mine is best". Resolution is simple - a comparison of league tables or past performance. 

This is not possible with belief systems, because, in its simplest form "My God is better than yours" is a belief and can never be proven one way or another, hence no resolution. Consequently extremists will use other methods to prove their point - usually violence.


----------



## Marvolo

mosaix said:


> Good post Marvelo. I would like to say however that belief systems will, by their very nature, lead to conflict.
> 
> When people get into a discussion or argument, resolution can be brought about by quoting facts.
> 
> Sport for instance. 'A' says "My team is better than yours", 'B' says "No, mine is best". Resolution is simple - a comparison of league tables or past performance.
> 
> This is not possible with belief systems, because, in its simplest form "My God is better than yours" is a belief and can never be proven one way or another, hence no resolution. Consequently extremists will use other methods to prove their point - usually violence.


 
You have to go deeper than that. The belief system isn't the actual problem. It is human nature to strive. So when A says that to B, the majority of people on teams A and B might not be up for the fight, but the leaders of A and B won't settle for disagreement. When they need support, they don't ask, they incite. Team B is a bunch of blasphemous hounds! Team A is out to destroy everything we've built with their heretical rhetoric!

It goes down to the people on the teams. The teams are just the tools.


----------



## mosaix

What you missed out is the implied "_I believe_" in front of "Team B is a bunch of blasphemous hounds." And it's interesting that you mention blasphemy and heresy - more element of belief systems.

Nobody tortures anybody anymore over whether the sun goes round the Earth. They did when people _believed_ it did as soon as it was _proven_ that it didn't then it all stopped.

Belief is one of the most fundamentally divisive issues in the world today. 

Good discussion BTW Marvelo.


----------



## Marvolo

mosaix said:


> What you missed out is the implied "_I believe_" in front of "Team B is a bunch of blasphemous hounds." And it's interesting that you mention blasphemy and heresy - more element of belief systems.
> 
> Nobody tortures anybody anymore over whether the sun goes round the Earth. They did when people _believed_ it did as soon as it was _proven_ that it didn't then it all stopped.
> 
> Belief is one of the most fundamentally divisive issues in the world today.
> 
> Good discussion BTW Marvelo.


 
Which is exactly my point. The speech matches what the crowd needs to hear to feel compelled to do what the speaker wants.


----------



## andyn

You do not need to torture people, you can just use TV. one 30 second snippet of news can lead people to hate their neighbour. When i was a child i thought 1984 was a work of great fiction, as an adult 25 years later i realise it is the truth.


----------



## mosaix

andyn said:


> You do not need to torture people, you can just use TV. one 30 second snippet of news can lead people to hate their neighbour. When i was a child i thought 1984 was a work of great fiction, as an adult 25 years later i realise it is the truth.



I don't think TV could change anyone's mind on the mechanics of the solar system - torture certainly could.


----------



## mosaix

Marvolo said:


> Which is exactly my point. The speech matches what the crowd needs to hear to feel compelled to do what the speaker wants.



My point is Marvolo that if facts rather than beliefs, education rather than superstition were the order of the day there would be less disagreement in  the world.


----------



## Marvolo

mosaix said:


> My point is Marvolo that if facts rather than beliefs, education rather than superstition were the order of the day there would be less disagreement in the world.


 
Disagreement is undeniable in nature. If "superstition" wasn't the key component then it would be something more tangible, like say, oil.

But your post is very telling. Athiests always believe that religion is the root of evil in the world. The truth of it is that athiests belong to their own religion of sorts. They mostly view themselves as intellectuals and believe that everyone outside of their worldview is slightly less intelligent than themselves for having faith in something that isn't tangible.

If this doesn't describe you then I read your post wrong and I apologize. But the intellectual movement is in effect a religion. It operates with all the same components of a religion.

Without our faith (I'm very partial to mine but I don't feel ire towards others for theirs) we aren't the same people. All of our laws and moral structure comes from our religions, whether people realize it or not. Without the moral base and stability that Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Judaism, etc., provide the world wouldn't be the same place. I daresay it would be a MUCH more violent place as people would grow up without a defined moral structure.

Religion is part of humanity and it will never be seperated wholly from it. I for one wouldn't want to live in a world where no one has faith in anything they can't see or touch. What desperate lives they'd live without faith in the fact that what they do on this world matters in the next. There'd be no sound reason why I couldn't do whatever the hell I wanted right?

But I got off my point here. Belief is part of human nature as is disagreement. We already disagree on far more than religion in this world. We disagree on property, possessions other than property (even intellectual property), race, money, etc. Disagreement won't evaporate if religion goes poof, it'll just get a little more serious as people's moral structure collapses over the generations of folks raised without faith in God.

The funniest thing about it all is, no matter how good of an argument, you cannot convince people without faith that faith isn't the problem. I know. I've been on the faithless side of the argument before and an invisible wall stands in the way of any religious person's words.


----------



## Sephiroth

Or, an invisible wall stands in the way of any _non-religious_ person's words.  It depends what side of the fence you are on.  Apologies for dipping into your discussion at this late stage but there are a couple of points I feel compelled to make.

The first is that atheists do not _always _believe that religion is the 'root of evil' in the world.  I would contend that very few atheists actually believe this.  I am an atheist (or a secular humanist), and I do not believe it.  Most of the people I know are atheists, and most of them do not believe that _evil_, as an innate property or state of mind/nature, exists at all.  For us, evil is a word that can be used to describe someone's actions, but there is no 'root of evil', such a view is inherently religious.  

Secondly, an intellectual movement is _not _a religion.  An intellectual movement rooted in the scientific method is _most certainly_ not a religion.  You _can _make the claim that _non-belief in god_ is a 'religion', since the certainty of that fact requires a leap of faith.  But I would refute that.  IMO, the burden of proof lies with the party making the positive claim.  This is no evidence for the existence of god.  Without claiming to know everything, it seems reasonable to _assume _therefore that god does not exist.  But an assumption is not a belief.  The scientific mind is always open to new answers, but only ones which have proof.  If I was shown evidence for the existence of god, I would believe in god, but until that happens I shall remain an atheist.  

There is no basis for the argument that religion provides a moral structure without which we would all somehow start killing each other, in fact without being the 'root of evil' that you suggest we think it is, religion has been the cause of a great deal of human suffering, hatred and death.  Religion is something that grew up as a part of human culture, but there is no question that we coexisted perfectly well before we even had _culture _as we know it.  This is clear from the archaeological record, and from the simple fact of our evolutionary success as a species.  

The idea that the disappearance of religion would cause some kind of moral collapse in the _modern _world is simply ludicrous.  Disagreement would not disappear, no, but neither would it be exacerbated.  Quite the contrary, we would have _one _less thing to fight about.  The ability of the human being to be decent is not predicated on belief in a supernatural entity.


----------



## Marvolo

Sephiroth said:


> Or, an invisible wall stands in the way of any _non-religious_ person's words. It depends what side of the fence you are on. Apologies for dipping into your discussion at this late stage but there are a couple of points I feel compelled to make.
> 
> The first is that atheists do not _always _believe that religion is the 'root of evil' in the world. I would contend that very few atheists actually believe this. I am an atheist (or a secular humanist), and I do not believe it. Most of the people I know are atheists, and most of them do not believe that _evil_, as an innate property or state of mind/nature, exists at all. For us, evil is a word that can be used to describe someone's actions, but there is no 'root of evil', such a view is inherently religious.
> 
> Secondly, an intellectual movement is _not _a religion. An intellectual movement rooted in the scientific method is _most certainly_ not a religion. You _can _make the claim that _non-belief in god_ is a 'religion', since the certainty of that fact requires a leap of faith. But I would refute that. IMO, the burden of proof lies with the party making the positive claim. This is no evidence for the existence of god. Without claiming to know everything, it seems reasonable to _assume _therefore that god does not exist. But an assumption is not a belief. The scientific mind is always open to new answers, but only ones which have proof. If I was shown evidence for the existence of god, I would believe in god, but until that happens I shall remain an atheist.
> 
> There is no basis for the argument that religion provides a moral structure without which we would all somehow start killing each other, in fact without being the 'root of evil' that you suggest we think it is, religion has been the cause of a great deal of human suffering, hatred and death. Religion is something that grew up as a part of human culture, but there is no question that we coexisted perfectly well before we even had _culture _as we know it. This is clear from the archaeological record, and from the simple fact of our evolutionary success as a species.
> 
> The idea that the disappearance of religion would cause some kind of moral collapse in the _modern _world is simply ludicrous. Disagreement would not disappear, no, but neither would it be exacerbated. Quite the contrary, we would have _one _less thing to fight about. The ability of the human being to be decent is not predicated on belief in a supernatural entity.


 
Society would slowly ebb without the moral guidance of a religious culture. The majority of people in this world believe in the God of one religion or another. Through that belief and the faith that they are accountable for their actions by judgement from a power higher than man they follow a moral structure that is beneficial for mankind. Whether you realize it or not, your entire life is shaped by religion. You're either in or out of it. But the laws that govern us have a basis in religion. The founding fathers of my country (America - since this is a www forum I can't assume you're American but if you're then your founding fathers were Christians as well) were Christians and despite the fact that they wanted religious freedom they were still religious people. Their faith in God was the foundation for the moral structure they implied in the constitution of this country.

The religion of the American Intellectuals is pretty much exactly as you describe it. You call your faith reason. You call your methods wisdom and you filter everything (as I do) through your religion's viewpoint. Where the science of the day (and it is of the day because science changes more day by day) says that everything is a random collection of chaotic accidents. But honestly, how can that idea even sit well with you or anyone else? Look around at how the world operates and you don't random chaos, you see even relationships between environment and inhabitants. Where is the chaos except where we intervene? If this isn't evidence that it is _our_ choice to use what God gave us then what is?

But I'm off on a different subject again.

My main point and I'm gonna lay back for a bit after this as I doubt I'll garner much respect here being a Christian is this: Because it isn't called a religion and because no one comes to your door on a bicycle wearing a necktie doesn't mean it isn't a religion. It also doesn't mean you've been indoctrinated without your knowledge. This is what bothers me so much about the seperation of church & state. We teach our children an entirely new religion while denying another. Why don't we offer classes on a variety of religions and let parents dictate which class they want their child to take, or none at all. The education of children from day one these days slowly attacks their ability to truly believe in God. Church and state aren't seperate already, but the religions not founded in the scientific method don't get an appropriate representation in our schools.

*Ducks as science books fly his way*


----------



## Sephiroth

I respect your right to hold Christian beliefs, I just vehemently disagree with them.  And I feel you are confused about what is, and what is not a religion.  I'm not American, I'm from Scotland, and I have my copy of the _Oxford English Dictionary_ right here:

*religion* (n.) 1.) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.  >  a particular system of faith and worship  
2.) a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.  

Now, bearing in mind that the second usage is _very _informal ('sport was his religion'), I assume we've been talking about the first?  

And regarding your point about America: first of all, the separation of Church and State is enshrined in the First Amendment of your Constitution.  

 You may also find this interesting:
*  Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, 1796-1797* 
_As the government of the United States of America *is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion*_--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], ... ("Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary,") 1796-1797

Regardless of what you may choose to believe, the values upon which your country was founded were very much _secular _values.  Whether or not any of the individuals _personally _believed in god is not the point, they considered secularism a better model for their society, their 'new civilisation'.  

Look around the world and you see chaos everywhere, particularly at the fundamental, quantum level.  The universe is far stranger than the quaint anthropogenic notions enshrined in religion would have us believe.  How can you look at that and then say that you understand it?  

Religion has been a coping mechanism for an emerging species, helping it to begin to make sense of a baffling, nonsensical world by inventing explanations for things.  Now that we have the scientific method, we don't need to _invent _explanations any more.  We measure, we observe, and we obtain results that we can _prove _are true.


----------



## mosaix

Marvolo said:


> But your post is very telling.



Not as telling as yours. 



> Athiests always believe that religion is the root of evil in the world.


I have been talking about ALL belief systems. No need to get defensive.



> The truth of it is that athiests belong to their own religion of sorts.


A common misapprehension.



> They mostly view themselves as intellectuals and believe that everyone outside of their worldview is slightly less intelligent than themselves for having faith in something that isn't tangible.


No need to get offensive.



> If this doesn't describe you then I read your post wrong and I apologize.


Too late.



> But the intellectual movement is in effect a religion. It operates with all the same components of a religion.


No it doesn't. This is is a commonly used argument - "You're just like us really." Well I'm not. I lump religion in with astrology, wizards, witches, fortune telling, mysticism, mediums, faith healers, flat-earthists and belief in fairies. All belief systems with no basis in reality. 




> All of our laws and moral structure comes from our religions


No they don't. Another commonly held misapprehension. Man has invented language and mathematics, discovered the structure of the atom, the inner workings of the human body, the structure of the solar system (with loads of help form the church - NOT) and traveled to the moon and back, plus millions of other wonderful things without any 'outside' assistance - but we can't devise a few basic principles to help us live together without help from the almighty - yeah sure.

There's the old story of a vicar admiring a garden and saying to the gardener, "Isn't it wonderful what god can do?" The gardener replies "I'm not sure about that, you should have seen the mess this place was in before I got here."



> What desperate lives they'd live without faith in the fact that what they do on this world matters in the next. There'd be no sound reason why I couldn't do whatever the hell I wanted right?


Ah - the giveaway. Some of us think that doing the right thing by others is the right thing to do - because it is right. Others do it out of fear or desire for reward. I know which camp I fall into and know I know which camp you fall into. 



> We disagree on property, possessions other than property (even intellectual property), race, money, etc.


But these things can be resolved, by laws, treaties and education. Disagreements over religion can't because there are no facts only beliefs and they will  ALWAYS differ ALWAYS cause conflct. 



> The funniest thing about it all is, no matter how good of an argument, you cannot convince people without faith that faith isn't the problem.


That's because it is. And it's not funny at all. 



> I've been on the faithless side of the argument before and an invisible wall stands in the way of any religious person's words.


I'm an ex Methodist lay-preacher, there's no invisible wall at all. Just lack of education.


----------



## Soggyfox

Marvolo said:


> Why don't we offer classes on a variety of religions and let parents dictate which class they want their child to take, or none at all. *


 
why don't you let the child decide whether they want religion?


----------



## Marvolo

mosaix said:


> Not as telling as yours.
> 
> I have been talking about ALL belief systems. No need to get defensive.
> 
> A common misapprehension.
> 
> No need to get offensive.
> 
> Too late.
> 
> No it doesn't. This is is a commonly used argument - "You're just like us really." Well I'm not. I lump religion in with astrology, wizards, witches, fortune telling, mysticism, mediums, faith healers, flat-earthists and belief in fairies. All belief systems with no basis in reality.
> 
> 
> No they don't. Another commonly held misapprehension. Man has invented language and mathematics, discovered the structure of the atom, the inner workings of the human body, the structure of the solar system (with loads of help form the church - NOT) and traveled to the moon and back, plus millions of other wonderful things without any 'outside' assistance - but we can't devise a few basic principles to help us live together without help from the almighty - yeah sure.
> 
> There's the old story of a vicar admiring a garden and saying to the gardener, "Isn't it wonderful what god can do?" The gardener replies "I'm not sure about that, you should have seen the mess this place was in before I got here."
> 
> Ah - the giveaway. Some of us think that doing the right thing by others is the right thing to do - because it is right. Others do it out of fear or desire for reward. I know which camp I fall into and know I know which camp you fall into.
> 
> But these things can be resolved, by laws, treaties and education. Disagreements over religion can't because there are no facts only beliefs and they will ALWAYS differ ALWAYS cause conflct.
> 
> That's because it is. And it's not funny at all.
> 
> I'm an ex Methodist lay-preacher, there's no invisible wall at all. Just lack of education.


 
A few points and I'm done here. I knew this would happen when I revealed myself as a Christian. No point I make is going to be well recieved.

1. To the religion providing the moral structure: Yes man accomplished these things, but you're putting the chicken before the egg. Man accomplished these things within the moral framework society uses.

2. You're an ex-Methodist. You above all should appreciate that being a Christian doesn't mean you have a lack of education. You've been indoctrinated by the athiest curriculums modern society promotes. You're absolutely right, it isn't funny. It is very sad.

3. You say that athiests don't believe that religion is the problem, but in your next to last point you say exactly that. Eliminating religion isn't the key to creating world peace. No law of man can compete with the moral structure that God provides.

4. You are practicing a religion, just an extremely non-tolerant one. I was making points without directing them at you necessarily while you are demonizing me and everyone who believes as I do. You lump Christians in with witch-doctors and everyone else that believes things with no basis in fact. But what are the facts that you believe? Science provides very few concrete things and is constantly making old theories obsolete or flat out proving them wrong. The science you worship today will be looked on as crude later on.

5. And lastly, many, many, many Christians are very well educated. You're the telling one by making the statement that we reveal ourselves to be lacking education by believing things we cannot see and touch. My life is enriched by my belief in God. I wish yours was as well, but I've been on your side of the fence and no matter what I say it won't bring you over. If, as you say, you've been on my side of the fence I wonder what could have possibly happened that made you leave.

To Soggyfox: We are parents and as such we make decisions for our children based on what we know to be best for them. Teaching our children to be good Christians is not only the right choice, it is the best choice we can make. We don't let our children decide whether or not to do drugs on their own. We know drugs will affect their lives in bad ways. We also know that living a life without God is an empty and arrogant existance and we want better things for our children. I hope that helps you see my view a little more clearly.

So, the thread is titled "What period in history would you have loved to go back and see for yourself."

It'll probably do well for all of us if we get back to that because there is very little chance anyone is going to get anywhere with this argument.

If anyone has anything further to ask or discuss with me about Christianity feel free to PM me.


----------



## Soggyfox

Marvolo said:


> To Soggyfox: We are parents and as such we make decisions for our children based on what we know to be best for them. Teaching our children to be good Christians is not only the right choice, it is the best choice we can make. We don't let our children decide whether or not to do drugs on their own. We know drugs will affect their lives in bad ways. We also know that living a life without God is an empty and arrogant existance and we want better things for our children. I hope that helps you see my view a little more clearly.


 
unfortunate it doesn't, it saddens me that you think my life is empty and i'm arrogant because i don't believe in your God.

as a point, you won't have any choice over whether your children take drugs, they'll be more influenced by their social network and friends. You may think saying "no no no to drugs" works as a deterrent but unfortunately it does the quit the opposite.

i'l leave this debate now.


----------



## SpaceShip

Just after the beginning of the art deco period.


----------



## Marvolo

Soggyfox said:


> unfortunate it doesn't, it saddens me that you think my life is empty and i'm arrogant because i don't believe in your God.
> 
> as a point, you won't have any choice over whether your children take drugs, they'll be more influenced by their social network and friends. You may think saying "no no no to drugs" works as a deterrent but unfortunately it does the quit the opposite.
> 
> i'l leave this debate now.


 
Which is why it is important to be part of the church and make sure their friends and social network is full of morally upstanding people.


----------



## Soggyfox

Marvolo said:


> Which is why it is important to be part of the church and make sure their friends and social network is full of morally upstanding people.


 
you really are begining to make me laugh, are you serious or just trolling for a giggle.

i really must leave this thread as i could see myself hoofed into another dimension sharpish if i continue to post.


----------



## Sephiroth

These discussions always go nowhere.  We'll all just have to agree to disagree.

To answer the original question:

Within the timespan 500-1500 AD, in Europe, two periods jump out at me for being particularly attractive.  One is the Byzantine dynasty under the Macedonian Emperors, the other is 15th-Century Florence.


----------



## Talysia

Actually, on giving it further thought, I think I'd like to go back and see what the reactions to the various land discoveries were like when the news broke.  These days, we don't have half as many things to explore or discover (on Earth, at least) and the thought of discovering new lands appeals to my inner explorer.


----------



## Sephiroth

I agree.  There is something incredibly romantic about the whole _New World_ scenario.  And the thought of being on a boat, on your way to a land where the unknown awaits.......new peoples, new plants, animals...who can say whether there are monsters, _demons_, even, awaiting our arrival?

Scary, but exhilarating...


----------



## Allegra

Sephiroth said:


> ...the other is 15th-Century Florence.


 
If there's only one seat left for that destination, Sephiroth, you'll have to fight with me for it!  However I can go a little later, say the mid-15 century till the mid-16 century. I want to see Michelangelo finish his job.


----------



## Sephiroth

Let's hope they're not fully booked!  

I know what you mean, I wouldn't want to stop at 1500!  I would miss the_ Scientific Revolution_...and then, Bernini's new St. Peter's...and...well, a lot more........


----------



## mosaix

Marvolo,

Let me explain a little. You seemed to think that I was implying that religious people needed educating. You seemed to think I was getting personal and replied in kind and I admit I took exception. 

You are a relatively new contributor to the Chrons and so, perhaps, don't realise that, as opposed to many, many other web sites, we here on Chronicles don't get personal unless we are praising each other or out of genuine affection. I think that you don't realise that and therefore misread my post. 

Until you raised the point of religion I was referring to belief systems in general and I specifically mentioned education in relation to superstition. Education should teach our kids to question more and not believe everything they here - that was my thrust. There are many Christians who post on here who I regard as friends and I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with you being a Christian - not that you need my approval.

As, I think, JD has said in another thread we can argue and disagree over each others beliefs whilst still liking each other as individuals. I took exception to you making assumptions about how I saw myself and how I regarded others. What you said could not be farther from the truth and I am still cross about it, but I should not have replied how I did. I was rude.

However that does not mean to say that I am going to let you get away with something you said.

I *do not* practice a religion. I did, but now I don't and I know the difference.

A religious person believes something for which there is no proof and, therefore has no reason to change their mind about what they believe. These beliefs seem to differ from country to country and culture to culture and therefore, patently, can't all be true.

I don't do that. I have no beliefs. I either know something or I don't - based on facts. I change my mind from time to time based on newly discovered facts. These facts are the same from country to country, culture to culture.

And that is the difference. Religion is based on belief - I am an non-believer. And please don't say that I *believe* that god doesn't exist and _ipso facto_ am practicing a religion. _I just don't believe_ - get it? When a babe is born it doesn't believe - non-belief therefore is the default state. A one-day old babe isn't practicing a religion by not believing, is it? 

And please don't call me non-tolerant (extreme or otherwise), or I am going to get cross again. You know very little about me. You know absolutely nothing about what I tolerate or what I don't. 'Atheist' doesn't imply intolerance any more than 'religious' implies tolerance.


----------



## j d worthington

Allow me to throw a term out here that may help clarify something; rather than "proof", which has acquired plenty of looser definitions as well as the more strict mathematical one, perhaps "testable, verifiable evidence" is a worthwhile substitution.

And as mosaix said, the difference lies in faith versus knowledge (or verifiable information); hence a-theism (lack of a belief in gods) is not in any way a religion. It is a _lack_ of a belief, _not_ a belief itself. (That there are atheists -- speaking from the perspective of the usual religions -- who are driven by belief rather than evidence, is quite true. But that is a separate issue. One of the problems is that defining atheists is sort of like herding cats... Not that easy to get them to group together on much of anything, as about the only thing they can be said to have in common is that lack of a belief in a deity and that they tend generally to be fiercely independent thinkers.) Or, as has been put by others: We're all atheists to one degree or another; none of us believe in all the gods mankind has ever come up with. Some of us simply take it one step further. Present verifiable evidence, and it will be considered. Until then, I see no reason to believe.

On the moral issue... Frankly, that's another misconception, as morals predate all religion. We see ethical, moral behavior in the animal kingdom as well. Human beings simply evolved a more complex form of it and made it more institutionalized and rationalized; and that has been the result of our development as a species. Ethics and morals are more or less inherent in any viable species, as without them there is no possibility of cooperation and therefore no survival. That specific morals or ethics may be connected to religions I don't think anyone disputes; but moral and ethical behavior per se... no. Murder is a non-viable option for a species _qua_ species. It simply doesn't work. Therefore, those within a species who kill others of the same species eventually find themselves as outcasts. With human beings, as we're more complex organisms with the capacity for verbalization, we take it much further; we recognize that rampant murder damages us all, and so the offendor is punished. So it is with most of the basics of morality. We develop them as we develop as a species, and they do predate any religion... they predate, in primitive form, humanity itself. They can also be developed without regard to any religion, simply by referring to the fact that actions inevitably have consequences, as none of us lives entirely alone, without interdependence. We all require some dependence upon others to survive.

As for your feeling that you won't be accepted because you're a Christian... no. Your beliefs some of us may not accept (in the sense of agreeing with) but you're a valuable member of the forum; someone who has put in some very good feedback on several issues and has debated passionately on various topics... all of which are good things. This is simply a subject upon which we are likely to always disagree; but it's the _subject_ we disagree on, and such disagreement is not meant as an attack _on the person_. Therein lies the difference.


----------



## Marvolo

The point I am hoping to get across about many athiests practicing a religion is very simple.

What would you call blind devotion to the knowledge of the day?

Let me clarify.

I'm going to ask you a question Mosaix since this discussion has been mostly between me and you. Afterwards I'm going to make a point that is completely off-topic and you'll probably be offended by it.

Are you a nuclear physicist? Or perhaps a molecular biologist? What about a fellow with a doctorate in any of the various degrees that would let you fully understand any of the very deep mysteries of our universe?

The answer is probably no. So without a doctorate in every advanced field of science *you don't know anything for certain other than what you hear or read.*

So what makes your books and hearsay better than mine? What makes your devotion to certain knowledges different than mine?

Nothing does.

The other point I want to make and I'll offend you a bit with this one as well is that just because I have a low post count and this is a better than average forum doesn't give you the high road on this discussion. We enter all discussions as equals on forums such as this and you have to win debates on merit alone, post count and time spent on the forum have little to do with it in my opinion, whether you have 30 something like soggyfox or a million like JD.

Now, I'm sure you're not happy with my post and for that I'm sorry. I told myself yesterday the Christian thing to do here would be just bow out of the discussion tastefully and present my opinion again when asked. But I just can't let the athiests not practicing a religion issue rest.

And JD is correct. Not all athiests do practice a religion, but as you described your beliefs Mosaix I see that you do practice a religion which worships the science of the day. That is different from some other athiests who are as ignorant to the science of the day as they are to the word of God. Those types of athiest are really just nihilists calling themselves athiests and their deeper MO is just resentment towards any sort of structure.

To Soggyfox: I still don't see what you think is funny about that statement. I honestly don't. Feel free to elaborate.

Also, this debate reaches to the very meaning of truth. To everyone who is raising the point that they only believe what can be proven to be true, I find that unsatisfactory. The reality is that truth changes everyday and is very circumstancial to the person relying on the particular truth. Smoking wasn't unhealthy once. Babies needed to lay on their stomachs. Doctors say something is good medicine one year, the next year we have lawsuits because people die from it.

I've been on your side before, waiting for God to appear before me and say "Hey, here you go. Now you have no reason to doubt me." But life doesn't work that way. But I have noticed this. I see a lot of order in the world around me. I don't see morality in the animal kingdom. I see a global instinct which directs the non-human inhabitants of this world to find a natural equilibrium. I see that most things presented to me by man and man only wind up either not being what they seem or falling short of what is promised. New science is exciting. I'm a science fiction reader and aspiring author. But new science and discovery doesn't, and won't, bring us anything other than easier living and revelations on the broken or unfulfilled promises of yesterday's science. It changes and breaks its own rules and I dare say very few of the people here can raise their hand and say "I work in the lab every day exploring the deeper mysteries of the universe, let me elaborate on why I don't believe God exists." Most here are only going on what scientists discover because none of us have that knowledge for themselves.

This debate even goes on within the highest levels of the scientific community that athiests like Mosaix worship. Dr. Frances Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project. He helped map out every part of our DNA and he believes in a loving God.

My truth is different than your truth Mosaix or yours Soggyfox. But I don't see how you can worship your truths Mosaix and not call it a religion, or laugh at mine Soggyfox because I believe that my children being active in a church and careful screening of their friends and the parents of their friends cannot be anything but helpful in making sure they make the right decisions in life. Our truths differ but I once thought like you Mosaix. I was never as happy then as I am now. I truly hope that everyone here can find their own relationship with God. But it won't just be my words or anyone elses that convince you. It'll have to start with you searching for an answer that man can't give you.

And also mankind and belief, religion, superstition, whatever moniker you want to put on it, grew up hand in hand. We have practiced forms of belief from the very earliest days when we practiced ceromonial burial to sun worship to polytheism to Judaism to Christian to Islam. Mankind feels the need to search for higher answers. Some find that answer in science, others don't. I can't abide by the answers science gives today and takes away tomorrow. But non-belief isn't the default state. My children constantly seek answers and they see their mother and I as the guiding lights in their lives. We'll guide them to the guiding light in our eyes.

I'm tired and don't see a point in typing anymore.

G'night.


----------



## Sephiroth

Marvolo, can I ask you a question?

If you believe in evolution, and the scientific version of world history and prehistory (which from your statement in the last paragraph, you do), then what is it that makes you a believer?  You obviously do not believe that god created the world in seven days about 6000 years ago, so what is it that makes you so sure of 'his' existence?  _Why _do you believe?

This is a sincere question, and I am not asking it so that I can ridicule whatever answer you give.  I'm genuinely curious as to your rationale.


----------



## Marvolo

To Sephiroth:

I had a response typed out and while trying to highlight something to backspace it I hit the back button on my mouse, fun.

Anyway.

I believe in intelligent design but it is easy to hear someone talk about seeing an equilibrium in the non-human ecosystem and think they're an evolutionist. The hard thing about an evolution/intelligent design discussion is that we're both looking at the same thing and interpreting it differently. An evolutionist looks at the platypus and says, "The platypus has evolved to fit its environment perfectly." Someone like me sees the platypus and says, "God has made the platypus so that it has the best chance to survive." My problem with the theory of evolution is that it still has big holes due to the fact that paleontologists can't seem to find all the links between one species and another. When they do claim to have everything figured out, they end up being wrong because paleontology is barely a science and more of a crazy game of 52 card pickup. When I was a kid the Brontosaurus was a real dinosaur. When I grew up the Brontosaurus became an Apatosaurus with the wrong head attached. This is just an example.

To the question about the Earth being created in seven days and being 6,000 years old. When I was a teenager - young adult the early books of the Bible always presented a problem for me. Some preachers taught they were literal stories and to be a Christian you had to believe each one word for word. But later I met another very intelligent Christian who taught that the old testament could be read with an allegorical mindset for better enrichment of our lives. This was one the barriers I overcame in going from an athiest to a Christian (this and the beginning of feeling a joy while being in the church, which is something that never happened before). I read the early books of the Bible as figurative stories with literal roots. These stories are very old. Everyone pretty much agrees that we came from one spot in Africa (pretty much everyone). In the old testament there is no telling what seven days means to God. When Adam & Eve were kicked out of the gardens of Eden mankind existed outside of God's graces for a while. Many of the day/year quotations in the old testament I believe are allegorical as well, representing the time it took for man to organize and recieve God's favor again.

It's 6:43 and I have to get ready for work.

I hope this helps you see my viewpoint a little more clearly Sephiroth.


----------



## mosaix

Marvolo said:


> The point I am hoping to get across about many athiests practicing a religion is very simple.
> 
> What would you call blind devotion to the knowledge of the day?
> 
> Let me clarify.
> 
> I'm going to ask you a question Mosaix since this discussion has been mostly between me and you. Afterwards I'm going to make a point that is completely off-topic and you'll probably be offended by it.
> 
> Are you a nuclear physicist? Or perhaps a molecular biologist? What about a fellow with a doctorate in any of the various degrees that would let you fully understand any of the very deep mysteries of our universe?
> 
> The answer is probably no. So without a doctorate in every advanced field of science *you don't know anything for certain other than what you hear or read.*
> 
> So what makes your books and hearsay better than mine? What makes your devotion to certain knowledges different than mine?
> 
> 
> 
> Where did the 'blind devotion' bit come from. Please stop this Marvolo. Putting words into other people mouths and then using them in your argument is, I agree, a useful debating tactic, but futile. I know what I think, you don't.
> 
> The point is that there ARE physicists and biologists and fellows with doctorates (some of them contribute to Chrons). And their work is closely examined and peer reviewed. And I could go to other, _independent_ physicists and biologists and fellows with doctorates and ask them their opinion on other scientists works. I've never been to Australia, are you telling me I should doubt its existence until I have?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The other point I want to make and I'll offend you a bit with this one as well is that just because I have a low post count and this is a better than average forum doesn't give you the high road on this discussion. We enter all discussions as equals on forums such as this and you have to win debates on merit alone, post count and time spent on the forum have little to do with it in my opinion, whether you have 30 something like soggyfox or a million like JD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not offended at all. And again you misunderstand me. My point was that after a while of posting on here people come to realise that when a point is made it isn't usually personal. You seemed to think my point about education was personal and I was trying to explain how that mistake might have come about. You made the same mistake again by thinking I was being personal about post counts and taking the high road - I wasn't. In a forum like this, without face to face contact, it is easy to misconstrue a point and it seems to have happened again. My point is that you can take my points, and most other peoples here at face value - non of them are personal. To reiterate my point Marvolo, the Chronicles is not like most forums, we are a friendly bunch and have open discssuions without insulting each other or trying to put each other down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And JD is correct. Not all athiests do practice a religion, but as you described your beliefs Mosaix I see that you do practice a religion which worships the science of the day. That is different from some other athiests who are as ignorant to the science of the day as they are to the word of God. Those types of athiest are really just nihilists calling themselves athiests and their deeper MO is just resentment towards any sort of structure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't worship anything Marvolo. I take an interest in what goes on around me. I think what we have here is a disagreement over the meaning of the word religion and I am content to let it rest at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Smoking wasn't unhealthy once.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Smoking has always been unhealthy. It's just that some people believed it wasn't.  That's the difference between truth and belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on your side before, waiting for God to appear before me and say "Hey, here you go. Now you have no reason to doubt me."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now I see how you misunderstand me. I'm not waiting for 'him', I don't doubt 'him'. Lack of 'him' in my life isn't a void that I am waiting to be filled. I am perfectly content with the universe as it is. I am in the default state of 'no belief'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But life doesn't work that way. But I have noticed this. I see a lot of order in the world around me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any organism existing in an environment will see order in that environment because evolution ensures that the organism is suited to the environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see morality in the animal kingdom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are part of the animal kingdom, we are moral animals. When stone-age man started to live and hunt in groups he had to have a set of rules than enabled members of the groups to get along on a day to day basis, to cooperate. From such humble beginnings morality arose and this happened before there was the 'word', written or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This debate even goes on within the highest levels of the scientific community that athiests like Mosaix worship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Marvolo, if you are going to pass comment on me personally, please, please stick to what you know about me and not what you imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My truth is different than your truth Mosaix or yours Soggyfox. But I don't see how you can worship your truths Mosaix and not call it a religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again with that 'worship' thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'll have to start with you searching for an answer that man can't give you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But non-belief isn't the default state. My children constantly seek answers and they see their mother and I as the guiding lights in their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your mixing up the questions with the answers there. If belief was the default state there'd be no need to seek answers no need ask questions. It is precisely because kids start out with no beliefs that they are so inquisitive.
> 
> 
> 
> But, by now you must be starting to see that our exchanges just go to prove my original point, made several posts ago and not related to religion _per se _nor was it anti-religious nor did it say religion was the root of all evil. What I said was belief systems, because they can never be proven will tend to lead to conflict.
> 
> *1 + 1 = 2*   This is true. It is easily proven and I've never, ever heard anyone argue over it.
> 
> *Fairies exist and only show themselves to people who truly believe in them.* This is a belief and if anyone believed it anymore it would provoke hours of endless debate that could never be resolved. If it was believed by an entire race of people it would tend to lead to conflict. That was my point.
> 
> The posts that you, I and others have exchanged in this thread and others prove I am right. We don't agree because because neither you or I can point to a single verifiable fact that will prove or disprove your belief. And because there are no facts that we can agree on then we don't agree. And disagreement tends to lead to conflict.
> 
> Search the thousands and thousands of threads here on Chronicles and you will find that, almost without exception, the threads that the moderators have had to close down have involved heated exchanges about belief systems.
> 
> For some reason this thread has turned in a religious debate and, if it is going to continue in that vein, I for one will no longer contribute. I made a point about conflict and I think the resultant posts have, inadvertently, proven my point for me.
Click to expand...


----------



## Allegra

Sorry to interrupt but I just have to venture a question here:



Marvolo said:


> But I just can't let the athiests not practicing a religion issue rest.


 
_WHY?_

Considering millions and millions of people around the globe have never bent their knees to anyone, you won’t get a rest yourself.  Let the believers believe whatever they choose to believe and unbelievers not believe whatever you think they should believe. (And never even try to persuade me eating blue cheese cos I’m _not _gonna buy it! - Sorry blue cheese lovers, mind you I love practically any cheese except that, yuk.)


----------



## j d worthington

Folks... the discussion per se can be an interesting discussion, but I'd suggest opening up another thread if we're going to continue it, and let this thread get back on topic. (And yes, I realize I contributed to the entire thing. Without meaning to "alibi", I was simply attempting to clarify a point and, in the process, also introduce a possibly less ambiguous phrase for use, to help with reaching an understanding.)

At any rate... as I said, the discussion is a valid one, though assumptions about the other person should be treated warily, and I'd suggest phrasing them clearly as assumptions, rather than knowledge of what one or the other believes, feels, etc., unless they specifically say they do.

If anyone wishes to continue this discussion, I'd suggest opening a new thread, but we do need to be careful. We've had one or two threads on religion/lack of belief that managed to stay open, but usually they become extremely heated. I think we'd all prefer a civil discussion on the matter, addressing the points raised by each and debating them, to getting into personal attacks or disrespect for each other.

As noted, this is a surprisingly friendly community -- a rarity on the internet, from what I've seen -- and it'd be nice to keep it that way....


----------



## Sephiroth

I agree.  At the other board I post on sometimes, these discussions frequently get out of hand and degenerate into a slanging-match.  I wouldn't like to see that happen here.  It's an evocative subject for all of us, myself included, as evidenced by the fact that I felt the need to post a comment.  

*Marvolo*, thank you for the intelligent and thoughtful statement of your position; it certainly helps me to better understand where you are coming from.


----------



## Allegra

Yes J.D. is right (isn't he always?). I apologize if I offended anyone unintentionally with my above post.  It’s just that sometimes my tongue gets stuck in the cheek - Chrispeny has something to do with this because he does it all the time and it’s contagious!  

Seriously though, I understand and respect both believers and unbelievers (learned it hard way from my parents) and I believe that understanding and respect are all we need for about everything on this planet. 

Now back to the topic, apart from 15 - 16th century's Florence, I also wish to travel back to perhaps 9th century's Iceland when people were still using fish for currency!


----------



## j d worthington

Allegra said:


> Yes J.D. is right (isn't he always?). I apologize if I offended anyone unintentionally with my above post. It’s just that sometimes my tongue gets stuck in the cheek - Chrispeny has something to do with this because he does it all the time and it’s contagious!
> 
> Seriously though, I understand and respect both believers and unbelievers (learned it hard way from my parents) and I believe that understanding and respect are all we need for about everything on this planet.
> 
> Now back to the topic, apart from 15 - 16th century's Florence, I also wish to travel back to perhaps 9th century's Iceland when people were still using fish for currency!


 
Well, not quite, yet....  Just to clarify: my own post just above was simply a general statement, not aimed at anyone in particular. I've just found that that's the best way to keep the discussion focused on the issue, rather than personalities; in which case it can often be a very meaty discussion, and one I hope all parties (or at least, all sides) can feel was worthwhile and rewarding.

As for what period... well, for me, I've always been fascinated by the various witch-hunts... their causes and the change in zeitgeist that led from an acceptance that such things were, but without the harsher penalties being inflicted, to the outright panics and mass murders that were often the result... especially as the causes seem to vary, and are quite complex, both from region to region and from one time to another. (Certainly the Salem incident in American history is by no means unique; what makes it stand out is that it was so concentrated and in such a relatively short span of time... but it was part of a pattern that had been around since shortly after the colony was first established, and lasted for a good while after.)

So I'd probably pick one (or several) of those... just so long as I could avoid being in the middle of the darned thing as a participant!


----------



## LJonesy

To be bluntly honest, i'd like to live during the time of Jesus, and follow him around. I've been reading all the posts so it doesn't look like saying that'll provoke an argument.


----------



## Shadowmancer

I'd like to go back to either the time of the Reformation or Ancient Egypt. I'd love to be a heretic or just see the pyramids built.


----------



## Bentony

Living in Southern France during the Medieval Warm Period (about 800 to 1200 CE) would have been good, except you want to skip the end part due to all the trouble with Northern France and the Cathars.  So I think living there as a Cathar between 800 and 1000CE would be best. Food production was at a high, there was very little disease, and no real conflicts as such.

Living in a roman city during the height of the empire would also have been quite good - somewhere in Southern Europe between 01 and 200CDE.


----------



## digs

Such a tough question! It would definitely be somewhere in the ancient world, probably Rome of c. 100 AD (I have to admit, my mental images of Rome have been heavily influenced by Gladiator and maybe a little too much by Naboo from Star Wars...) or Athens of c. 440 BC. I would have loved to have seen the Acropolis in full swing with its gigantic statues and horrendous paint job.


----------



## A_J_Lath

Late Victorian/early Edwardian. But not if I had to be one of the poor lot, cos life was rather quite **** for them. No, comfortable Victorian middle-class; etchings and daguerrotypes of far flung places; membership of a gentlemans' club with bizarre and arcane rules; stepping out onto the veradah, comfortably clad in a gentleman's robe and smoking a cheroot.

Actually...that's pretty much how I am at the present anyway!


----------



## J Riff

I think maybe...1947. Before things got stupid, and after all the centuries of sword fights.


----------



## My Atomic Tales

As a history buff, particularly when it comes to the Napoleonic Wars, that's the era I'd like to visit (I certainly wouldn't want to stay there for any length of time, though - I like my modern comforts too much!). Failing that - presumably some malfunction with the Time Machine has led me astray - I wouldn't mind being stuck in Ancient Egypt for a while, particularly during the reign of Akhenaten.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Of course the main problems with time travel are twofold

If we'd been born then,99% of us would have had short lives of hard labour , and seen nothing of the world outside of our ramshackle dwellings and villages - if we were time-travelling visitors , then nothing would happen for 99% of the time , and the 1% that DID we probably wouldnt understand what was going on because of language dificulties or the very fact that almost certainly the way that things actually happened is entirely different to the way we think they did.

Better to watch history on tv or from the pages of a book imho.


----------



## My Atomic Tales

paranoid marvin said:


> if we were time-travelling visitors , then nothing would happen for 99% of the time , and the 1% that DID we probably wouldnt understand what was going on because of language dificulties or the very fact that almost certainly the way that things actually happened is entirely different to the way we think they did.


Being quite simple-minded, I just assumed whatever technology enabled me to travel backward in time would also furnish me with the ability to converse with whatever inhabitants I might meet. If it was a random throw of the dice, then you'd be right - most human history consists of abject poverty and soulless grinding. If there was some semblance of control, however, then I think the exercise could be quite enlightening - barring those who jumped back to various significant points in religious history just to give themselves some ammunition, whatever their viewpoint.


----------



## Star Girl

I think I would like to go back to Victorian Britain and be apart of the aristocracy, only because I'd love to shock them with the way I am. 
I'd also like to go to The Great Exhibition at the Crystal Palace.


----------



## sloweye

I have four points in time i'd like to see.

1) i'd love to be on the beach for the first time the Romans crossed the channel, just to see their faces' when they got their first look at the blue dudes.

2) The mid Anglo-saxon era.

3) View the late Napoleonic battles.

4) A little more up to date, but i'm young enough to have been born in the punk rock era here in the UK. but i'd love to go back now and see it with grown up eyes.


----------



## Menion

I, as Sloweye has, many choices that I can't choose between.
1) First crusade, join the march to the holy land, and obviously join in the wee scraps that they had there.
2) As it has been mentioned before, Troy it's final battle.
3) Renaissance Italy.
4) Era of the Black death, wierd I know but I have allways been interested in that part of history.


----------



## nj1

I'd quite like to have seen - The Battles of Trafalgar, Waterloo, Marathon, the fall of the Berlin Wall, Rorke's Drift and end of the great wars among others


----------



## Starbeast

I would like to watch from a distance without interfering, how every incredible and unexplainable structure on this planet was created.


----------



## J Riff

I'm with SB on this.
Oh, and One Million BC to see if Racquel Welch is really there. *


----------



## chongjasmine

I will love to go back to ancient Israel, during the time of Jesus, so that I can see for myself what Jesus did, and if what He did was like the way it was recorded in the bible.


----------



## Ökuþórr

1) Visit the pre-christian Vikings, Saxons, Slavs and the like.
2) Take a look around Babylon, (See if i can find the whore. One whore for an entire city, gotta be an interesting woman. Kidding of course.) take in its hanging gardens.
3) Various city states in Ancient Greece. Watch the battle of Thermopylae.
4) The building of the great pyramid.
5) Great Zimbabwe at its height.
6) Feudal Japan.
7) Carthage.
8) The 80's
9) Join Mr. Edward Teach. (Gotta do the whole pirate thing.)
10) Check for Orcs in New Zealand.


----------



## TheTomG

Any point in time in my own life, as I am sure I could tell myself a few things to do and things not to do :O


----------



## TL Rese

i'd like to see how things were in the distant past - dinosaur age, ice age, ancient times (greco-roman) - anything up to the medieval ages, i'd be curious to see.


----------



## Foxbat

A couple of time periods for me. First - The Russian Civil War. It's always fascinated me.

Second Dunbar (my hometown) 1650. It was the site of Oliver Cromwell's biggest military victory. I've read about this. I know what happened. I know how it happened I know where it happened - but I can't for the life of me figure out _why _it happened. I've never found a satisfactory explanation so I'd like to go back and ask Oliver himself.


----------



## the smiling weirwood

Well, pretty much all of it. But, if I had to narrow down I would definitely love to see the Mediterranean during the height of the Hellenistic era. Such a fascinating time, but sadly lacking in written histories due to the proliferation of competing kingdoms. I would definitely like to stick around for all of Roman history as well. 

Does the time machine include an aging-prevention mechanism? Ha, I would like to see Charlemagne's empire after Rome, and perhaps the Age of Sail while I'm at it.


----------



## THX-1138

I'd check out the Mesozoic.


----------



## chongjasmine

Other than seeing Jesus and other biblical figures of the bible, I will like to see China in its glorious past.

Especially the three kingdom period.


----------



## Rosemary Fryth

What period in history would you have loved to go back and see for yourself?

That is a seriously difficult question. As a lover of history and paleoanthropology I'd have to say that my first visit would have to be to Africa and to observe _Australopithecus afarensis_ in their habitat.

Then I'd skip forward to neolithic Britian and find out exactly how and why the stone circles at Stonehenge and Avebury were made, and what inspired the building of Silbury Hill.

Then my next stop would be to 1st Century Roman Britian, and Rome itself during that period.

Then the 12th and 13th Centuries to observe the building of the great castles and cathedrals, and to watch (at a safe distance) some of the great battles and tournaments.

After that it would be a visit to the early 19th Century to speak with William Wordsworth, and then skip forward a decade or two to watch the Pre-Raphaelite painters at work, and buy a souvenir.

My last stop would be to the mid-1980's to hear all that wonderful music again live, and finally to give my mum a big hug (she passed on a few years afer).


----------



## Varangian

I'm with Plo Addonnas, I'd love to see the Viking times of between the 8th and 11th centuries. Have always been very interested (ever since I can remember) in Norse history related to those time frames, I don't know why.

I have no doubt that certain Norsemen killed, raped and pillaged, but in a time when the Saxons were committing mass genecide and Christian priests were torturing non-christians simply because of their belief, it was a very violent time. That period of history is written by the literate people of the time (Christian priests), so there is a very good reason why history remembers the Vikings in a certain (distorted) way. 

Jorvik (York) was the trade capital of the world during the Viking reign, so the Norse were much more than blood thirsty 'barbarians'.


----------



## No One

As much as I'd love to see something of the Vikings or the Renaissance or the 19th century 'spirit of the Age' (from _zeitgeist _to _fin d' siecle_) it's all about ancient history for me and in particular the period from 550 b.c to 479 b.c.

I want to see:

Cyrus lead the Persian tribe to arguably the greatest empire that's ever existed.

If Cambyses was really a mental case or merely the subject of Egyptian slander (or if maybe it was a bit of both).

Darius so spectacularly worm and lie his way to the top and yet manage to consolidate the empire amidst revolt after revolt.

The Lycurgus revolution that resulted in the "majestic yet murderous experiment in social engineering" (Tom Holland) that created the Spartans of the period.

Cleisthenes making his radical proposition of a 'demokratia' and how the people rose up against Isagoras and Cleomenes, and how the newborn Athenian democratic army so miraculously survived certain doom before annihilating their rivals.

The battle of Marathon, which may as well have turned the world on its head.

What the three Greek spies saw after being captured outside Sardis and given a royal tour of the seemingly limitless resources at Xerxes' disposal.

Themistocles deliver his speech to the Athenian council that resolved them to abandon Athens and take to the sea - apparently there's no record of that whatsoever, but suffice to say it must've been one of the greatest masterpieces of oratory given the level of resistance to be expected.

The Spartans fight in the way that made them "a horror to their fellow Greeks" (again, Holland).

Leonidas.

The look on Xerxes face (if he dared betray much) as he surveyed the carnage and scale of the estimated 20,000 Persian dead at Thermopylae.

The bravery of Siccinus acting as a double agent, being so bold as to approach the Persian high command and "betraying" the allied plans prior to the battle at Salamis. Talk about balls of steel.

The battle at Salamis, which as battles go, could be marked down as the single most significant day of fighting in human history.

The battle of Plataea, which, for all its awkwardness, saw the last of the Persian forces under Mardonius expelled from Greece.

And I wanna see the Acropolis and the statue of Athena, and in particular the Parthenon, in all their original glory.

Plus the golden age of Hellenism that would follow in the next couple of centuries. That would be nice too.

Oh, and Alexander's campaigns (granted, I've deviated from my original time scale a tad now).


----------



## paranoid marvin

The problem with most of these time-travelling jaunts is that it is highly unlikely that due to language barriers we would have any clue as to what was actually happening. 

Also most battles - big or small, of huge historical importance or none at all - consisted of a bunch of men chopping each other's limbs off until one side ran out of men, limbs , or the will to fight on.

I'd love to be able to see the Pyramids again though - they would have looked amazing, and nothing like the (admittedly still impressive) sandcastles they now resemble.


----------



## willwallace

paranoid marvin said:


> The problem with most of these time-travelling jaunts is that it is highly unlikely that due to language barriers we would have any clue as to what was actually happening.
> 
> Also most battles - big or small, of huge historical importance or none at all - consisted of a bunch of men chopping each other's limbs off until one side ran out of men, limbs , or the will to fight on.
> 
> I'd love to be able to see the Pyramids again though - they would have looked amazing, and nothing like the (admittedly still impressive) sandcastles they now resemble.



If we are postulating the ability to time travel, it shouldn't be difficult to add in instant language acquisition.


----------



## AnyaKimlin

willwallace said:


> If we are postulating the ability to time travel, it shouldn't be difficult to add in instant language acquisition.



Mine's a Babel Fish.

My choice would probably be to meet the Venerable Bede or Samuel Pepys and actually meet the men behind the words.

So either early 700s or mid-late 1600s.  However I'd rather bring them to me, part of me has no desire to see, smell, feel or experience the past.  It all sounds pretty smelly and uncomfortable.


----------



## No One

I should probably have added the Library of Alexandria to that list - it's loss must count as one of the most truly disastrous events in history, setting civilisation back at least a thousand years according to many eminent minds.


----------

