I'm still reading Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. (Give me a break. This is a 7-volume book.) In the process of trying to follow it (because it is so much book), I've been accessing other sources. I tried out Wikipedia for a synopsis.
According to Wikipedia, "Gibbon argued that Christianity created a belief that a better life existed after death, which fostered an indifference to the present among Roman citizens, thus sapping their desire to sacrifice for the Empire."
Now, that's odd. I mean, sure, I'm only on Volume 05 and all, but the Roman Empire has fallen (West) and I read something like that ... but not quite. It didn't seem to say what Wikipedia said.
According to Gibbon, "As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal, that the introduction, or at least the abuse, of Christianity had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire."
Are these two the same thing? Or is there a difference between "Christianity" and "the abuse of Christianity"?
You would like to think that there are unbiased sources. You would like to think that something like Wikipedia would, as a mixing pot of a variety of sources, offer just such a source. But clearly the two are not the same and it seems obvious that the author of the Wikipedia article is presenting a personal, anti-Christian bias in this text. Because the two are not the same. Wikipedia says it was caused by Christianity and Gibbon says it was caused by an abuse of Christianity. You know, not the same at all.
Just keep in mind that everyone has biases. I do. So do you. Don't fall for that "unbiased" suggestion. In fact, it has its own biases, doesn't it?
5 comments:
I replied to a commenter slamming the evils of religion, and particularly, of course, Christianity,that his comment certainly helped to explain Barack Obama, because, as we all know, he claims to be a Christian. Of course all but dull-headed "Christians" know he is lying, including this commenter. But the thing was, he couldn't argue with me without agreeing that Obama was a liar. But if Obama is willing to lie, then why not people through the ages? By agreeing with me he had to destroy his man-god and his argument.
If one simply looks at the confessions and ignores the fruit, things get murky very very fast don't they? Interestingly enough an opposite is true with Islam. One needs to look for the confession and the OPPOSITE fruit when considering the virtues of that religion.
The question becomes, "Which bias is the best bias to be biased by?"
Yes, Glenn. Best to be biased by the truth, eh?
Yep. That is a saying by Ken Ham when discussing the claims by evolutionists that creationists are biased. Ham retorts that so are evolutionists, but the best bias to be biased by is the bias of the truth.
And, see? I came up with that without ever reading Ken Ham. :)
Post a Comment