Everyone Had To Be Christian, So "Christian" Accomplishments Aren´t Christian"- Not Quite

Peter Smith Mark Rego Monteiro since almost everyone had to be everyone had to be Christian (at least outwardly) in those days, its no surprise "Christians" did those things! Again, you are confusing correlation with causation. Mark Rego Monteiro Peter Smith You´re trying to make Christianity irrelevant by equating their accomplishments with your own ideological version, and scapegoat them with your negative account. Indeed, "everyone was a Christian," well, how?, and what are the causal connections? I´ve already been presenting the comparative analysis. Violence is universal. I´ve pointed out elsewhere here that the Hongwu Emperor Zhu Yuanzhang was brutal, and Literary Inquisitions were a brutal phenomena that were repeated over time and dynasties. King Ashoka in India became a Buddhist because of brutality. Islam conquered with the sword all the way to Asia, and was slaughtered at Baghdad in 1258 by the Mongols. Brutality is a human bio-psychological tendency, not religiously caused. And not "caused" by Christianity. If you want to try to assert a humanist ideological causation, that humans are genetically driven to develop Western type Civilizations, you have to show how it developed and converged roughly equally everywhere. "Human biological purity." That´s pretty self-evidently absurd. Better look up your nature-nurture basics, to add another direction for you to pursue adequate literacy. As such, we note in appropriate detail from modern developments first, that Love Heals. Freud´s talk therapy revealed abreaction emotional reconnection with repressed memories and emotions and catharsis. His resistance to additional insights led him to faint twice when Jung started talking about collective unconscious type ideas. Jung went on to call his Higher Self linked to the Imago Dei and Jesus as meaningful figure. Thus, Christian monasticism began as Anthony of the Desert was motivated by the NT to become an ascetic. Not, say, Pythagoras. Cassiodorus in the 500s was a well educated administrator in Rome and Constantinople who became a monk. He created a Classics curriculum to advance Christian understanding, not to advance paganism, nor anti-Christian philosophy. A study of monastic literature of the lives of monastics provides a wealth of material about spiritual experience in the Christian context. Joan of Arc, a girl who became a warrior leader according to coherent Christian and historical details, is a fairly exciting example. By the time extreme non-conformist metaphysical types were making their appearances, like Hume (d 1776), they were committing silly materialist fallacies by rejecting miracles as impossible, and assuming them to be superstition. That´s a basic anti-philosophical fallacy of rationalism. Hume also argued that causality was not possible because of reductionist atomism. Meanwhile, Newton´s religious views were less unconventional than Hume´s, and he asserted the transcendental and lawful Creator´s relation to lawful physical reality. That corresponds to new understanding of emergentism. Newton indulged in Biblical studies, no less, not Greek philosophy. Also at that time, George Fox was emerging at that time, no less, with little formal education but ample spiritual intelligence. He gave another example of resurgent high integrity in Christianity, now in Protestantism. His soundly streamlined Christianity promoted silent worship similar to meditation, an "inner light" psychological approach, and resulted in high integrity community, including Marg Fell his wife. His proteges were sought out by a young college grad dissident Anglican T Clarkson to back him in his pioneering investigative and organizing anti-slavery social movement campaign. Thus, the comparative evidence, the spiritual origins of monasticism, the classics, Joan of Arc, David Hume´s fallacies, Newton´s transcendentalism and Bible interest, and George Fox´s example, are all details that refute your unjustified and unempirical assertion that Christianity can´t be associated with its accomplishments. Your assertion is ideological, not empirical.