tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.comments2023-04-12T21:57:15.687-10:00Hammock HighlightsBeachbumhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16872466812837980647noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-22093293606647136732020-08-12T21:41:41.554-10:002020-08-12T21:41:41.554-10:00Thanks for the blog post buddy! Keep them coming.....Thanks for the blog post buddy! Keep them coming... <a href="https://fencecompanydetroit.com/" rel="nofollow">DetroitFence company</a><br />Marilyngehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08775761799935301049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-78066050554006460772015-08-14T08:09:17.765-10:002015-08-14T08:09:17.765-10:00Aloha! Aloha! Beachbumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16872466812837980647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-81873972756508406172015-08-11T16:38:14.533-10:002015-08-11T16:38:14.533-10:00Greetings from another Beach bum.Greetings from another Beach bum.Commander Zaiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000824454124236774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-4223371287199103192013-01-21T21:27:09.784-10:002013-01-21T21:27:09.784-10:00Nice post Thanks for sharing Brazilian HammocksNice post Thanks for sharing <a href="http://sportskroft.com/Hammocks" rel="nofollow"><b>Brazilian Hammocks</b></a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11385983855747496221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-85706679986202078802013-01-12T13:50:13.520-10:002013-01-12T13:50:13.520-10:00Hey. People on Twitter are wondering what happened...Hey. People on Twitter are wondering what happened to you since your posts stopped without warning on Dec 10 @Beechbum. Is everything OK? If so, please make at least one more post on Twitter to reassure people. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-91687655074851252182011-06-08T00:14:53.058-10:002011-06-08T00:14:53.058-10:00Thanks. It is so telling when someone needs to hid...Thanks. It is so telling when someone needs to hide their claims behind the "wool" so to speak, and this is all that it is, obscuring everyone's view of the facts.Beachbumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16872466812837980647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-6323449090790881722011-06-07T23:20:30.072-10:002011-06-07T23:20:30.072-10:00Well written and dissected. The level of obfuscati...Well written and dissected. The level of obfuscation employed by creationists always astounds me.Kaimatainoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-38802962245481348062010-12-12T20:40:41.107-10:002010-12-12T20:40:41.107-10:00I take it you disagree with my blog on this matter...I take it you disagree with my blog on this matter. That's fine; not everyone is endowed with an intellect. The shame is, everyone is endowed with an opinion.Beachbumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16872466812837980647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-81981400585602395732010-12-11T20:45:40.837-10:002010-12-11T20:45:40.837-10:00Beachbum, you have no idea what you're talking...Beachbum, you have no idea what you're talking about. DO you have eggs in your head?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-64653678973189208632010-11-23T11:23:16.066-10:002010-11-23T11:23:16.066-10:00I find this man to be one of the most interesting ...I find this man to be one of the most interesting of the 20th century.Beachbumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16872466812837980647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-44986898542959305052010-11-21T14:40:58.613-10:002010-11-21T14:40:58.613-10:00Thank you Mygypsy14,I'm glad you found it inte...Thank you Mygypsy14,I'm glad you found it interesting.Beachbumhttp://bigbeachbums.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-22231947299551602372010-11-21T13:18:10.015-10:002010-11-21T13:18:10.015-10:00This is an interesting video. Thanks for sharing.This is an interesting video. Thanks for sharing.Mygypsy14noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-25163943525789858162010-11-21T09:33:09.107-10:002010-11-21T09:33:09.107-10:00Very informative. I'm definitely in agreement ...Very informative. I'm definitely in agreement with you. I really like your writing style as well!Leopard14zhttp://openid.aol.com/Leopard14znoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-10306310262076601782010-11-21T09:33:07.694-10:002010-11-21T09:33:07.694-10:00I'm spiritual, I don't need to prove it, n...I'm spiritual, I don't need to prove it, nor do I feel a need to disprove your atheism, 1st of all. Live & let live. Personally, I've come to believe in love & fear. I believe our souls are spiritual. I believe One Love binds and connects all of our energies. It's my belief, and I wish a lot of Christians thought that way.<br><br>I was brought up Christian, and have had a harder & harder time with it as time goes on. If we look at the example of Jesus, his appears to be a moral act to follow. That said, I'm sick of the fundies trying to put religion in our government and control my body. They are a dangerous group, and appear to be growing. I knew electing a black president would bring the nuts out of the woodwork, and it has. One irritation I have w/ fundies is how they have accused me in the past of "picking & choosing" what I want to believe in the Bible. That is what they do all the time, perfectly exemplified in your twitter friend's blog post. It is very fear based. Also, objective morality is an oxymoron! Values are what is important, and we either have values that are about treating ourselves & others well, or we have values that aren't really true, because they judge people, and that involves not treating them well. <br><br>Anyhoo, thanks for letting me put in my 2 cents!<br>Juliawb<br>http://whizbangwoman.wordpress.comwhizbangwomanhttp://whizbangwoman.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-60348238575359323702010-11-21T09:33:05.278-10:002010-11-21T09:33:05.278-10:00The Tea Party Movement is a part of the American t...The Tea Party Movement is a part of the American tradition. It is what the elite few who want to rule the many, as the current Democrat Party and many old-line Republicans, would oppose. It is something I believe Ayn Rand would support. It comes from a unique tradition of local home rule, where government was no further from the governed than one day’s horseback ride, and individual interests were more important than are community interests. That led to the more involved citizen, the town hall meetings and even the vigilante movement. From the early days, the Tea Party Movement is but an extension of American traditions and perfectly correct. Surely, the Old World, such as England and France, would never permit such a thing, as their traditions were inclined to be bloody conflicts, not peaceful demonstrations. The differences are cited in the Changing Face of Democrats, Our Libertarian Roots Lost, on Amazon and claysamerica.com.ClayBarhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08969859914336837392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-59061624811936972572010-11-19T04:18:26.656-10:002010-11-19T04:18:26.656-10:00Unfortunately, the problem, as I see it, is that y...<i>Unfortunately, the problem, as I see it, is that you blindly believe your apologetic sources.</i><br /><br />What makes you think my sources are "apologetic"? Those historians I have cited were not engaged in apologetics, but rather something called "history."<br /><br /><i>if my only source is of a religious slant, it never counts as authoritative due to intrinsic biases and a history of falsification of historical documents.</i><br /><br />I see your faith is strong. Do you extend the same courtesy to other tendentious sources? I am curious about the "history of falsification of historical documents." <br /><br /><i>And as for Giordano Bruno, of course, I thought more people were aware of how he changed his name and that his familiar name was "Filippo" as used by his father and friends?</i> <br /><br />Ah, gnostic knowledge to show that you are of the in-group.<br /><br /><i>You understood well enough as to whom I referred.</i><br /><br />How many Brunos get continually brought up? One might almost suppose there are few similar examples. <br /><br /><i>But, it was a Medieval church that prosecuted him none the less.</i> <br /><br />That would have been a good trick, seeing how he lived well after the medieval era had faded away. <br /><br /><i>A medieval University's curriculum was generally broken down into the trivium of grammar, rhetoric, and logic, and the quadrivium of arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy.</i> <br /><br />The problem, as I see it, is that you blindly believe your sources. Whereas, I cross-reference my reading and research across many disciplines and authors. You are citing the curriculum of what was called "grammar school" (not to be confused with our elementary schools). Again, I refer you to the books I cited earlier on the medieval university. <br /><br /><i>This breakdown of the liberal arts was focused mainly on the philosophical and theological implications of the subjects.</i><br /><br />Philosophy included natural philosophy. I'm not sure the masters curriculum included ontology or epistemology, or whether they were reserved for the graduate schools. <br /><br /><i>Latin was not used by the populace of the Western Empire. Very few people at all knew, let alone spoke, the Latin of the Bible.</i> <br /><br />It was the international language of the educated classes. In German universities in the Late Middle Ages, this was a sizable fraction of the population. I don't know if similar studies have been done of English, Italian, and French universities. <br /><br /><i>Anyway, like I mentioned, check your sources because apologetic sources are by no means historical.</i><br /><br />By the same token, historical sources are by no means apologetic.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-3625168913637807432010-11-18T23:05:05.918-10:002010-11-18T23:05:05.918-10:00To TheOFloinn;
Unfortunately, the problem, as I s...To TheOFloinn;<br /><br />Unfortunately, the problem, as I see it, is that you blindly believe your apologetic sources. Whereas, I cross-reference my reading and research across many disciplines and authors. Apologetic authors score very low with me, for obvious reasons. For instance, if my only source is of a religious slant, it never counts as authoritative due to intrinsic biases and a history of falsification of historical documents. So, I will only urge you to check your sources.<br /><br />And as for Giordano Bruno, of course that is who I meant. Sorry, I thought more people were aware of how he changed his name and that his familiar name was "Filippo" as used by his father and friends. You understood well enough as to whom I referred. Besides, if he can change his name, so can I. But, it was a medieval church that prosecuted him none the less.<br /><br />The Curriculum<br />A medieval University's curriculum was generally broken down into the trivium of grammar, rhetoric, and logic, and the quadrivium of arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy. This breakdown of the liberal arts was focused mainly on the philosophical and theological implications of the subjects. Grammar, rhetoric, and logic were all related to the discipline of reading and writing Latin, the common international language of the Middle Ages.<br /><br />Latin was not used by the populace of the Western Empire. Very few people at all knew, let alone spoke, the Latin of the Bible. The classical Latin of the Vulgate was already in serious disuse by the time Jerome's translation was finished in approximately 405 CE.<br /><br />Anyway, like I mentioned, check your sources because apologetic sources are by no means historical.Beachbumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16872466812837980647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-41981563238455816632010-11-15T17:23:59.154-10:002010-11-15T17:23:59.154-10:00Boredom ≠ Eternal Bliss either. And timeless is ph...Boredom ≠ Eternal Bliss either. And timeless is physically impossible.<br /><br />a) I never said it was. Read closely. <br />b) We agree! Timelessness <b>is</b> physically impossible. As Einstein wrote, space and time are metaphysical abstractions with no place in physical empirical reality. As soon as you have something physical, then you have time. But when there is nothing physical, there is no time.<br />+ + +<br /><i>It is becoming apparent that I may be arguing over your head. I have better things to do.</i> <br /><br />I can certainly understand why you would say so. I only urge you in parting to read actual histories of the time periods in question before you equate "I don't believe their religion" with "Everything they did was evil Whore of Babylon stuff."TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-85697641843585958042010-11-15T17:18:16.310-10:002010-11-15T17:18:16.310-10:00Taking the Bible in its entirety, it is possible t...<i>Taking the Bible in its entirety, it is possible to justify any action, despotic and otherwise, via a comparative verse in that collection of stories, generally speaking.</i> <br /><br />Which is why the traditional churches did not take such a naive reading, why they had the occasional ecumenical council, and other such "standardization" procedure. Cf. Augustine's "On Christian doctrine," in which he discusses how a believer ought to approach the scriptures.<br /><br /><i>Theodosius I, a Christian, to enact a law on 27 February 380, establishing Christianity as the official state religion of the Roman Empire while outlawing paganism.</i><br /><br />It might be useful to study 4th century history with an unprejudiced mind. Apparently, you can imagine only one reason why Ted would do that. But history is always contingent and local. It depends on actual events that actually happened, not on Great Big Theories about the Way Things Oughta Be. <br /><br /><i>Atheism is not, nor in any way can it be a fundamentalist world view.</i> <br /><br />Of course it is. Otherwise, atheists would not insist on naive-literal reading protocols, on proof-texting from scriptures, on old fundamentalists tropes against the Whore of Babylon like "Constantine founded the Church," etc. An awful lot of fundamentalist distortions seem to have been swallowed whole and with wholesale credulity.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-27373508299808297802010-11-15T17:08:33.766-10:002010-11-15T17:08:33.766-10:00"Medieval universities were self-governing &#..."Medieval universities were self-governing 'corporate persons' with complete autonomy regarding their courses of study - exc. theology"<br /><br /><i>Ha! This exemplifies a bad case of bias induced tunnel vision.</i> <br /><br />Actually, it exemplifies a case of having read Toby Huff's <i>The Rise of Early Modern Science,</i> Edward Grant's <i>God and Reason in the Middle Ages,</i> Kibre & Siraisi's "The Institutional Setting: The Universities" in Lindberg's <i>Science in the Middle Ages.</i><br /><br /><i>Max Bruno ring a bell?</i><br /><br />No. Does Giordano Bruno ring a bell? But he was not Middle Ages.<br /><br /><i>if you wished to go further with your studies, they insisted on a theology curriculum.</i><br /><br />No. The Master of Arts curriculum was the prerequisite and that was exclusively logic, reason, and natural philosophy. The three graduate schools were theology, law, and medicine. There was no "insistence" on theology; but every medieval theologian was first educated in natural philosophy. <br /><br /><i>the church was one of two entities with the money to support investigations into the natural world</i> <br /><br />The Middle Ages were not the Late Modern Ages, when the study of science has been brought under government control because of the requirement for "funding." No funding was needed back then. <br /><br /><i>when claims are not supported by evidence faith (denial in the face of overwhelming evidence) is of little consolation for intelligent people.</i> <br /><br />Not a problem. It is the distortion of history that is the problem. You assume that because you do not believe the same central claims as they did, that they could not possibly have done anything right or worthwhile. That is surely a denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, too. <br />+ + +<br />"Because they spoke Latin."<br /><br /><i>No, it's because they ruled the Western part of the Empire in Latin. Actually, very little of the populous [?] ruled by Rome spoke Latin</i> <br /><br />The West was the region covered by the Latin translations. It was used from North Africa to Britain and east to Dalmatia. Greek served the same role in the East. <br /><br /><i>it was treated as a language for secrets by the elite.</i><br /><br />It was the lingua franca of the West.<br /><br /><i>Pope Leo IX and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius exacerbated the conflict by suppressing Greek and Latin in their respective domains.</i> <br /><br />Neither one had the power to do so. The West maintained Latin so that Spaniards, Italians, Germans, French, and English could mutually communicate. Latin faded in the East long before that contretemps. Greek in the West was largely lost during the barbarian invasions.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-39770725447884186492010-11-12T23:12:21.073-10:002010-11-12T23:12:21.073-10:00To TheOFloinn;
I can see I'm going to have to...To TheOFloinn;<br /><br />I can see I'm going to have to write slower or something. <br /><br />To the question of whether the Bible came from Christianity or vis versa, the answer is neither. Christianity came from a midrash of Jewish scripture mixed with Graeco-Roman mythology. The Epistles are a reinterpretation of the Old Testament to justify a new covenant. The Epistles were then redacted into support for a new religion that incorporated some principles of many area religions. Mainly because they were already evolved from those ideas of Graeco-Roman mythology. The Gospels came much later as a simplistic historization of the Anointed Savior cults.<br /><br />So lastly, it has become apparent that you are also merely rationalizing to save your superstition. With the "Boredom ≠ Functionally impossible," I can see that you have no intention of actually thinking. So, I'm done wasting my time. By the way, Boredom ≠ Eternal Bliss either. And timeless is physically impossible. <br /><br />It is becoming apparent that I may be arguing over your head. I have better things to do.Beachbumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16872466812837980647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-819168428724895922010-11-12T21:20:44.612-10:002010-11-12T21:20:44.612-10:00To TheOFloinn;
"There may be diverse interpr...To TheOFloinn;<br /><br />"There may be diverse interpretations, but it is not true that "any" interpretation is possible." <br /><br />Taking the Bible in its entirety, it is possible to justify any action, despotic and otherwise, via a comparative verse in that collection of stories, generally speaking.<br /><br />And yes, I know that Constantine the Great only legalized Christianity before he died. His wife probably had more influence than we will ever know. This legalizing of the religion opened the door for Emperor Theodosius I, a Christian, to enact a law on 27 February 380, establishing Christianity as the official state religion of the Roman Empire while outlawing paganism. I guess he didn't realize that the only difference between Christianity and paganism was his Law. Let the persecutions begin.<br /><br />And in passing, a note: Atheism is not, nor in any way can it be a fundamentalist world view. Fundamentalists need an anchor, a record from history to view as fundamental to their stance. A book like the Bible is a perfect artifact for fundamentalism. Atheism has nothing even close to that artifact. In fact, the very nature of an atheist is contra organizational, therefore, contra fundamentalist. Have you heard that atheists movements are like herding cats? It's true. Now, I can see how you would feel there is an advantage in using fundamentalist in a derogatory manner—there is not. You only show your desperation to raise your beliefs to the level of respectability of atheism. Because atheists display the fortitude to stand against the masses, the mobs, the mock authority of tradition's tyranny. We have the spine to question claimed authority and make the loudest proponent substantiate their claims with evidence of fact. Only, the fundamental commonality of atheism is critical thinking. The most fundamental world view of atheism is skeptical. The most fundamental property of atheism is evidentiary. An honest look at atheism will show that philosophy, thinking, and the free market of ideas are fundament tools and have been since before Protagoras. Therefore, a written dogma has no place in this world view, because we are open to evaluating the evidence—religions are not.<br /><br />Atheism is a view on faith; it is not a view of faith.Beachbumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16872466812837980647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-59542667661894664522010-11-12T21:09:19.052-10:002010-11-12T21:09:19.052-10:00To TheOFloinn;
"The traditional churches sp...To TheOFloinn;<br /><br /> "The traditional churches speak of their beliefs as having been 'handed down from the apostles' not as having been 'discovered in the text.'"<br /><br />The only question this raised for me was: Did you write this on purpose? Point one, the "apostles" were never up anywhere. And point two, the apostles taught from the scripture of the Septuagint, the Old Testament effectively. So, all the teachings come from the texts.<br /><br />As for the expected editing, damn, that's funny. Contrary to your assumption the content is vastly different. Some of my favorites are the Pericope Adulterae, of course, but also, the not so Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20, the last twelve verses of Mark, Mark 16:9-20, the anti-Semitic interpolation in 1 Thessalonians 2:14b-16, and hundreds if not thousands of smaller changes like changing "Anointed Savior" the "Christ Jesus" into the name of a mythical character Jesus (Christ? "Savior the Anointed) of Nazareth. And we will never know what was taken out, but if the Q document, Gospel of Thomas, Mary or the Gnostics are any clue, it would have been a fun read. Point is, they pick and choose that to which they want you (not me, I'm not a sheep) to adhere. The writers should see these as "massive changes" considering Revelation 22:19 in the Catholic and Protestant Bibles. And that is just the New Testament. I don't have the time for the variations in Old Testaments between the denominations or from the OT to the Talmud or the Septuagint and Pentateuch. Let me just say that the Book of Enoch (Ethiopian canon) is a funny read if you ever get the chance.<br /><br /> <br />"Not all forms of knowledge consist of the accumulation of facts." <br /><br />Why then, is the obvious goal of pious pundits: to sell some imagined revelation as Gospel truth, as fact? And don't confuse knowledge with intelligence. One can know many trivial facts, and still be a moron. I can fill a barrel with CDs and it is still only a vessel for information. The ability to analyze data, recognize relationships, formulate conclusions with an aptitude for implementation are the markers of intelligence, but these are nothing without the facts. An opinion's value as knowledge is directly proportional to the evidence supporting it coupled with the number of people agreeing with it through repetition of observations of said evidence. This method of thought is the basis of science which means knowledge.Beachbumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16872466812837980647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-11022679415850137962010-11-12T20:54:20.751-10:002010-11-12T20:54:20.751-10:00To TheOFloinn;
"Medieval universities were s...To TheOFloinn;<br /><br />"Medieval universities were self-governing 'corporate persons' with complete autonomy regarding their courses of study - exc. theology"<br /><br />Ha! This exemplifies a bad case of bias induced tunnel vision. First, Catholic Church means universal church, and as many dissenting priests were prosecuted as anyone else I have seen recorded. From where do you think most heretics came? Right! The schools, of course. Max Bruno ring a bell? Search the title Lollards. You could not teach, or learn, anything that disagreed with the dogma of the church. And, if you wished to go further with your studies, they insisted on a theology curriculum. Not to mention the church was one of two entities with the money to support investigations into the natural world, so unless you were interested in building weapons the politics of the church was your meal ticket.<br /><br />I read Mother Teresa's letter; it is available in, Mother Teresa Come be My Light, The Private Writings of the "Saint of Calcutta" Ed by Brian Kolodiejchuk, M. C. It is also available on the internet. But the point is, when claims are not supported by evidence faith (denial in the face of overwhelming evidence) is of little consolation for intelligent people. <br /><br />"Because they spoke Latin." <br /><br />No, it's because they ruled the Western part of the Empire in Latin. Actually, very little of the populous ruled by Rome spoke Latin; in fact, it was treated as a language for secrets by the elite. Constantine's conscription of Christianity was nothing but an attempt to use a common superstition (a primitive form of thought control) to reunite the Rome Empire politically, but it was quickly seen (but they didn't seem to learn much from it) that non-evidentiary opinion divides more than it unites (religion is nothing but the bigotry—my opinion is divinely inspired, but your's ain't—of politics). So, during the next 500 years or so of pseudo-philosophy the not so universal church did everything except unite and become universal. And I mean everything, many people died due to this political ploy. The Eastern part was ruled in Greek especially after the "Great Schism" of 1054. Pope Leo IX and Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius exacerbated the conflict by suppressing Greek and Latin in their respective domains. This is why it was forbidden to read the Bible in any language but Latin, unless one lived east of Croatia. It is all about power over the populous, and has nothing to do with your personal beliefs, or anything—other than servitude. The size of the Roman Catholic domain is an interesting point as it is actually quite small by comparison. So, no, it was not because they spoke Latin; unless they refers to the Roman Imperial Elite of Rome.Beachbumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16872466812837980647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8609408199548923976.post-32287348259722984182010-11-12T17:06:41.471-10:002010-11-12T17:06:41.471-10:00Greek philosophy was not brought to an end by Chri...<i>Greek philosophy was not brought to an end by Christian bigotry until the destruction of the Platonic Academy 529 CE.</i><br /><br />That did not happen for the excellent reason that <br />a) Greek philosophy did not end in 529. <br />b) The "Platonic Academy" had not existed for a very long time. There was a school in Athens that taught a brand of Neoplatonic woo-woo in opposition to the Neoplatonism of Porphyry <i>taught in other schools.</i> The teachers seem to have gotten into a wrangle that involved the State, and so it was closed. Five of them stomped off to Persia, found Persia uncongenial, and returned. One (Damascius) set up shop in Alexandria. In any case, we know of other schools that continued to teach Neoplatonism, we know that Christians and pagans were students and teachers at such schools, and were not suppressed by the government. <br /><br /><i>in my opinion, the Dark Ages started with the murder of Hypatia of Alexandria in March of 415 CE by a Christian mob, wherein Christian monks drug her stripped body through the streets.</i> <br /><br />a) They weren't monks, but laymen<br />b) It had nothing to do with learning or "dark ages" but with a political faction fight.<br />c) Faction fighting in Alexandria was a blood sport. The pagan Romans had noted this long before Christians came along. <br />d) St. Mark was murdered by a pagan mob and his body dragged through the streets and then burned. <br />e) Bishop George was murdered by a pagan mob and his body dragged through the streets and then burned. <br />f) In 392, a pagan mob set upon Christians who had found some old pagan stuff in caves under a church they were renovating - giant phallus, skulls of babies, etc. - and killed many. (They took refuge in the fortress-like Serapeum, where they executed their captives. This led the emperor to order the fortress demolished. It had been used once too often as a refuge by rioting mobs of all stripes.) <br />g) c.413/414, a mob of Jews attacks the Christians of the Church of St. Alexander and kills many. This leads the Bishop to drive the Jews out of the city and kicks off the feud with the Prefect, Orestes, that eventually led to Hypatia's murder, in which her body was dragged through the streets, torn limb from limb, and then burned.<br />h) In 422, an Alexandrian mob murders the Prefect Callistus.<br />i) In 457, the Orthodox bishop Proterius is killed by a mob of Monophysites, his body dragged through the streets, torn limb from limb, and then burned. <br /><br />Hypatia's murder had nothing to do with her mysticism, astrology, Neoplatonism, sex, etc. She picked a side in a very nasty political fight.<br /><br />All of Hypatia's students on whom we have the info were Christians, and two (possibly three) became bishops. (A very few historians have wondered if Hypatia herself was a Christian. Why get in the middle of a faction fight between two Christian parties? And the bodies of others were burned to prevent Christians from building churches on the sites.)<br /><br />The female Neoplatonist Aedesia taught in Alexandria the generation after Hypatia and nothing happened to her. Her son taught both Damascius (pagan) and John Philoponus (Christian). <br /><br />Philosophical inquiry continued in Alexandria for several generations after. It came to an end when the Arabs invaded: Alexandria submitted (because they detested the Greeks) then found the Arabs no better and rioted against the Arabs only to discover that their new masters did not mess around. The Arabs sacked Alexandria, then built Cairo nearby precisely to suck the life out of the old Patriarchate. <br /><br />+ + +<br /><i>She may also mark the first famous witch lynching by Christians.</i> <br /><br />But she was not accused of being a witch.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.com