Christianity Killed The Classics
Flying_Naked_People
Aside from murdering the non-converting, the Christian Church actively
attempted to eliminate the Greek and Roman style - by deeming it paganistic.
It went even further to "reject all images of Christ as devotional aids."
Since we're following the European trail of art history, you have to remember
that (their) Church was (their) government. For years, Christian (political)
images were kept out of public view. 4 (four) centuries later (?!?!), the
Church (government) lifted the ban, but only allowed images that were abstract
in form - void of realism - lest people begin worshiping the artwork and/or
its creator, as opposed to the divine - or the magicians who were performing
questionable rituals 4 the divine.
Christianity has been blamed for the obstruction of progress among many
sciences - why do people have difficulty in recognizing the same in art? I
mean, the text is in the history books. What's the problem?
Follow the --influence-- of the Christian Church through out European history,
and compare it to the artwork produced. The case will be made, and rested.
Amen.
palmer.william
"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
message news:vtesn7n...@corp.supernews.com...
> Like I said.
[...]
>
> Christianity has been blamed for the obstruction of progress among many
> sciences - why do people have difficulty in recognizing the same in art? I
> mean, the text is in the history books. What's the problem?
The problem with your argument is that such a large percentage
of the greatest artists in European history were Christians of
one sort or another, some devoutly Christian, some nominally
so. Furthermore, Greek and Roman classical art had run
down long before the first Christian emperor came into
power. Your view as expressed is akin to someone trying to
assert that modern day atheism has obstructed progess
in art since there isn't anyone around who paints like the
Renaissance artists.
judith
Flying_Naked_People wrote in message ...
>Like I said.
>
>Aside from murdering the non-converting, the Christian Church actively
>attempted to eliminate the Greek and Roman style - by deeming it
paganistic.
I always believed it was the pagans who actively attempted to eliminate the
followers of a carpenter-cum-god, and their art. That's why they used
symbols.
>It went even further to "reject all images of Christ as devotional aids."
The first Christian images of 'christ' are direct descendants of Roman
images of Apollo (sun, son). No halo just a young shepherd. Early Christian
art, including images of and symbols for Christ, were found in catacombs
where members of the new sect hid from persecution by pagan rulers.
>Since we're following the European trail of art history, you have to
remember
>that (their) Church was (their) government. For years, Christian
(political)
>images were kept out of public view. 4 (four) centuries later (?!?!), the
>Church (government) lifted the ban, but only allowed images that were
abstract
>in form - void of realism - lest people begin worshiping the artwork and/or
>its creator, as opposed to the divine - or the magicians who were
performing
>questionable rituals 4 the divine.
Where did you get this idea of bans on imagery in art? You are confusing
Early Christian art with Islamic art. In the fourth century AD, Constantine,
the Emperor of Rome, converted to Christianity and its art flourished.
Before the shit hit the fan in Rome, Constantine moved his Empire to
Byzantium, changed that city's name to Constantinople, decorated the place
with lots of images and symbols depicting Old Testament stories, Christian
'saints' and symbols.
>Christianity has been blamed for the obstruction of progress among many
>sciences - why do people have difficulty in recognizing the same in art? I
>mean, the text is in the history books. What's the problem?
The problem is when only selected texts are read and/or misunderstood. It
was Constantine's preservation of the early Greek texts that allowed the
Christian led Renaissance to happen a thousand years later.
>Follow the --influence-- of the Christian Church through out European
history,
>and compare it to the artwork produced. The case will be made, and rested.
>Amen.
Christian kings, emperors and wealthy merchants are responsible for some of
the finest art work through a variety of ages where styles were effected
only by economics and social conventions.
So be it.
J
Flying_Naked_People
palmer....@sbcglobal.net says...
>
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
> message news:vtesn7n...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Like I said.
>
> [...]
> >
> > sciences - why do people have difficulty in recognizing the same in art? I
> > mean, the text is in the history books. What's the problem?
>
> of the greatest artists in European history were Christians of
> one sort or another, some devoutly Christian, some nominally
> so.
You need to follow the trail of the Christian influence (i.e. power). If
you'll try to remember, the European greats surfaced during a time when the
Christian influence had "relaxed" its strict rules regarding imagery.
> Furthermore, Greek and Roman classical art had run
> down long before the first Christian emperor came into
> power.
Constantine adopted Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire in
324 A.D. Up until that time (approx.), Roman classical art (later deemed
paganistic) was live and well.
> Your view as expressed is akin to someone trying to
> assert that modern day atheism has obstructed progess
> in art since there isn't anyone around who paints like the
> Renaissance artists.
Atheism is the non-belief in a supreme being. How could this belief be
"modern?" Was there a different kind of non-belief in the ancient past?
Never-the-less, your last 4 lines suggest that a future (modern) development
could have affected the past (renaissance). *I* know that is simply
impossible, however if you wish to defend your words, then I am very
interested in learning more about that time machine you've got over there.
Flying_Naked_People
"Christianity was declared the official religion in 380, during the reign of
Theodosius I, and --------destruction of pagan temples------- was
legalized."
http://planetexplorer.online.discovery.com/ref/culture/cultchrist.html
Now, we all *know* what those pagan temples were, don't we!
Thur
"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
message news:vtesn7n...@corp.supernews.com...
To blame this one act is to ignore several other connected pieces.
A few examples.
The influence of the Germanic culture.
The economic and military decline.
The social scene which we all know of was ready for a switch to a
more puritanical outlook.(but nowhere near what we now
understand by that word).
The case against Christianity as you make it is familiar. It ignores
the fact that the worst acts were not really about the religion, but
about puritanism and ignorance.
Thur
Flying_Naked_People
a@spamless.z says...
>
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote:
>
> > Follow the --influence-- of the Christian Church through out European
> history,
> > and compare it to the artwork produced. The case will be made, and rested.
> > Amen.
> >
> But the change to a single religion was but one piece of the puzzle.
> To blame this one act is to ignore several other connected pieces.
> A few examples.
> The influence of the Germanic culture.
I can imagine how the Christian leaders would have use for those (once)
paganistic people. Their geometrical tendencies would lend much to the
invented cryptology of the religion being developed.
> The economic and military decline.
Doesn't that contradict with the plethora of Christian art produced
during that time? In other words, if the economic and military decline
lent to the destruction of classical art, why didn't it have the same
effect on christian art (which includes architecture). The Byzantine
period alone lasted for over a thousand years - surely that couldn't be
bought for a nickle - not even then.
> The social scene which we all know of was ready for a switch to a
> more puritanical outlook.(but nowhere near what we now
> understand by that word).
Are you saying that the Romans looked forward to Christianity and all the
restrictions it would place on them?
> The case against Christianity as you make it is familiar. It ignores
> the fact that the worst acts were not really about the religion, but
> about puritanism and ignorance.
But both puritanism and ignorance can (objectively) be thought of as
religious requirements.
> Thur
Is your last name, "Row"?
>
>
>
Dilettante
>
> Aside from murdering the non-converting, the Christian Church actively
> attempted to eliminate the Greek and Roman style - by deeming it paganistic.
Pagan means not acknowledging one's god.
> It went even further to "reject all images of Christ as devotional aids."
> Since we're following the European trail of art history, you have to remember
> that (their) Church was (their) government. For years, Christian (political)
> images were kept out of public view. 4 (four) centuries later (?!?!), the
> Church (government) lifted the ban, but only allowed images that were abstract
> in form - void of realism -
A very similar thing occurred in Buddhism. But this did not stop that
religion from producing from the very beginning the most wonderful
artwork and architecture.
lest people begin worshiping the artwork and/or
> its creator, as opposed to the divine - or the magicians who were performing
> questionable rituals 4 the divine.
>
> Christianity has been blamed for the obstruction of progress among many
> sciences - why do people have difficulty in recognizing the same in art?
People have difficulty making the argument because some of the
greatest art in history has been inspired by the Church, and many
other religions. Bach is better than Beethoven. Some of the greatest
Western architecture was either created for, or preserved by the RCC.
Consider the works of the Renaissance painters for the Church.
Consider the sculpture and wall paintings of the Egyptians.
David by both Michelangelo and Donatello is a figure from the Bible.
The great frescos of Giotto were Biblical stories. Both the paintings
by Raphael and the Gobelin tabestries based on them were of Biblical
stories.
The Bible itself is one of the greatest pieces of literature as
literature the world has ever seen, just as the Hindu epic, the
Ramayana, is one of the greatest works of fiction.
Not only was this true of the Roman Catholic Church, but also of
Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, Greek religion,etc.
I
> mean, the text is in the history books. What's the problem?
Studying art history will simply demolish you on this point.
Dilettante
keith o'connor
religions it must assimilate or destroy all alien (e.g.. non Christian)
cultures.
Over time the more moderate members of a predatory religion re-define its
more inhuman practices bringing it closer to a pluralist attitude. This
creates rifts within the Christian community (the liberal humanist Christian
versa the scriptural Christian)
We have in the world as an example: two types of Christians and two types of
Muslims - the fanatical Christians and Muslims and the moderate Christians
and Muslims.
Another group the Secular Humanists join with the moderates in attempting to
control the religious crazies.
Armageddon is essentially a never ending war between the religious crazies
of all religions and the moderates of all religions - It has always been
that way. Heaven - the eternal hope for a happy world is essentially a
search for the secular humanist world.
good night: --
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
message news:vtesn7n...@corp.supernews.com...
Thur
If you take out those years where Christianity is said to have
had a negative influence, such as the Inquisition, the example
where Gallileo was imprisoned, tortured and made to go back
on his words, and the previous example of the Early Christian
years, then you can try to blame it all on the religion.
How then do we explain those years where science and art
flourished?
Responsibility for making Christianity a negative force within
society cannot be blamed upon the Bible, but on the superstitious
and ignorant who looked for certainty and continuity from their
religion, and society.
These people are present in all cultures.
Sometimes, art flourished by the patronage of Christian officials,
and their money. Sometimes, the basis of the demand for art
has been as a pictorial instruction for cathedrals and churches,
and sometimes as an expression of Faith in that religion.
Another point raised about the early Church, being that many
revolutionaries seem to behave in a puritanical and iconoclastic way.
Nazis burned books and destroyed artworks, and murdered their
fellow citizens for being different.
Russians behaved similarly. Therefore, trying to blame
Christianity is simply too simple an approach to understanding
history.
Thur
[Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.] :-)
"keith o'connor" <ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote in message
news:zi8Db.75414$VEd1....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Mani Deli
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>Christianity is classified as a predatory religion and like all predatory
>religions it must assimilate or destroy all alien (e.g.. non Christian)
>cultures.
>snip
God is the mature man's Santa Claus and most people need a Santa Claus
because they rarely think the matter through. It's the oldest scam.
We don't really need religion.
Few people realize that each religion is just one corporation among a
host of brand name superstition businesses whose basic idea
is similar. Namely, that some particular set of gods they push will
treat you nicely if you maintain strict brand allegence to their
particular products.
It works best if you start off young.
To be a success any superstition business must keep you frightened and
repressed by filling your mind with guilt and threats
of torture while it recites comforting fairy tales in an instruction
manual which you had better accept as reality.
You are also led to sincerely believe that unless you unquestioningly
conform to corporation precepts you will become miserable, suffer
punishment and social exclusion.
The aim of the superstition business besides gaining money and power
for their top executives is to keep adherents naive and get them so
habituated to its rituals that they can’t imagine life without them.
As a reward it instills its consumers with a certain arrogance by
getting them to imagine that they are uniquely chosen for some god’s
favors in exchange for rigid unquestioning brand conformity.
The superstition business also teaches that only its particular set of
moral precepts are responsible for all that is good in this world.
Suggestion; if you are offered an eternal insurance policy make sure
you understand all the implications of the fine print.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservative." -John Stuart Mill
Tired of Modern Art? check
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Dilettante
>
> To be a success any superstition business must keep you frightened and
> repressed by filling your mind with guilt and threats
> of torture while it recites comforting fairy tales in an instruction
> manual which you had better accept as reality.
This is exactly what liberal democracies do to their populations about
child-adult sex.
Dilettante