Christians generlaly didnt kill Hypatia, and no evidence actually links Cyril to her death, other than a forged letter and writtigns of Damascius who sough tot use her death to turn the populace agaisnt Christianity.

She was killed for purly political reasons, not for beign a Pagan scholar. We have no reason to beleive the Church woudl have burned her works, and in fact the Church is principly the reason we still have any Pagan works.

Unlike the Enlughtenment and modern Neo-Atheist mythology about how CHrisaisn destoreyed Knowledge and created the Dark Ages, the truth is that Christian Monks laboured tirelessly to copy by hand the important works of civilisaiton, and did not limit themselves to Scripture and Church writtings.

The Christains copied Plato, for instance, and Homers surviving works.

More Pagan works were destoryed by the Illiterate Visigoths in order to secure the destruction fo the ROman Empire, to secure their own domenance, than by Christians in order to silence Pagan thinkers.

Given this, and considering hwo the Death of Hypatia was not condoned, but rather condemned by the Church Authorities of the itme, the idea that we do not have her work because the Church burned all of it is just ludecrous.

I know it spopular to Bash Christianity on here, but don’t you htink a little intellectual Honesty and accuracy woudl be better than the usual screeds about how evil Cbristianity is?

1: Can anyone prove that it was the big bad evil Christian Church that killed Hypatia? I know that this is the mythic version so popular with the likes off Sagan and other Humanists, but to claim her as your own is already discussed as not beign valid. I also woudl liek to note that the events surrouding her death seem less implicative of the evil Christian Mob tryign to suppress Sicnece and reason than you’d like to imagine.

2: THisalso wasnt the evil Christains burnign the library of Alexandria to rid the owrld of knwoeldge, and didnt plunge the wrld intot he Dark Ages. In fact, as the term has been used sicne the Enliughtenment, the Dark Ages never actuallyt occured. The time when Progress and civilisaiton ended, and Sicnece was lost, and all where oppressed, livign in ignorance and swaller because the Church Reigned supreme makes a good propagandist message agaisnt Christianity, but isnt an accurate reflection fo the Middle Ages. In fact, the Ealry Middle Ages saw techological and social progress.

3: That said, Daffy, Christians in the Early middle Ages would not have burned anyone at the stake for thinkign the Earht is older than 6000 years. Not only do the Scriptures not actually declare an age for the Earth, but Origens theology had been pretty prevailent in the time. Origen, who is considered a brilliant theologian to this day, thought the creation account was Allegory. Even St. Augustine had largley accepted a partial allegirical view of Creation.

3: Also, the whole “Jesus ordered his neemies slaun before him” bit is stupidity. I’m sorry, but the above portion was not the only part that was parable, the “Slay them befor eme” was put in the mouth fo Jeuss’s ficitonal king. It was part of the allegory, and that is how ancient Kings reacted.

That said, Jesus also didnt instruct his followers to steal a horse. I know the Anti-Christain sites ( And religiosu tolerance) say this, but come on, the text makes it plain that this was a prearranged endeavour since Jesus even told them what to tell the animals owners. Nothignin the text suggests its theft.

4: Speakign fo the above, had it ever occured to anyoen here that your Anti-Christain ( And supposeldy Anti-Religious, thogu in reality you all have a religion) bias may lead you to irrationally hate Christainity, and thus to accept bad arguemtns agaianst it?

5: By the way, Faith is not irraitonal. I know, I know, Faith is beleif withotu evidence. Beleioving soemthign withotu evidence is inherantly irraitonal. The problem with thjis definition is that its not one that wa sunderstood for the better part of 2000 years. Most peopel who used the word Faith in context of Christainity from the Bible onward to Augistine, BNonaventure, Aquinas, and even C.S.Lewis, understood Faith as confidence in a given proposition, not beleif wothout any evidence whatsoever. In facgt, Thomas Aquinas spend what, 30 years compiling raitonal arugments and evidence for Christianity?

I know its a popular oaert of the whoel Ahtiest Enlightenemnt narrative, but Faith relaly shuldnt be demonised and misdefiend.

6: That said, the Hypatia movie sounds liek tis just more of the same historical revisionism we saw in such filsm as Ridley Scotts Kingdom of Heraven, in which CHristaisn are depicted as evil, and Hypatia mad eto mouth modern Secular Humanist perspectives.

Thats just not the way it relaly worked though.

You know, to death.

And incinerated her remains.

And Cyril WAS made a saint.

Most historical records agree on these cirumstances. Historical evidence as interpreted by most historians. Oh yes, no less. Professional scholars of that sort tend to make conclusions that often lead to a consensus. Heck, it happens.

So many possibilities, aren’t there? ANYTHING might have happened. Nobody knows, yes? It was so long ago, it’s impossible to piece together “exactly” what happened, right?

So why should any of this violence have been inflicted on a woman who was known to be working at the Library?

WAIT A MINUTE NOW…because there were “other” but no less legitimate cultural reasons for her persecution – BESIDES the fact she practiced an early form of science?

Like, say, that she happened to be a woman? That maybe she was also a smart woman who ?

So that obviously absolves the “early version of Christianity” of any culpability in her demise. RIGHT?

Anybody want to reintroduce the preposterously red herring of her Platonism or “paganism” now?

It’s fascinating. One gets to see people frothing at the mouth spitting their own tunes of history which far more careful scholars have managed to piece together over centuries, and suddenly we are confronted with an idiotic debate on what MAY have happened “instead”, historians of far more substantial repute be damned.

“Hypatia of Alexandria was beautiful and clever, and, as far we know, never did anybody any harm, so why was she torn to pieces by an angry mob, armed (so some stories tell) with oyster shells? This week, we look at the woman and the heritage of what is probably the longest-standing philosophical tradition in Western civilisation: that rational yet mystical, sometimes Pagan, sometimes Christian, body of doctrines known as Neo-Platonism.”

Hypatia was murdered by a mob of monks, who might have been acting at the order of Bishop Cyril of Alexandria, but that is in dispute. However, he protected the murderers after her death (basically, they slashed her to pieces with sharp pieces of pottery in Cyril’s church), so he bears part of the blame.

However, the context of her murder was a political power struggle between Cyril and the city’s governor, Orestes. Hypatia was one of Orestes’ supporters. Cyril basically started the big fight by orchestrating attacks on Alexandria’s Jewish community, leading to the destruction of synagogues and the expulsion of Jews. Many Christians apparently were horrified by Cyril’s actions, but he had a large mob of monks. Don’t think of Friar Tuck in the Robin Hood tales here, think of Hitler’s Brown Shirts if you want to understand the role of monks in the 4th-5th-centuries Christian takeover of the Roman Empire.

More justification for your point of view, please. I gave reasons and explained my position in great detail – unless you don’t at least approximate that, don’t expect your post to be deserving of any further comment.

Seriously?

I think you are taking this so far over the top that your point is likely to enter low earth orbit any moment now. Enough with the provocative language, please. One can celebrate Hypatia without mentioning every little iota of information about her.

Well, only if you choose so to take the easy way out. I find it baffling though that you would think someone pointing out behaviour as intellectually dishonest and even potentially dangerous as cherry-picking historical information should be shrugged off with “your concern is noted”.

“Leander, by pointing out that she probably believed in all sorts of nonsense you are not being honest”

Yes I am. Much more honest than someone dropping this likely fact in order to make her a beacon of rationality. Besides – please show me where I gave the impression that I thought this “nonsense” made her any less of an amazing character.

“The quality that made her stand out is that she went beyond some of the prevailing woo towards more rationality.”

Where did I ever dispute that ? You’re still not getting it – I was not taking issue with Phil giving selective information because it gave an image of Hypatia that I didn’t like, but because I have a problem with cherry-picking information. If you bother to read some of the responses in this thread to my comments, you will find that most people didn’t have such problems grasping that fact.

“In your original post, you implicitly judge her by present-day standards of rationality, while you want historical and sociological context when religion is concerned.”

Again, while you notice it, the implications of my irony seem beyond you. Nothing in that post ever was about how I judge Hypatia. The only post of mine that came close to judging her actually stated that I had a great deal of sympathy for characters like her.

You know, unlike Phil I can like and admire a person like Hypatia while fully acknowledging that she might have held views that I’d find peculiar. And if I was trying to tell someone about her, I’d be very serious about giving them all the facts about her, no matter what views I think they might be forming about her based on that. I don’t need to manipulate other people’s views into one similar to mine by cherry-picking the facts.

And from what little we know about her, I doubt someone like Hypatia would have thought highly of such manipulation.

Do you not recognize the double standard?

It was never there to say that you’re supposed to judge “people who made significant advances for their time” based on “the pseudoscientific views they might have adhered to”, but to point out the worrisome behaviour of dropping any historical context that might even remotely associate them with ideas that are contrary to those for which the author wants to use such people as a shiny, glorious example.

I was being ironic especially because I despise intellectual dishonesty – if you tell people about something, give them all the information, don’t cherry-pick to make it look better. Don’t cherry-pick to get into people’s heads and influence the view that they are gonna have on the subject at hand. Let them make up their own minds based on a complete set of facts.

I hear irony glands popping all around. Thanks for the entertainment.

“No, Leander. I’m saying that there really are only two ways to explain what you say and how you say it.”

Looking at the tone of your previous post, you should be careful then to lecture people on how they say things…

@Pieter Kok

“So when religion is concerned we need to take into account the historical, anthropological or sociological context (his words on Pharyngula), but when we talk about people who made significant advances for their time, they are to be judged by the pseudoscientific views they might have adhered to.”

Too bad the HTML on here doesn’t allow for brightly flashing neon signs that read “ATTENTION, IRONY!!!” – there seems to be an urgent need for them. Also, did you not notice the quotation marks around that quote you’re referring to ? Could they be a hint that it’s not necessarily my opinion and way of talking that’s found between them ?

“I think we can safely call Leander intellectually dishonest.”

Safely ? Wanna try again ? And wow, have you even bothered to read and understand anything I wrote in the first comments in this thread here, in relation to religion (the bible), Hypatia and historical context ? You really should do this before you reply again, because this time, no offense – you made an ass of yourself.

Okay, I will stand corrected on who is speaking in verse 27. Thanks.

But I will now suggest that Jesus’ parable is an even worse incitement to violence. The nobleman’s enemies, who hate him and don’t want him to rule, are to be brought before him — by his command — to be slaughtered.

No approbation from Jesus, and a clear implication that, likewise, the people who do not want Jesus’ reign on earth to begin, will be brought before him and killed. Maybe people don’t want him to be their king either. Did he ever stop and think about that? No. Just bring ‘em to me and they’ll die.

And if, as the standard line goes, it’s a symbolic slaughter — because those same enemies don’t recognize Jesus as their saviour (from a vengeful God, we should note) they will “perish” unlike the good Christians who accept Jesus — then it’s still reprehensible. Mankind’s saviour should be able to save all mankind, shouldn’t he? Even those who don’t need or want his saving? Couldn’t he just let the others be?

Sorry, but either way it’s an incitement to, or anticipation of, violence against people whose sole crime is disagreeing with Jesus’ need to be head-honcho.

Which seems a perfectly legitimate position, given that three verses later he commands them to go steal a horse. Why? Apparently because his feet are sore and he wants to ride into Jerusalem.

Verse 27 is still part of the parable, you have to look at verse 12 and verse 14 to see how they dove tale in to verse 27

Verse 12
He said: “A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return.

Verse 14
But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We don’t want this man to be our king.’

Verse 27
But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.”

Verse 27 is being said by the nobleman who has been made king in the parable. It is not Jesus advocating violence

In fact in John 6:15 Jesus leaves an area because people are going to try and make him king by force.

Uhm, you mean like you representing all kinds of religions based on not reading, let alone trying to understand the contexts of, the writings of mankind’s religions?

From his first post here (stated ironically):

Let’s ignore all the pseudoscience she probably was into and make her a role model for a few select parts. Like that dimwit Paracelsus – let’s just make him the father of medicine and not talk about how he loved alchemy, and sylphs and gnomes!

So when religion is concerned we need to take into account the historical, anthropological or sociological context (his words on Pharyngula), but when we talk about people who made significant advances for their time, they are to be judged by the pseudoscientific views they might have adhered to.

I think we can safely call Leander intellectually dishonest.

Still, it’s a story that’s worth telling, and I hope they’ve made an effort to be historically accurate, even though the details are never going to be entirely clear. There’s a lot that *is* clear, and they should stick to that.

There’s a lot in common between the ancient first-century Christian mobs in Alexandria and the modern-day Janjaweed militias, including the moralistic justification for lethal force. That would be a good avenue to explore in a movie, because it has such visceral application right now. But people should bear in mind that there isn’t that much in common between the Christian mobs of First Century Egypt and Christians of today. I don’t know much about this movie, but it had better understand that distinction. I’m not saying that to apologize for Christianity. I’m speaking from the perspective of historical accuracy. Christianity changed a lot in this time period, and most of what we Americans would think of as Christianity is descended from the Catholic Church in Rome (even the Protestants), and uses a Creed which these ancient Christians would have considered heretical.

Nothing to do with religion? Since when does violence inspired by sectarian religious conflict have nothing to do with religion? In this context, politics and religion are not separable.

Point taken, but what the blogger in question (and me, for quoting him) was trying to underscore, is that Hypatia herself was not murdered for her specific religion/anti-religion beliefs, rather she had the misfortune of supporting one religious leader over another. Yes, religion played a role, but in this case it took a back seat to the local political struggle between two rivals.

That passage in Luke is from a parable, Jesus was not advocating violence.

No, the preceding lines are the parable. At Luke 19:27, the parable is over and it’s Jesus talking to his disciples again, right before he goes to Jerusalem and right before he instructs his disciples to steal a horse.

You could try to make the case that Jesus was going to “slay” his enemies in the sense that he was going to defeat their arguments against him, but that would be a bit of a stretch.

Sorry, try again.

And therein lies the rub. The religion is particularly good at motivating lots of people to do things that they normally may not have been willing to do. It may indeed be the best of such motivators humans have yet developed, if the historical record is anything to go by. Therefore it is perfectly fair to ask, in the absence of the religion, would as much of the populace have been “suckered” into doing said “dirty work”, and would as much damage have been done.

I think about it more in this light. Take Cambodia as an example. Part of Pol Pot’s goal was to eliminate religion(I say this not to dog on Atheism but rather to use a parallel example). If he for instance had a rival leader that was of the same philosophy but disagreed with Pol Pot and had Pol Pot killed we wouldn’t say that the assassination was mostly based in his atheism but more so in his political motivations because it is dealing with leadership within a movement attempting to gain power. It is not that religion played no roll but what the historian is saying is that it has more to do with politics.
Regards,
Caleb