Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is your stated opinion based upon your own (apparently unshakable) belief that God, and therefore religion-in-general, is somehow unprovable? It seems to me that you're ignoring a whole lot of history there! Better minds than yours have, both, believed in God and, at least, subjectively proven His existence.
If you think that someone has proven the existence of any specific deity, that suggests that you aren't really in a position to assess the values of various minds to begin with. I simply pointed out that divine beings of any sort are unprovable, which is obvious, and therefore that such things are not germane in the history forum.
The right to pontificate does not imply the right to be taken seriously.
OK, so let's look at some of the things we DO know...
- At the time of the last emperor the Western Empire was a shadow of it's former self, and was basically just a puppet of the Eastern Empire.
- The Western Empire no longer had a viable standing army, and was dependent on armies of mercenaries.
- The Western Empire was an economic wreck, unable to maintain its infrastructure and pay its armies.
- The Western Empire had been in the throes of political upheavals for over a century, with vicious political infighting being the main form of political "discussion".
Those are just a few of the things that are truly known, backed up by many contemporary accounts and confirmed by all archaeological evidence. They're also what almost everyone is discussing in this thread.
Even if everyone decided to suspend any belief in rational thinking for a bit, and considered your list of why "God" somehow had to exact his revenge, there is absolutely nothing to support that idea. The Western Roman Empire had been predominantly Christian for a long time before its fall. The final Western Roman Emperor (Romulus) was a devout Christian, much lauded for his support of the church and the construction of the monastery at Lucullanum (which had previously been his estate). The "barbarian" who overthrew him (Odoacer) was a commander in the Roman army, and was also a devout Christian. So please tell us again why "God" had it in Emperor Romulus? Was it also "God's punishment" when Muslim armies crushed the Christian armies of Constantine in 1453?
If you think that someone has proven the existence of any specific deity, that suggests that you aren't really in a position to assess the values of various minds to begin with. I simply pointed out that divine beings of any sort are unprovable, which is obvious, and therefore that such things are not germane in the history forum.
The right to pontificate does not imply the right to be taken seriously.
Are you referring to what I said, or to what you said?
You are, by the way, wrong. The existence of what you call, 'divine beings' is entirely provable. Just because you can't do it does NOT mean that others automatically share in your personal dilemma.
IMO the difference between the Roman and British empires is that the British chose to dissolve the empire but keep the republic whereas the Romans chose the empire to dissolve the republic. The demands of an empire (strong and all-powerful executive) conflict with those of a republic (segregation of powers, checks and balances). At some point you have to make a decision.
The great western empires of Roman, Spanish and Britain all had similar declines.
I don't think what you posted is contrary to belief. I imagine most people who know anything about European history know about the Byzantine Empire which is essentially just the old Eastern Roman Empire.
I would draw some debate on if 1453 was really the birth of the Renaissance. I would credit the decades immediately following the Black Death in the late 14th Century as the birth of the Renaissance, of course by the mid to late 15th Century it was in full swing throughout much of the Mediterranean area.
For me I usually use 1453 as the demarcation of the start of the Renaissance. Some may use 1492 which is the discovery of the new world while others may use the date of the Guttenberg Bible or Martin Luther 99 thesis are also demarcation periods. Why I choose 1453? Plenty of Eastern Romans moved to Italy after the Turkish conquest. Greco-Roman knowledge revived at a faster pace during this period and played and incremental part in developing the Renaissance.
Are you referring to what I said, or to what you said?
You are, by the way, wrong. The existence of what you call, 'divine beings' is entirely provable. Just because you can't do it does NOT mean that others automatically share in your personal dilemma.
I would say that this was unbelievable, but these days, all sorts of preposterous concepts are dignified with audiences, so it is entirely credible to me that in our day and age, someone who is otherwise articulate would come to a history forum and say that with a straight face.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And you know this how, ....... ? 
