Neagu Djuvara and his oppinions

actually, the discipline fetish is more a protestant feat, derived from the "protestant work ethic". other than that, all great religions demand obedience.

Nevertheless, religion still has a determinant role in the developping (or slower developping) of a society / nation! Please prove the opposite!

You should prove it has!
How are you going to do it? I don't think there's a way to do it, it's just "opinion", "feeling". You could look at the wealth of states and their "religion", but you can't make a scientific correlation between that wealth and their religion.

I posted a table showing foreign investments in Hungary, Poland and Romania since 1990. The amount of money invested in those two countries is at least 10 times higher than the one invested in our country. Then there is the fact that Hungary and Poland were forgiven their large debts after 1989, while we had to be bled white in the 1980s in order to avoid default. Then there is the difference in communist regimes - theirs were less hardcore, ours turned to North Korean style in 1980s. These are better explanations for slower/faster development, and it is all quantifiable (data, figures etc.), not philosophy of history opinions.

I also bring this into the debate:

http://www.hotnews.ro/stiri-opinii-8091754...a-dezbatere.htm

Imperialist, I - and Mr. D. - were not talking about contemporaneity, but about centuries ago, even more... After WW2, things are clear: the Eastern states (of the Eastern Bloc, that is...) were even more "comunized" than some others... I wonder why there never was a '68 in Romania and Bulgaria?

Because in 68, Romania was just after getting a new leader that (at least superficially) seemed to be standing up to the "Soviet masters" and the people hoped that things were getting better. That "minune de la Magalvit" was brief though...
Radu

I wouldn't be so sure what Djuvara's timeframe is. Orthodoxy is very old here, he could be talking about any period in the past or about the whole period since the introduction of orthodoxy until now, but the fact that he also talks about communism put things into contemporaneity in my opinion. 20th century at least.

But this or that period doesn't change the problem - how do you correlate religion with development?

There may be the obvious connection that the Renaissance was possible because of the Catholic Church. Many Catholic monasteries were places of learning where all classic books were copied and studied, which eventually became schools and universities. All universities of Europe were sponsored by the Catholic Church (most of them have a religious name such as "Christ's College", "Saint Something", "Trinity College" etc). Many important scientists were members of the Church or trained by the Church. Newton narrowly missed ordination, Darwin was sent to college to become a parson, Buckland was a reverend and had a parish, and so on and so forth.
The first printed books were religious books. King James's Bible is widely hailed as (more or less) the origin of Modern English by making the same English text available to all persons speaking English, leading to uniformity - until then, the Bible was in Latin and not available to the common man.
There are a multitude of architectural styles (Romanesque, Baroque, Gothic) that were initiated by church architecture.
There is an immense amount of information to link "Church" (Western rites)with "Development".

The Orthodox Church does not have any such history.

Radu

I think it has more to do with the geographical and historical reasons, not with religious ones. Western Europe was more secure due to geography, and after dark ages was pretty much spared from countless wars at big scale or by big invasions from outside.

Based on this they manage to develope better, and took profit from new technological developments they established colonies in much less developed countries on other continents, from where they took huge profits (not just slave trades, but all kind of raw materials).

Then was spared from comunism (and in the 50's at least was very bad here) who eliminated anyone who disagree with it, regardless as important or valuable it was.

In rest it was our political leaders inabilities after 1990 to bring us over theoreticaly less developed or less capable and resourcefull countries as Hungary or Poland or Czeckoslovakia. And partialy the inabilities of common peoples who was affected in a degree by the same comunism

Religion should stick to spiritual life, and unlike catholicism or protestantism who jump in political life and aquire even huge material gains, orthodoxism seem to keep much more close to spirituality

This post has been edited by udar on January 29, 2011 01:42 pm

The difference of culture and language between the Latin West and the Greek Est led to differences in ritual and in some more or less important theological issues, but there was not such a thing as separate Catholic and Orthodox Churches until 1054 (disregarding the short-lived schism of Patriarch Photius), but a single, both Orthodox and Catholic Church. Neither after the schism of 1054 and the Fourth Crusade there was not a radical and definitive split (there were two parties inside the Byzantine Church), such a split appeared only after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Then the Patriarch of Constantinople had to obey the Sultan instead of the Byzantine Emperor (the Byzantine Emperors having a very important role in issues appertaining to Byzantine Church, see Iconoclast controversies and other controversies before and after the Iconoclast movement) in political questions, whilst in the West the Popes had no political authority above them. Romanians were not "Orthodox", as we usually understand the word, before the XIV-XVth centuries, but they have been in the Byzantine (both before and after the fall of Constantinople, even in the times of Ottoman Empire it was the Patriarch of Constantinople who oversaw his "Orthodox" communities) and especially South-Slavic (itself indebted to Byzantine, let's not forget that until the XVIIth century the language of the Church was Medieval Bulgarian, the same as the official language of the Romanian States) area of cultural influences. This is what Djuvara had in mind, not theological problems which few people really know or are interested in, but cultural and political aspects which deeply affected the Romanian people during its history.

This post has been edited by Amicus_Plato on January 29, 2011 03:29 pm

Not really... During and after the dark Ages, most of Western Europe nations warred with each other until 1945 (and some continued even after...). These wars were on land, on sea, as well as in the colonies.
Radu

Not really... During and after the dark Ages, most of Western Europe nations warred with each other until 1945 (and some continued even after...). These wars were on land, on sea, as well as in the colonies.
Radu

I didnt say they didnt had wars at all, just that not at a magnitude and as much as in eastern Europe, pretty much all orthodox countries being either directly conquered (those south of Danube) or in a countinous war or need to pay tribute (we or even russians) with greater powers (ottomans was a world great power at a time, tatars regulary burn down Moscow etc.).

Even the rise of Russia (mostly starting with Peter the Great) had to do with fall of mongol/tatar power and geography who offered them protection.

Western european countries wasnt in any danger of being ocuppied by a great power with diferent cultural values, nor bring on the battlefield almost all manpower in the country, in endless wars

There may be the obvious connection that the Renaissance was possible because of the Catholic Church. Many Catholic monasteries were places of learning where all classic books were copied and studied, which eventually became schools and universities. All universities of Europe were sponsored by the Catholic Church (most of them have a religious name such as "Christ's College", "Saint Something", "Trinity College" etc). Many important scientists were members of the Church or trained by the Church. Newton narrowly missed ordination, Darwin was sent to college to become a parson, Buckland was a reverend and had a parish, and so on and so forth.
The first printed books were religious books. King James's Bible is widely hailed as (more or less) the origin of Modern English by making the same English text available to all persons speaking English, leading to uniformity - until then, the Bible was in Latin and not available to the common man.
There are a multitude of architectural styles (Romanesque, Baroque, Gothic) that were initiated by church architecture.
There is an immense amount of information to link "Church" (Western rites)with "Development".

The Orthodox Church does not have any such history.

Radu

I think the Orthodox Church has a history of architectural projects, learning centers, publishing and so on.

But I think these things are irrelevant because you're presenting the Church as an agent of development, an institution that obtains funds then invests them into certain activities.

The problem was how can one establish a serious connection between a certain religion (not Church) and development. Djuvara talked about Orthodoxy, not Orthodox Church.

In my opinion such a connection is impossible. There are so many other, more powerful variables that influence development. Religion would be the last on my list.

one word: Napoleon

The Renaissance is directly and intrinsically connected with the Catholicism. Don't take my word for it, look it up.

Have you ever been to Florence? If so, you must know what I am talking about. If not, go there. I also recommend a visit to Museo Vaticani if you take a detour to Rome.

Take any painting (Madonna of the Rocks, The last Supper, Sistine Chapel), sculpture (David, Pieta, Moses), song (Te Deum, O Night Divine, Requiem, Carmina Burana), architecture (St. Peter's Basilica, Sagrada Familia), anything artistic and beautiful, and you will see a common thread... Church... Western Church. I would not be so quick to separate "church" from "human development" (as Chairman Mao thought).

However, all of these amazing artistic creations linked to the Church seem to happen preponderantly with the involvement of Western Rite churches. Michelangelo sculpted Pieta because of his involvement with the Catholic church. Show me one single comparable sculpture inspired by the Orthodox Church. The Versailles was built based on an architectural style used in the Catholic Church. Show me a single comparable palace inspired by the architectural style used by the Orthodox Church. Mozart wrote the Requiem in D minor for the Catholic mass. Show one single concert of similar beauty and richness of emotion written for the Orthodox mass.

There is an immense and overwhelming body of evidence to show that Western Rite churches, be they Catholic or Protestant, had a massive influence in the development of arts and science. There is little or no such involvement from the Orthodox Church. There may be many reasons why that happened (wars, economic situation, mentality of the flock, etc), but there is no denial that this is the truth. I don't usually agree with Neagu Djuvara, but on this one I am of the same mind. The Orthodox Church did little to enrich the Romanian culture. However, I do not seek to apportion blame. The church has no obligation to be involved in arts. The job of the church is to secure the immortality of the soul not to open art galleries. It just so happens that "the other churches" cared more for art. And THAT is the nub of his argument. It has nothing to do with reverence for any faith. It has everything to do with reality.

But as I said, do not take my word for any of the above. Look them up yourself.

Radu

You're talking about the side-effects of development (lavish art, lavish architectural projects), but the heart of the issue is the cause of development. You look at what the Catholic Church did with the funds it had instead of looking at where the funds came from. Then you contrast the ample funds and consequently lavish projects of the C.C. with their absence in the case of the Orthodox Church and claim that the difference in religion is at the root of the difference in wealth. It's a false logical argument.

Also I don't think the C.C.'s use of funds in that fashion was unique. The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire had large-scale architectural projects, it was a centre of learning and prosperity for a while. Similarly in the muslim world, there are plenty of examples.