Actually, it was the christian church that is responsible for it. Are you one of those people that cant see the diference between religious institution and the religion itself? Than n wonder why you hate Christianity that much.  Also, catholic church was responsible for the most scientific advantiges during the 11th-16th century. Also, lots of important scientists during middle ages and afterwards were christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

And I fail to see how Roman era was any better than Christian one, except for being a lot more open minded about sexuality of people. You also fail to see the difference between eastern orthodox church,protestant church and catholic. The first 2 have a lot less blood on thier hands and they both advertise(because thats what the church is : an ad for a specific religion) Christianity.Its stupid to choose to see only bad parts of one church and ignore all the good sides of it and its achivments, unless you seek to have negative impression of it. You also fail hardly to understand the real christian message.

Because we are not robots nor animals, we can control ourselves.For example, lets say we are really rich and we really want those extra 10 000 dollars for ourselves, but we EVEN WITH THAT WISH AND NEED for 10k$  we donate it to some childern chairity. So we CHOOSE not to be greedy. Or you can choose to keep to money to yourself and be greedy. And like I said we determine our choices and in the end they determine, or ''make''. Our personality doesnt have to play the role in our actions if we dont let it, because we can controll ourselves and think, what would YOU WANNA do.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/

Heck it's worth noting that the guy who made zeitgiest is backing off 9/11 was an inside job.  (Apparently he see's that as the craziest of his batshit insane conspiracies.)

The former may be most famous for alleging that the attacks of Sept. 11 were an “inside job” perpetrated by a power-hungry government on its witless population, a point of view that Mr. Joseph said he has recently “moved away from.” Indeed, the second film, the focus of the event, was all but empty of such conspiratorial notions, directing its rhetoric and high production values toward posing a replacement for the evils of the banking system and a perilous economy of scarcity and debt.

Boring.... living dead, now THAT is a contradiction!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3GHYPUiNwg

I was gonna say something nasty, but I'll control myself.

Good one!

That's good, because usually you do and it makes you look like a jackass.

He's explaining it poorly but you don't really need to have faith to understand it... it's actually really quite straightfoward when you cut to the heart of Christianity.

Man is inherently good.

Those who find god and themselves and adhere to there better and true nature.  While those who choose not to adhere to there better nature freely choose to act wrong and as such find themselves outside of god because rather then focus on the spiritual and the each other.  They focus on the physical, and themselves.

Believer or not, it's fairly easy to see how that ties up everything and largely explains everything including "Why do good things happen to bad people."

Really the whole free choice vs divine will thing is better questioned under the "God knows what choice your going to make so how is it free will arguement" that is made against evangelicism and that suggests full true ominpotent god.

Though even that isn't really a contradiction.  Since if I travel to the future one week and find that you decide to have a diet coke over a coke, then go back to my time....

I've in no way negated your free will.

Eventually anyway...  Some of that shit we've just gotten back last century. 

Even then the Dark Ages weren't that dark though... granted largely thanks to the Christian Church as mentioned.

It wasn't really so much a time of "going backwords" but a time of limited foward movement... and even then there was plenty of progress made before the "Renissance".

In reality a lot of it is just framing that got spread out and blown out of proportion like culture.  Like all of those "People thought the earth was flat at this time" suggestions and all kinds of shit that people think is true about history but historians will tell you is bullshit.

What people don't totally comprhend is that printing presses and computers and shit didn't exist then.  It was actually fairly hard to keep information alive and well through generations, espiecally when all kinds of people died early.

It's like when Galen died, rather then those who came after him surpassing and expanding on his works, they each took parts of his work as other parts just fell away and nobody really focused on observation and expermentation... (in the west).

Ah, just because I have some negative impressions of Christianity, you think that I hate it? I really have no hate for christianity nor for any other religion as well, as each one has it's own importance for it's believers. I come from a heavy christian background, with my grandparents being some very strong believers so I'm well versed in a lot of matters about it. 

It's odd that you point out that list, when you can clearly see that (especially on the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th century) most scientific advancements were either adaptations of arabic and greek texts or just dissemination of former knowledge. It's not only until the 15th and 16th century that actual new scientific knowledge is formed. And really, a list that puts Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and especially figures such as Pascal, Galileu and Descartes all of those who came in direct conflict with the church (some even having their works banned by the church) labelled christian thinkers as if christianity had a role to play in their discoveries is faulty, at best. 

I don't seek to have neither a good nor a bad impression about it, I just try to look at all the facts. And in the scientific circles, the great impact of the christian/catholic church in scientific advance/degradation is heavily debated.

You want to know what things were better during the Roman Era than in the Christian one? Let's just start with mathematical knowledge. Or how about a basic sanitation system, which in the catholic era was only available to the church and the nobles. How about access to knowledge to the overall population and not restricted to one circle only. How about the preservation of the arts and culture and proper divulgation about it and not considering it an abominable thing? The list can go on (especially if you compare the classical greek era to the christian one), but to say that the roman era was at least equal to the christian one is a disservice to knowledge and history itself.

Actually this part is total BS. Information was passed on and kept in massive libraries, the most important of all being the alexandrian library, which at it's peak capacity was bigger than any current library nowadays and that lasted for at least 8 centuries, until someone came and though "hey let's us burn all this pagan knowledge down because it's an affront to our beliefs".