Quote:
Originally Posted by damnage
Actually the dark ages were called the dark ages because of the fall of the Roman empire which basically set the clock back.
|
That's right, but the change that occurred after Christianity was declared the State religion cannot be swept under the rug. The fall of the empire was in some part due to Christianity -- a weakening from within.
Quote:
|
In fact if you read your history, you will see it was the Catholic monks and their monastery's who saved most of the literature. Without that, progress would have been far slower.
|
This is simply not true. Most of the literature was saved because it went East, where Arabs were busy accumulating the works of Aristotle, etc. The Monks did however save Christian literature, but on the whole they were not interested in literature that did not support their view.
Moreover, there was an overwhelming desire to ‘surrender to divine powers forcing men inwardly’ and ‘a need for’ supernatural revelation.
As a result, the thinkers of the area were not much interested in -- even discouraged from -- investigating the physical world. Contrariwise, the supreme task of Christian scholarship was to apprehend and deepen the truths of revelation.
Christianity during this time actively rejected scientific inquiry. This is just a small sampling of the attitude that permeated the dark ages when the Church was replacing the State…
Ambrose, Bishop of Milan on the study of the heavens said: “for wherein does it assist in Salvation”.
Justinian, on the thought that philosophical speculations aided heretics, closed the Platonic Academy in Athens.
John Crysostom, Arch Bishop of Constantinople said: “Restrain our reasoning, and empty our mind of secular learning, in order to provide a mind swept clear for the reception of divine words”.
By the 600's all but two of the learning centers were closed. This is indicative of what you got during the dark ages from the Church. The East during this time were far more innovative and productive.
Quote:
Do not think that I am blindly defending Catholicism, I just want to draw a distinction between the religion and the people.
People have always been capable of good, evil and necessity. Fact.
People have always used some banner (be it patriotism, religion, bigotry, idealism) to try and exert power and influence. Its no different for Catholicism.
|
Agreed. Unfortunately, you cannot remove human nature from the equation. It is pretty clear that the Church was just as guilty of trying to secure their own power and influence. And, the world got what they gave us during the dark ages, which for the most part was not pretty.
Quote:
|
The religion, is actually very peaceful and when examined (as I have done indepth along side my English degree) from a historical and theological viewpoint is extraordinarily wonderful in its teachings on fairness and equality. When you get into Christological research you see this highlighted even more.
|
That's fine and all. I don't take issue with most of the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus, although there are some teachings that I find amusing to abhorrent.
The real question is whether the supernatural claims are true and I find no evidence for that.
I see a long line of change, promulgated by the Church, and ending in something far removed from the Christology you mention.