Theology III

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

While I reject your arbitrary dates,

Here are a few links supporting the dates I gave for the Renaissance.
http://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=c&p=i&a=l&ID=2
http://www.essentialsofmusic.com/eras/renaissance.html
http://www.teonline.com/renaissance-...450-1600).html

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

it's worth noting that the changes to the common law mindset sis is referring to here begin in the 1500s. The common law begins to be considered the equivalent of "natural law," and superior to church law, then, during your, still arbitrary, period, in the work of Christopher St. German (for example, his Doctor and Student of 1528).

Similarly, while yes, the humanists believed their principles to be compatible with Christianity, as I would say most learning is, they also began to consider the value of tolerance of other faiths AS WELL. See for example Sir Thomas More's Utopia, where the citizens admit any religion that accepts certain points (they really don't like atheists). Tolerance did not spring out of intolerance fully formed like Athena from the brow of Zeus. It proceeded by slow steps, as people recognized the value of allowing others freedom of speech, conscience, and action. We can see a step with More, Erasmus, and the northern humanists around 1500; another in the 1500s with Montaigne; another in the 1600s with Locke; and so on through to modern times. Even by the 1600s the main objection to atheists was simply that you could not trust their oaths, as they had nothing to swear by, not that they were inherently worse than other people (see for example Locke's pamphlet on toleration). Would you not believe BJ's promise just because he's an atheist?

In the 17th century, I have no trouble believing that this is the case. There were a lot of advances in this kind of thinking taking place then. And it makes sense that the ideas in the 17th century didn't spring fully fledged out of nowhere. They would have had to have had some roots to build on. However, many of those roots, for example humanism, were not contrary to the Christian system of the time. Humanism only bore the vaguest resemblence then to modern humanism.

Most of the thinking that contradicted Christianity and the older system came from the Enlightenment, though there may well have been some philosophers that came before, who these thinkers were able to draw from. The roots those philosophers established didn't flourish until perhaps the later 16th century and then certainly the Age of Reason and Enlightenment. Religious tolerance largely was the result of the religious wars. When Christians were brutalizing one another over such a widespread area in Europe for such a long period of time, the horror of that experience caused many to look toward man rather than God for answers, and to reject religion as a source of unspeakable violence.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

17th-century philosophy in the West is generally regarded as seeing the start of modern philosophy, and the shaking off of the medieval approach, especially scholasticism. It is often called the "Age of Reason" and is considered to succeed the Renaissance and precede the Age of Enlightenment. Alternatively, it may be seen as the earlier part of the Enlightenment.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Religious toleration grew by small steps, beginning, as sis rightly says, in the Renaissance; and I'm only an expert on England, so I can't speak to other places where it may have progressed more or less rapidly, but in England at any rate it seems to have been hotly debated at every turn, and yet never stopped.

I'm just saying that most of those steps came post-Renaissance, in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. Some of the initial thoughts may have come in the 16th century, though. Particularly the later 16th century. And heck, maybe one can draw on the philosophers the 16th century thinkers drew on and say it goes back even further. My point is just that the main leap and change was in the Enlightenment and Age of Reason, though I can certainly accept that there will be some overlap with the end of the Renaissance. There's a reason why historians set the dates for these different ages where they do, though of course the edges will always be somewhat blurred.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I'm proud to live in a country in which, for example, you can tell us all that you don't believe in the fundamental basis of the nation and, while you will get an argument, the state need take no part. It is only by such discourse that we can arrive at the truths of reason; for revelation without reason is a waste of one of God's gifts.

I believe in the value of reason, for sure. I can't see anything wrong, either, with freedom of speech on secular matters. As it says in Proverbs, plans fail for want of advisors. Difference of opinion is very valuable, and many people can see perspectives that others can't.

I also can see the value in permitting different interpretations of Christianity, because the Holy Spirit can reveal many truths through one Bible. Hence many of the differences between denominations. Reasoning within Christianity, on religious matters, is very valuable.

It's where we get into freedom of religion that things get yucky, from my perspective. In my view, people's ideology is a crucial part in determining their manner of behavior. If they are full of the Holy Spirit, then your behavior will be in accord with God's nature. And Jesus said that he is the truth. If a person is not close to God, that person is not close to truth, and that person's words, coming from a mistaken ideology, can have a negative impact on other people.

So restricting the person's ability to expound upon such ideologies is not necessarily going to help that one person, but it might protect the people around him from receiving and believing that kind of negative view.

The natural response is, "oh, is your religion so weak that you have to use force to protect it from questions?" I would say that people who have questions should certainly ask them to clergy or perhaps other Christians to work through them and learn from them, and I believe that there is always a sound answer available, for I believe Christianity to be fully true. However, some people really don't get it, and when this happens, at least the laws would prevent them spreading their problems and outright attacking Christianity.

I think that the Christian religion can stand up to any challenge on the level of reason. However, knowing human nature to be sinful, I don't believe humans to be always capable of accepting the truth. So one person's error can spread to others and they'll accept it and it will become their own error. Laws can stop that from happening.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Oh, and have you ever looked at the Biblical Israel you found your model on? It's citizens are constantly falling away from God. That's why we have the writings of the Prophets, because God had to berate them.

That's human nature, yes. And God is constantly having to punish them to bring them back to himself. One could argue that this happened in the Medieval Ages (and later as well, before the modern era) too . . . frequently, when haunted by diseases of various kinds, most notably the Black Death, the people believed that they were being punished for their sins.

I view those societies, for all their sins, as a heck of a lot better than modern societies though. At least Israel had just laws, and the Christians what I think were generally just laws, even if they sometimes didn't follow them. They won't follow because they're human, but there also are periods of time where they did follow those laws and do right.

Hmm. It's a really, really interesting history.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I am actually not sure it was a more moral state,

When they weren't following the laws, I think you probably are right. But hey. If people fail under good laws, what'll they do under bad laws?

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

and it had the institutional advantage of having a central Temple as focus of religion, which I assume your Christian state would not have, seeing as sacrifice dropped out of Christianity.

Hmm. Christians are the Temple, and Christ is its head. I believe that Christ is real and alive, and very active, the cornerstone of his Temple. So I see the Temple as very, very much alive and more powerful than ever. I actually see it as having been absolutely amazing, especially as I look at various episodes from history and see their correspondence to that principle.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And then there's this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark 10
[42] But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
[43] But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
[44] And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
[45] For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Yes, but then Revelation chapter 20 refers to Christ reigning a thousand years over the Earth. Christ ascended onto a throne, after his resurrection. I believe that his time of reigning a thousand years has come and gone, and that now the devil is deceiving the nations, as was prophesied.

[Count Comfect]

Well, I tried my own research based on things I've actually studied. Lets go to Wikipedia, though, shall we?

On dates:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia "Renaissance"

The Renaissance (French: "rebirth," Italian: "Rinascimento"), was a cultural movement that spanned roughly the 14th through the 17th century, beginning in Italy in the late Middle Ages and later spreading to the rest of Europe.

On the timing of the rejection of scholasticism:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia "Renaissance humanism"

Renaissance humanism (often designated simply as humanism) was a European intellectual movement beginning in Florence in the last decades of the 14th century...The humanists were in opposition to the philosophers of the day, the "schoolmen", or scholastics

As for Revelations:

Originally Posted by Revelations 20

[1] And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
[2] And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
[3] And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
[4] And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

"An angel came down from heaven." "Judgement was given unto them." This is not the action of the people on earth, but rather a divine decree enacted from above. It's at least mildly blasphemous to say you can take judgement onto yourself when it is to be handed down from heaven, no?

EDIT: PS: If, as you say, you see the Christian people as the Temple (a view I'd like to see support of, but regardless) then there should be no need for a centralized Christian state - the Temple is what you need for "true" religion (see Ezra and Nehemiah under Persia for example).

BACK TO ORIGINAL:
Lief, I respect your willingness to defend your beliefs and to have them debated in a public forum. But I believe you're misinterpreting both history and scripture here.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

... correct me if i am wrong ..but you are just asking to be called a Belgian Ape?

No, not asking, but you say Belgian ape like it's a bad word. Heck, if I can hang around in cacao trees and still go 'ribbit' once in a while, I don't see anything negative about.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yep! Doesn't it mean that Mary took a shower before she conceived?

..And that she got out squeaky clean, yes. I had to search for ages to find out whether Dutch even had a phrase for 'virgin birth', there is one, but except for religious texts, it's been nearly always exchanged for immaculate conception. One text I found bemoaned the fact that this faulty word exchange is very much imbedded in Dutch, considering it's already so in early Dutch writings and language and was nearly never rectified. I'll have to take their word for it. (The Dutch Wikipedia page says the immaculate conception is often confused with the Annunciation, I think who-ever wrote that was even more confused than all the rest. They changed it since I read it to say 'confused with Annunciation AND virgin birth' so at least somebody else was paying attention...)

But I have to say, without any disrespect of course, that I was highly amused when I learned about the history of the immaculate conception. Apparently its quite recent stuff, unlike the virgin birth which became intergrated in the religion 2nd, 3rd century. But the immaculate conception dogma dates from 1854. So apparently the idea that "oh-no! The mother of Jezus is subject to original sin, this can't be!" took the church some 18 centuries to agree on it and solve it. I'm quite amused by this, and also by all the different theories that get discussed with such seriousness.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

ROME
In Ancient Rome, not all persons were citizens. Therefore "all citizens could vote" does not refute "an elite ruled".

RUSSIA
Has never been "an established democracy". At the very best it "had the potential for democracy". In the US, The Declaration of Independence was signed in July, 1776. The Constitution was ratified by the first state, Delaware, in 1787, but not by the necessary 2/3rds until June 1788, and the first 10 amendments weren't ratified until 1791. That's a period of 15 years, sorting out the basics of government (and "Rogue Island" didn't sign on until 1790). In contrast, Russia became "independent" in 1991, at the collapse of the Soviet Union, but Chechnya never went along. In 1993 they still didn't have an effective constitution, suspending Parliament, and so on. We're 15 years on, right about now, and they haven't sorted it out.

But we finally have a date. The date Satan took over, the end of the Golden Age of Christ's supervision of Earth.

Yes, but then Revelation chapter 20 refers to Christ reigning a thousand years over the Earth. Christ ascended onto a throne, after his resurrection. I believe that his time of reigning a thousand years has come and gone, and that now the devil is deceiving the nations, as was prophesied.

So, that would be the pattern we're aiming for? We should return to the perfected world of 1000 AD?

*nods* makes so much more sense, when you explain it that way.

You know what I object to in your descriptions of God, Lief? The God you describe is lame. He has no power to make you express your faith in a more concrete way than nattering about it. During the period he "rules Earth" things are awfully similar to conditions under Hell's administration. And he's petty beyond belief about 3 or 4 issues cherrypicked from a huge body of law in Leviticus, while tossing the rest aside.

You don't have to squint to see the Power of God, Lief. When it's in action, it's in ACTION. Full color, high def, surround sound... if the Creator of the Universe is coming through looking like Gumby, the problem is in your reception, not His broadcast.

[Rían]

or the problem might be in the rebroadcast.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Well, I tried my own research based on things I've actually studied.

That's good. I tend to do the same thing . . . unless I'm very new in the field and don't know that much . I have taken Honors Western Civilization courses that include this history and aced them, and I've also researched from history books, but I have not yet plunged into the full depth I aim to get into. So my knowledge is not yet as in-depth as yours.

I'm planning to research the history of the church in depth, this summer.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Lets go to Wikipedia, though, shall we?

On dates:

Looks like that article includes the Age of Reason in the Renaissance. I guess that that division of time is still debated . . . hmm. Interesting to know .

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

On the timing of the rejection of scholasticism:

They may have disagreed with the schoolmen of the time about some matters, but according to this article, the "shaking off of the medieval approach, especially scholasticism" came in the 17th century.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

As for Revelations:

"An angel came down from heaven." "Judgement was given unto them." This is not the action of the people on earth, but rather a divine decree enacted from above. It's at least mildly blasphemous to say you can take judgement onto yourself when it is to be handed down from heaven, no?

I don't think so, because of Matthew 16:18-19. There it says,

Jesus replied, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

I think that that passage justifies my view that the church bound Satan in heaven (its will enacted by an angel).

As for the "judgement was given unto them," I don't take this as referring to the saints on Earth. It says pretty clearly that this authority was given to the souls of those who had been martyred for Christ.

I think that those souls did reign in great authority, though. It's important, here, to note that prayer to saints was very common during this long period, and belief in their authority to enact their will on Earth was prevalent during the Medieval Ages. There also were countless sightings of saints who appeared in visions to people and gave them instructions, or supposedly acted on their behalf. I think that this form of belief in the Medieval Ages exists because the souls of the saints had come to life, as the scripture says, and they had authority and were reigning on thrones with Christ during that period.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

EDIT: PS: If, as you say, you see the Christian people as the Temple (a view I'd like to see support of, but regardless)

2 Corinthians 6:16- "We are the temple of the living God."

There are other passages that confirm this too.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

then there should be no need for a centralized Christian state - the Temple is what you need for "true" religion (see Ezra and Nehemiah under Persia for example).

We live on Christ, and we gain "true religion" from the Spirit, but that doesn't contradict the desire to live in a society that has right and just laws and a right and just government.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

BACK TO ORIGINAL:
Lief, I respect your willingness to defend your beliefs and to have them debated in a public forum. But I believe you're misinterpreting both history and scripture here.

I understand.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

They may have disagreed with the schoolmen of the time about some matters, but according to this article, the "shaking off of the medieval approach, especially scholasticism" came in the 17th century.

Read some medieval scholastics. Read More and Erasmus. You'll see - they've already shaken off scholasticism. An easy example would be the influences of Romans vs. Greeks. The new scholarship is much more Ciceronian.

I don't have enough time (dinner coming!) to argue the remaining points right now, but I will agree with sis that if you think the 1000 years of binding have already passed, you should look in more depth at what society in the medieval period was like. Not a pleasant time to have been alive, and I say that not only because I like free expression.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

ROME
In Ancient Rome, not all persons were citizens. Therefore "all citizens could vote" does not refute "an elite ruled".

It depends what portion of Rome's history we're talking about. Originally, during the time of the Republic, they gave the right of citizenship to those city states that joined them and, I think, even to those they conquered. They placated those they defeated because it was in their interests to develop strong loyalties among them. Eventually, though, this system changed. It particularly changed when they moved outside of Italy's borders into Sicily, in the First Punic War. If I'm recalling my history correctly, (and I have researched the First Punic War very thoroughly. Far more thoroughly than I've researched the Medieval Ages) it was during that time that Rome made the transition to inequality among those they conquered. This was partly because giving equal rights to those they conquered didn't allow for exploiting them, and so didn't pay.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

RUSSIA
Has never been "an established democracy". At the very best it "had the potential for democracy". In the US, The Declaration of Independence was signed in July, 1776. The Constitution was ratified by the first state, Delaware, in 1787, but not by the necessary 2/3rds until June 1788, and the first 10 amendments weren't ratified until 1791. That's a period of 15 years, sorting out the basics of government (and "Rogue Island" didn't sign on until 1790). In contrast, Russia became "independent" in 1991, at the collapse of the Soviet Union, but Chechnya never went along. In 1993 they still didn't have an effective constitution, suspending Parliament, and so on. We're 15 years on, right about now, and they haven't sorted it out.

Yeah, I know it never fully caught on. But if people dump the things that don't work and hold to what does work, if the idea of democracy was introduced, it should have clicked, right?

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

But we finally have a date. The date Satan took over, the end of the Golden Age of Christ's supervision of Earth. So, that would be the pattern we're aiming for? We should return to the perfected world of 1000 AD?

I actually view that date as having been 1565, a year that is in the decade in which the breach between Catholics and Protestants became irrepairable.

Three features of MacCulloch's exposition are particularly impressive. First, much better than most historians, he integrates theology and religion with political events and institutions. Second, he narrates the emergence of radical Protestantism, including the German Peasants' War of 1524-25, the varieties of Anabaptism, and also anti-Trinitarian, rationalizing Protestants, in relationship to the emergence of the magisterial Protestantism associated with major reformers such as Martin Luther, Huldreich Zwingli, and John Calvin. And third, he devotes attention to Roman Catholicism alongside and in relationship to Protestantism, although Lutheranism and Reformed Protestantism (including the Church of England) receive the most attention. According to MacCulloch, "The end of the 1560s marked a watershed in the Reformation," when the early years of the Dutch Revolt, the Northern Rebellion in England (1569), Pope Pius V's excommunication of Elizabeth I (1570), and the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of French Huguenots by Catholics (1572) made the ruptures between Catholics and Protestants irreparable. This marks the chronological pivot in MacCulloch's account.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-117923563.html

I know that people could debate about that decade, but it makes sense to me. There was some lead in to this in the course of the Renaissance, as you sisterandcousinandaunt and Count Comfect have pointed out, but the main breach from the church came in the Age of Reason (whether or not that's part of the Renaissance is irrelevant to my view on this) and the Enlightenment.

The religious wars racked the church inside and led to views that oppose the church. So it makes sense to me that the point where the religious wars (which had already started before that date with Luther and Hus, I know) led to a situation between Protestants and Catholics that was irrepairable should be the ending point.

And that decade is just about exactly 1,260 years from the time Constantine was crowned, in 305 AD. I view the "thousand years" as a rounded number. There is Biblical precedent for that, in prophecy. And the 1,260 years is, IMO, predicted in another Revelation passage, which says that 1,260 "days" would pass in which the church was in a place of safety. There is Biblical precedent in Numbers and Ezekiel for a prophesied "day" referring to a year.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You know what I object to in your descriptions of God, Lief? The God you describe is lame. He has no power to make you express your faith in a more concrete way than nattering about it. During the period he "rules Earth" things are awfully similar to conditions under Hell's administration.

We already have seen that relationship break-up was nowhere near as bad as it is nowadays. But I know that there was some atrocious cruelty and tortures perpetrated by some of the nobles, and there also was conflict between various Christian kingdoms. And power struggles for thrones . . . yes. I'll have to research all of this in more depth before I can state my full view on all of this.

But I will mention that even in Israel, as Count Comfect pointed out, the people often turned away from what was right and were punished as a consequence by God. The people in the Medieval Ages did suffer from plagues and other disasters at various times, which they interpreted as the hand of God punishing them for their sins. So I expect that there are bound to be some parallels in this.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And he's petty beyond belief about 3 or 4 issues cherrypicked from a huge body of law in Leviticus, while tossing the rest aside.

Much of the Law in the Old Testament is symbolic of things that would be fulfilled in the person of Christ. There is often practical value in the symbols too, of course. Then there also are some things in there which were moral values, and those had to be maintained.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You don't have to squint to see the Power of God, Lief. When it's in action, it's in ACTION. Full color, high def, surround sound... if the Creator of the Universe is coming through looking like Gumby, the problem is in your reception, not His broadcast.

I agree. With you and with RÃ*an's comment, on this.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I don't have enough time (dinner coming!) to argue the remaining points right now, but I will agree with sis that if you think the 1000 years of binding have already passed, you should look in more depth at what society in the medieval period was like. Not a pleasant time to have been alive, and I say that not only because I like free expression.

A lot of that is the difference of economic conditions. There also were abuses by nobles and leaders and popes though, I know. And I think that there were punishments, as well. It says in Revelation that Christ would rule the nations with an "iron scepter." So I don't find an immense difficulty there.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Lief. It doesn't strike you as a "wee" bit "elite" to exclude, from the get-go, 50% of the population? No, probably not. So details about slaves etc. won't trouble you, either.

I can't even address the insanity of 'inerrant but symbolic and couldn't count.'

How'd the last exams go?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The people in the Medieval Ages did suffer from plagues and other disasters at various times, which they interpreted as the hand of God punishing them for their sins.

And correctly so. As part of the widespread Christian-led persecution and murder of women, they killed their "familiers", often cats. Without the cats to control the rat population, it increased, and spread plague. I have no doubt at all that the people were being punished for their intolerance, in a quite recognisably Biblical, and yet logical, fashion.

"They that have ears, let them hear."

[Rían]

I gotta say that I think C.S. Lewis (IIRC) had a very good point about the witch hunts. He said something like that if YOU truly believed that a person had the power to kill, torture, maim and blight people, animals and the fruits of the earth, any time they wanted to, and that they were in allegiance with powers that were hateful and cruel, wouldn't YOU want to find them and protect society by eliminating them?(just confining them wouldn't do any good, since they could still do their thing in prison.)

Maybe some people didn't believe that witches were real and used the fear as a power-play, but I don't think it's accurate to say that EVERYONE did, and thus I feel that characterizing it as "Christian-led persecution and murder of women" is inaccurate.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I gotta say that I think C.S. Lewis (IIRC) had a very good point about the witch hunts. He said something like that if YOU truly believed that a person had the power to kill, torture, maim and blight people, animals and the fruits of the earth, any time they wanted to, and that they were in allegiance with powers that were hateful and cruel, wouldn't YOU want to find them and protect society by eliminating them?(just confining them wouldn't do any good, since they could still do their thing in prison.)

Maybe some people didn't believe that witches were real and used the fear as a power-play, but I don't think it's accurate to say that EVERYONE did, and thus I feel that characterizing it as "Christian-led persecution and murder of women" is inaccurate.

How would it be inaccurate?
1) It was led by Christians.
2) It murdered and persecuted women predominantly.

What is inaccurate? I didn't say "everyone did it", but it happened.

[Count Comfect]

Rian - I think you'll find if you study medieval views of witchcraft that you'll find a lot of frauds and powerplays. That said, the point you raise is a good one with regards to those who believed sincerely in what they were doing. The counterpoint tends to be that if they had all these powers, why the hell (pun rather intended) are they limiting themselves to what tends to be really minor things like putting a single cow off its feed?

And Lief, you're seeing what you want to see, not what's there. You're picking 1000 as a round number, 1260 days as years, the crowning of Constantine as an arbitrary start, 1565 (a year that predates all your cited dates) as an arbitrary end - not much happened in 1565 - and so on. I might point out that the Council of Trent is where the Counter-Reformation began (which, if you want to assume that early Protestantism could still have reconciled with the church, definitely has to be your endpoint, since its early sessions were the last extension of the hand of the Catholic Church to the German Protestants), and it lasted in 4 sessions from 1545 to 1563. On the other hand, James I of England was still engaging in ecumenical dialogue with the Pope in the 1600s.

As for corruption within the medieval church, look at the Borgia popes. If that's the rule of Christ, I have completely misinterpreted your whole religion.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Maybe some people didn't believe that witches were real and used the fear as a power-play, but I don't think it's accurate to say that EVERYONE did, and thus I feel that characterizing it as "Christian-led persecution and murder of women" is inaccurate.

Besides, considering Europe's pagan roots, some of them might have been real witches that wanted revenge on the Christian culture that confined them. The Old Testament also advocates the death penalty for witchcraft, if I recall correctly.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

The counterpoint tends to be that if they had all these powers, why the hell (pun rather intended) are they limiting themselves to what tends to be really minor things like putting a single cow off its feed?

It's worth noting that considering the economics of the time, a single cow could make up a peasant's whole livelihood.


Misogyny was very ugly, and I hate mysoginy. And it was present in the Medieval Ages. Women make life worth living, as Adam felt, in a very neat bit of Biblical romance . And women are absolutely just as valuable as men are, and their skills just as necessary for humanity as those of men.

But I think that there is a lot of evidence (which I went over in the Gender Issues thread) that shows that women and men have largely different skills because of their different biological make-up. And I think that Medieval society had a much better idea than modern society does about how to arrange the gender roles to fit the different biologies of men and women.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Lief. It doesn't strike you as a "wee" bit "elite" to exclude, from the get-go, 50% of the population? No, probably not. So details about slaves etc. won't trouble you, either.

Slavery was pretty common in the early Middle Ages, but it declined as serfdom developed. Then it made a big come-back in Europe and America, around the time of the Enlightenment.

Originally Posted by infoplease.com

The semifreedom of serfdom was the dominant theme in the Middle Ages, although domestic slavery (and, to some extent, other forms) did not disappear. The church began to encourage manumission, while ignoring the fact that many slaves were attached to church officials and church property. Sale into slavery continued to be an extreme punishment for serious crimes.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/bus/A0861124.html
I think it's probably something like 95% of the population that were serfs, later on. But serfdom is not synonymous with slavery.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The current usage of the word serfdom is not usually synonymous with slavery, because medieval serfs were considered to have rights, as human beings, whereas slaves were considered “things� — property.[3] Slaves are people who are owned and controlled by others in a way that they have almost no rights or freedom of movement and are not paid for their labour, aside from food, clothing and shelter needed for basic subsistence.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And Lief, you're seeing what you want to see, not what's there. You're picking 1000 as a round number,

There is Biblical precedent. In the prophecy in the Old Testament about how long Israel would be in Egypt, God said it would be 400 years. It turned out to be 430 years. It's just rounded off, and there's nothing wrong with doing that.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

1260 days as years,

Again, that has been done before in the Bible, in Numbers and Ezekiel, so there's nothing far-fetched about saying that the God who did it then might do the same thing again.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

the crowning of Constantine as an arbitrary start,

As he's the king who made Christianity a state religion for the first time in history, I don't see his crowning as an arbitrary date. I think that that was only the second date I checked when looking at the Medieval Era, because it seemed so logical.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

1565 (a year that predates all your cited dates) as an arbitrary end - not much happened in 1565 - and so on.

Again, this date is not arbitrary. The 1560s was the decade, according to the historian I've cited, that the breach between the Catholic and Protestant churches became irrepairable. And those wars led to the turning against Christianity that followed in the Enlightenment (with some lead-in in the 16th century).

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I might point out that the Council of Trent is where the Counter-Reformation began (which, if you want to assume that early Protestantism could still have reconciled with the church, definitely has to be your endpoint, since its early sessions were the last extension of the hand of the Catholic Church to the German Protestants), and it lasted in 4 sessions from 1545 to 1563.

That ends just two years before 1565. My point was that the decade of the 1560s has been associated with the time that the differences between the two churches became irreconcilable. 1565 is smack in the middle of that decade, which was massively important in the religious wars. I'm not nitpicky when it comes to two years difference there, and the whole decade was the crucial point in the relations between the denominations.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

On the other hand, James I of England was still engaging in ecumenical dialogue with the Pope in the 1600s.

He could not have fixed the relations between the denominations at that point, in my view. Neither did he really attempt to. Remember his persecution of the Puritans.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

As for corruption within the medieval church, look at the Borgia popes. If that's the rule of Christ, I have completely misinterpreted your whole religion.

I'll probably look into them when I do my study, this summer. You guys are already helping me launch into that study right now, by making me research . I know that there were foul popes, foul nobles, and foul kings. Some of those men were absolutely evil.

And it's important also to remember that the scripture says Christ would rule with an iron scepter. I think that some of the wars and diseases from those times were punishments on the people because of their sins. He did the same thing with ancient Israel, and according to the Book of Revelation, he continues to do the same thing today. Folks in that time period usually thought that they were being judged through those disasters, too.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Slavery was pretty common in the early Middle Ages, but it declined as serfdom developed. Then it made a big come-back in Europe and America, around the time of the Enlightenment.

The business about slaves was part of the discussion of Roman citizenship. That's why I put it in a separate post. Women in Rome didn't have the advantages of citizenship men did, (including participation in government) but you don't even notice that. I submit that if you eliminate all woman, all children, all slaves and all legionaries, you've restricted things to an "elite," even without playing with which dates some folks in outlying territories had limited franchise.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Misogyny was very ugly, and I hate mysoginy. And it was present in the Medieval Ages. Women make life worth living, as Adam felt, in a very neat bit of Biblical romance . And women are absolutely just as valuable as men are, and their skills just as necessary for humanity as those of men.

But I think that there is a lot of evidence (which I went over in the Gender Issues thread) that shows that women and men have largely different skills because of their different biological make-up. And I think that Medieval society had a much better idea than modern society does about how to arrange the gender roles to fit the different biologies of men and women.

Er, how do you concile the two bolded statements? They seem a bit contradictory. Women are only valuable or skilled when they stick to households and raising children?

[Count Comfect]

Lief -

Look into James I more. He was quite centrist, actually. His persecution of "Puritans" was primarily directed only at those who desired to abolish episcopacy entirely, a small minority of the church. He actually fostered a broad Calvinist consensus in England, along the lines of what would have been called "Puritan" under either Elizabeth I or Charles I.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

How would it be inaccurate?
1) It was led by Christians.
2) It murdered and persecuted women predominantly.

What is inaccurate? I didn't say "everyone did it", but it happened.

I think it is inaccurate because people didn't say, "Look, there's a WOMAN - let's persecute and kill her!" They said, while believing in witches and all it implies (at least the sincere ones), "Look, there's a WITCH! She is allied with evil and has strong powers for harm - let's execute her before she wreaks havoc with innocent people!"

Originally Posted by Count

Rian - I think you'll find if you study medieval views of witchcraft that you'll find a lot of frauds and powerplays.

Sadly, I believe that

That said, the point you raise is a good one with regards to those who believed sincerely in what they were doing.

Thank you - I always like discussing things with you. You and Nurvi are among the most open-minded debaters that I've ever met

The counterpoint tends to be that if they had all these powers, why the hell (pun rather intended) are they limiting themselves to what tends to be really minor things like putting a single cow off its feed?

I don't know, but I think that if a person hears from someone that they think is a valid authority on the subject, even today, we tend to believe them and act accordingly. I think we need to remember, before we judge people back then, to put ourselves in their mindset.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think it is inaccurate because people didn't say, "Look, there's a WOMAN - let's persecute and kill her!" They said, while believing in witches and all it implies (at least the sincere ones), "Look, there's a WITCH! She is allied with evil and has strong powers for harm - let's execute her before she wreaks havoc with innocent people!"

Sadly, I believe that

Thank you - I always like discussing things with you. You and Nurvi are among the most open-minded debaters that I've ever met

I don't know, but I think that if a person hears from someone that they think is a valid authority on the subject, even today, we tend to believe them and act accordingly. I think we need to remember, before we judge people back then, to put ourselves in their mindset.

The witch prosecutions were mostly by neighbors. They weren't initiated by some medieval version of appellate court judges...they were "of the people," on the whole. Why wouldn't I judge the behavior of malicious neighbors, whether it be witchburners then or prospective theocrats now? If I judge them to be allied with evil and potentially dangerous, should I just heft up my 22 and fix the problem? You wouldn't judge me, if I truly believed that, would you?

[Rían]

Again, I think you're judging the situation in terms of today's society, which isn't right.

As far as a parallel situation in today's society - If I sincerely thought that the man next door was molesting children, would I just "not judge" him, or would I do what was the norm in the society of my time?


and random thought - "Robin Hood - Men in Tights" is just a hysterical movie! My son and 2 nephews are watching it as I type