Theology III

[Count Comfect]

I think that Lief is going to tell you the Black Death was taken as the hand of God punishing people, and therefore WAS the hand of God punishing people, as part of Christ ruling with an iron scepter.

I think the logical flaw here is, Lief, that you're attributing anything bad in the Medieval period to this "iron scepter" conception, while attributing anything bad now to the end of the 1000 year period. I remain convinced that if you did more research into not only what life was like then, relative to now, but what it was like then, in the people's own conceptions (being a bad winter from starvation is poverty, and feels like it, no matter how much relative money you have), you'll find that it does not match up with the picture you're displaying.

For example, a much larger percentage of the population was serfs/peasants tied to the land than was slaves. Roman slaves were not the majority of the population, as they had their own hardscrabble farmers and whatnot. Serfs/peasants WERE.

[The Gaffer]

In the interests of balance, of course, one should point out that your average medieval serf had to work less days to pay off his feudal overlord than your average modern day Briton does to pay off his mortgage.

On the up side, my bank doesn't make me go off and get killed on opportunistic skirmishes. Not yet anyway.

This thread needs pictures:

King, eh? Oh, very nice. And how did you get that then? By exploiting the workers... etc etc

[Rían]

*snerk*

Great movie!!!

"Bring out yer dead!"

[The Gaffer]

Argg... must resist... must resist...


It's a fair cop

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But, Ri, sis said that it had uneven success, as a guide to daily life bringing us toward God. Surely you would agree with that?

no, but mainly because I"m in a contrary mood right now

Also, I don't think it's right.

But I don't feel like explaining right now. Oh, it's fun being a woman!

Oh, of course they do, everyone has an agenda.

The important thing is what that agenda IS.

[Butterbeer]

I've said it before, and i'll say it again:

Thank God for the Black death.

Serfs you say? Free men i rejoin.

Perhaps the greatest blight to ever shape the fate of Man, and Western Civilization, as we know it.

But would you want to live through it?


really, Lief - some transposing is allowable - but wholesale selling on a late night Thursday basis????

Nay, my friend.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The important thing is what that agenda IS.

Would this be a pecularly female way of saying, "The ends justify the means?"

[Rían]

no, not at all.

I don't think it's right to try to deceive anyone in a debate, for example, even if it means that you "win".

What I meant was that I think the right "agenda" is to seek the truth with integrity, no matter where it leads you.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I think that Lief is going to tell you the Black Death was taken as the hand of God punishing people, and therefore WAS the hand of God punishing people, as part of Christ ruling with an iron scepter.

I wouldn't use the word "therefore," for that suggests that the fact that people thought God was punishing them was proof that he was, but that doesn't prove that at all. And I wasn't trying to prove that, although I do believe it.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I think the logical flaw here is, Lief, that you're attributing anything bad in the Medieval period to this "iron scepter" conception, while attributing anything bad now to the end of the 1000 year period.

In both cases, the modern and the past, I attribute the big catastrophes to God's judgment of sin. But there are many problems that exist now and which were prevented from being anywhere near so widespread because of laws that existed in the past and have since been rescinded. I referred to some specifically in a previous post.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And many severe sins of modern times were nowhere near as bad, such as relationship break-up, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, pornography, the murder of children (which is now a genocide of abortions), and idolatry. Those sins have all been pursued and justified in the name of freedom of religion and separation of church and state. If church and state are separate, then morality and state are separate. If morality and state are separate, then immorality is the natural result. And that is what we have seen, a steep moral decline within the years during and since the Enlightenment.

Those sins have negative repercussions for society, and they were prevented from being so widespread by laws in the past. And there are a lot of these modern sins that started with the Enlightenment.

I think that the judgments for modern times will be far, far steeper than those in the past too, because the sins are far greater, and a number of these worldwide cataclysms are recorded in the Book of Revelation.

I love how the period from the 17th through the 19th or so centuries is called the Enlightenment and the Medieval Ages "The Dark Ages". It's so interesting .

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I remain convinced that if you did more research into not only what life was like then, relative to now, but what it was like then, in the people's own conceptions (being a bad winter from starvation is poverty, and feels like it, no matter how much relative money you have), you'll find that it does not match up with the picture you're displaying.

For example, a much larger percentage of the population was serfs/peasants tied to the land than was slaves. Roman slaves were not the majority of the population, as they had their own hardscrabble farmers and whatnot. Serfs/peasants WERE.

The Roman farmers got put out of work in Rome's imperial era because of the huge slave industry, and all those impoverished people went to the cities and were supported on wellfare. Which detached them from the state, allowing them to be recruited into the private armies of generals, which was a huge contributor to Rome's civil wars.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief

If morality and state are separate, then immorality is the natural result.

Render under Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God what is God's.

And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

[25] And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
[26] But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
[27] For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
[28] Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
[29] And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me

When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

All of which sounds very much like Christ's church is not intended to be the secular (saeculum, of the world) power; that it is dedicated to the ideal that the church can exist and teach morality without being the state; that the kingdom of heaven does not need the kingdom of earth.

And many severe sins of modern times were nowhere near as bad, such as relationship break-up, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, pornography, the murder of children (which is now a genocide of abortions), and idolatry

For relationship break-up, look at my comment about British folk traditions. Relationships still broke up; there just wasn't any legal way to end it, so they came up with their own. Sexual promiscuity was rampant as well, but less well informed and thus more dangerous. homosexuality still existed, but its practitioners were treated in a most unmerciful way. Pornography is nothing new. A higher percentage of children failed to reach the age of five than do now, even if you include abortions. And you might want to talk to Martin Luther and John Calvin (I know they're dead) before you exempt the medieval period from idolatry. Or even talk to the Orthodox Church (whose schism, I might point out, you're ignoring).

Add to that that life was pretty bad on absolute indicators (e.g. starving) and I do indeed believe you're seeing it as a blessed time only because of rose-colored glasses.

As for Rome, I do believe you're generalizing from the Italian peninsula to the entire Empire. The other provinces retained their farmers; that's where most of the Byzantine armies were raised.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Oh, Count, two pages ago, Rome was an example of democracy, and the Roman Empire a bastion of equal opportunity for social mobility and citizenship. Now they're evil slave holders, as opposed to the fine time everyone was having in the Middle Ages. @@ As both versions use more imagination than history, why debate?

[Count Comfect]

If we don't debate, the terrorists win

Seriously, I enjoy arguing.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

no, not at all.

I don't think it's right to try to deceive anyone in a debate, for example, even if it means that you "win".

What I meant was that I think the right "agenda" is to seek the truth with integrity, no matter where it leads you.

Why don't you just lay it out; this oblique snarkiness is too complicated for me.

The first use of 'agenda" was when I said Bible translators had their own agendas. You differed with that, in a post which used the word "claims" a lot.

I responded that I would 'claim' what seems reasonable to me.

You said, paraphrase, "Then I'll see you as having an agenda." which, btw, is a lot closer to a personal attack than my discussion of the limitations of translation.

Gwai brought up my original post, and said "Everyone has an agenda".

You responded to that with "The important thing is what the agenda IS."
Now that remark was embedded in a lot of stuff, maybe coy and cute from your POV, about a woman's privilege to be indirect and contrary and not explain, which was a fairly odd thing, imo, to bother to post in a debate thread. I mean, it's okay to wait to post until you have something to say. So I asked how it related to the other stuff. In that context it seemed that you were saying either "Bible translators are permitted an agenda because they promote Christianity." or "If I agree with the agenda, it's fine."

You say that's not what you meant.

So. Now we've caught up to this post.

The first sentance references "deceiving in a debate." Who is deceiving, and in what way? Since I'm the one you've already identified as having an agenda here, I'm naturally curious.

The second sentance is "the right 'agenda' is to seek truth with integrity, no matter where it leads you." Again, there seems to be a problem implied here. Is someone displaying a lack of integrity, and you feel that's an issue?

I haven't been noticing a widespread lack of integrity in these postings, but I'm new around here. You may have more insight into that than I do. But I'm not getting the drift from all this vague hinting around. In fact, the impression I'm getting is that you have a problem with ME. And, since I started here being accused by Lief of being an imaginary person, and because of who I am, generally, I react to such implications, kwim?

Perhaps you can clear up my confusion, Rian.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

If we don't debate, the terrorists win

Seriously, I enjoy arguing.

Well it may be argumentative, but it's hardly debate. Lay on, Macduff.

[Count Comfect]

sis - I've argued/debated/what-have-you with Rian for, oy, it must be over a year now, and I've found her pretty consistently pleasant. What I'd read her post as saying is that the two of you mean something different by "agenda." She means that everyone does/says things with SOME sort of purpose, giving the example of "winning" (via deception, as she put it) vs. "seeking the truth." I think you're using agenda to mean some form of ulterior motive that distorts what you say away from the truth. Those two are close together, but not identical, because everyone does have her sort of agenda, while not everyone has yours.

Rian, I hope that's right; sis, I hope that helps explain why I, at least, don't think Rian is trying to say she has a problem with you. It would seem a bit out of character for her.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

sis - I've argued/debated/what-have-you with Rian for, oy, it must be over a year now, and I've found her pretty consistently pleasant. What I'd read her post as saying is that the two of you mean something different by "agenda." She means that everyone does/says things with SOME sort of purpose, giving the example of "winning" (via deception, as she put it) vs. "seeking the truth." I think you're using agenda to mean some form of ulterior motive that distorts what you say away from the truth. Those two are close together, but not identical, because everyone does have her sort of agenda, while not everyone has yours.

Rian, I hope that's right; sis, I hope that helps explain why I, at least, don't think Rian is trying to say she has a problem with you. It would seem a bit out of character for her.

You might be right about Rian, Count, but you aren't about me.

Why should I be 'agenda with intentional bias', while Rian is 'agenda with noble purpose', such that "her sort of agenda" is contrasted with "mine"?

It's swell you think she's nice. I asked here for clarification because she's jumped my hump before, and I'd like her to speak for herself.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Render under Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God what is God's.

And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.

[25] And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
[26] But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
[27] For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.
[28] Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
[29] And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me

When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

All of which sounds very much like Christ's church is not intended to be the secular (saeculum, of the world) power; that it is dedicated to the ideal that the church can exist and teach morality without being the state; that the kingdom of heaven does not need the kingdom of earth.

I'll respond to these passages today or tomorrow (probably today). At the moment, I don't have time.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

For relationship break-up, look at my comment about British folk traditions. Relationships still broke up; there just wasn't any legal way to end it, so they came up with their own. Sexual promiscuity was rampant as well, but less well informed and thus more dangerous. homosexuality still existed, but its practitioners were treated in a most unmerciful way. Pornography is nothing new.

You'll have to give me sources for each of these claims, and I'll be double-check them independently. I believe that these things existed, but I also believe that they were a LOT more rare.

All one has to do is look at Oman in modern times to see how these laws can be implemented and how effective they can be. Oman has virtually no problem with STDs or AIDS at all today. So it's clear that those kinds of laws can work, and I would need a lot of evidence if I'm to believe they were anywhere near as bad in the Medieval Ages as they are now.

But I'll be researching these specifics on my own too, as much as I can find them.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

A higher percentage of children failed to reach the age of five than do now, even if you include abortions.

Again, I'll have to find data to back this claim. But you might be right, of course . And I know childbirth was much more dangerous for women back then.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And you might want to talk to Martin Luther and John Calvin (I know they're dead) before you exempt the medieval period from idolatry.

I don't view them as having been idolaters, but rather see the fighting between the Catholic and Protestant churches as having been a Satanic attempt to turn what should have been brothers into enemies.

I believe that that was also predicted in scripture too, and besides, it ties directly to the chronology I've been advocating. I can get into that more later.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Or even talk to the Orthodox Church (whose schism, I might point out, you're ignoring).

I can talk about the Orthodox too, soon. I don't condemn them all, though .

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Add to that that life was pretty bad on absolute indicators (e.g. starving) and I do indeed believe you're seeing it as a blessed time only because of rose-colored glasses.

We'll see how widespread and common that was. I'm going to be researching this as well. We need more data in this debate .

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

As for Rome, I do believe you're generalizing from the Italian peninsula to the entire Empire. The other provinces retained their farmers; that's where most of the Byzantine armies were raised.

Maybe there was still some farming in some of the provinces. I think slavery was much more widespread, though.

We need some data on this, I guess.

And I know I'm asking you for a lot of sources in this post, but don't worry if you don't want to do it. I've got to do it anyway, and I'm going to.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Why should I be 'agenda with intentional bias', while Rian is 'agenda with noble purpose', such that "her sort of agenda" is contrasted with "mine"?

Part of why I take your "agendas" differently is because I usually use it the way you seem to me to, and it sounds to me like Rian is using it differently.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Part of why I take your "agendas" differently is because I usually use it the way you seem to me to, and it sounds to me like Rian is using it differently.

Maybe. Doesn't look like that to me, though, hence the request for clarification.

[Count Comfect]

Hey Lief - what about the rest of the world? "[26] And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
[27] And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father." - sounds like the whole world should be ruled, not just Europe. And it hardly signifies to argue that "Europe was the whole world to them," since God is, theoretically at least, omniscient.

Also, I'm not sure how the burden of proof is on me, when you're making the broad claims about a millennium of holiness. But alright:
Divorce:

Originally Posted by Wikipeida, Divorce

As the Roman Empire grew in power and authority, however, Roman civil law embraced the maxim, “matrimonia debent esse libera� ("marriages ought to be free"), and either husband or wife could renounce the marriage at will. Though civil authority rarely intervened in divorces, social and familial taboos guaranteed that divorce occurred only after serious circumspection. The Christian emperors Constantine and Theodosius restricted the grounds for divorce to grave cause, but this was relaxed by Justinian in the 6th century....
Although divorce, as known today, was generally prohibited after the 10th century, actions allowing the separation of husband and wife and annulment of the marriage were well-known.

STDs:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, Syphilis

The first well-recorded outbreak of what we know as syphilis occurred in circa 1494 when it broke out among German troops besieging Naples.[2] From this centre, the disease swept across Europe. As Jared Diamond describes it, "when syphilis was first definitely recorded in Europe in 1495, its pustules often covered the body from the head to the knees, caused flesh to fall from people's faces, and led to death within a few months." In addition, the disease was more frequently fatal than it is today.

We don't have times of discovery for a lot of STDs, because they're too far back in time, of course...

Homosexuality:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, history of LBGT

Same-sex scholarly 'empires of the mind' were common in medieval Arabic and Hebrew cultures, as seen in their poetry on same-sex love.

According to John Boswell, author of the controversial book Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), there were same-sex Christian monastic communities and other religious orders in which homosexuality thrived. According to Chauncey et al (1989), the book "offered a revolutionary interpretation of the Western tradition, arguing that the Roman Catholic Church had not condemned gay people throughout its history, but rather, at least until the twelfth century, had alternately envinced no special concern about homosexuality or actually celebrated love between men."

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, homosexuality

taxes on brothels of boys available for homosexual sex continued to be collected until the end of the reign of Anastasius I in 518.

During the Renaissance, rich cities in northern Italy, Florence and Venice in particular, were renowned for their widespread practice of same-sex love, engaged in by a considerable part of the male population and constructed along the classical pattern of Greece and Rome

Life expectancy, and child mortality:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, life expectancy

Average life expectancy before the health transition of the modern era is thought to have varied between about 20 years and 35 years

They list the life expectancy in Medieval Britain at 33 years.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, infant mortality

World infant mortality rate declined from 198 in 1960 to 83 in 2001.

That's per 1000 live births. And the infant mortality rate has been falling since far before 1960. So your statistic (unsourced, by the way) of a billion abortions for 6 billion people = 1/7 of the population (6 billion living + 1 billion abortions). Which is approximately 14%. Compared to 20% of infants born dying in the 1960s. AND that's just deaths in the first year (couldn't find first 5 years statistics).

Pornography:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, pornography

Pornography is as old as civilization but the concept of pornography as understood today did not exist until the Victorian era. Previous to that time, though some sex acts were regulated or stipulated in laws, looking at objects or images depicting them was not. In some cases, certain books, engravings or image collections were outlawed, but the trend to compose laws that restricted viewing of sexually explicit things in general was a Victorian construct.

And all that's from a series of 15 second Wikipedia searches. You'll find more if you look.