Christian Forums

Again, RND I'm not justifying anyone's bad behavior, only asking you to be a little more objective and fair. I'm trying to get you to see why the medieval Church acted as it did. That, and to see that its positive contributions to medieval society and future Western society outweigh its negative contributions. Would you like it if someone else characterized you only by your negative qualities?

What I'm saying is that you can pick any period in history and make it look like an abysmal, horrid time if you only look for negatives. How will future historians remember the twentieth century? As the century of two world wars, a dozen smaller ones, the rise and spread of Communism, AIDS, endemic poverty, crime, abortion and racial predjudice? Or will they view it as the century of the automobile, the computer, global communications, the landing on the moon and space exploration, the cures to malaria, polio and other diseases, the fall of Communism in Russia and Eastern Europe, the end of segregation and apartheid, the century of Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, Fred Rogers, CS Lewis, Ghandi, Billy Graham and Martin Luther King, Jr.?

I don't think the medieval world was any more or less "dark" than the 20th century. But I object to the term "dark ages" because no serious medival scholar has used it in 75 years to describe the whole medieval period; it is used to describe the early medieval period, from 475 to roughly 1000, but not because scholars believe the period was any more horrid than any other period in history. Compare medieval Europe to the early years of the 20th century in Europe and medieval Europe doesn't look so bad. Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler-all atheists (Hitler played at being religious but it was all a sham). For that matter the 18th century French Revolution was supposedly based upon reason and enlightenment philosophy rather than religion, esp. Catholicism, and look what horrors it achieved. Was Napoleon a good Catholic? Was Idi Amin a good Catholic? Fidel Castro? Is Kim Jung Il? Mohammed? Saddam Hussein? Osama bin Laden? Yassar Arafat? Was Jim Jones a Catholic? Mao Tse Tung? Che Guevarra? Joseph Smith? David Khoresh? Rev. Sung Yung Moon? The Heaven's Gate cultists? Anton LaVey? Nero? Domition? Diocletion? Alexander the Great? Nebuchednnezer?

Protestants did some very heinous things, too. There's more than enough guilt to go around.

The Inquisition of 1250 is not the Inquisition of 2007. I haven't heard of any auto-da-fes being conducted yet.

Pax.

According to some on the "left" it is the christians that are the evil force ruining our country.  I guess that makes it a fact since the way tomorrows historians might chronicle our century and the fall of the United States?  I see reports of beheadings on TV and not one of them was done by the pope.

Quote from: Lee Freeman on Thu Jun 28, 2007 - 12:21:29Again, RND I'm not justifying anyone's bad behavior, only asking you to be a little more objective and fair.

So if I posted things that seemingly were a little less harsh on the realities of the periods history would you consider that more objective and fair?

Look, saying that Romans tortured and brutally persecuted the early Christians by making sport of them doesn't diminish may awe at their engineering skill. To suggest that one precludes another by bringing up the realities of actual history is silly.

QuoteI'm trying to get you to see why the medieval Church acted as it did.

Lee, I understand why they acted as they did and there is no justification for it.

QuoteThat, and to see that its positive contributions to medieval society and future Western society outweigh its negative contributions.

Do you think God opperates on such a principal Lee? That no matter how much bad we've done, as long as the good outweights the bad then we are free to do bad things? Or, no matter how much bad we've done, as long as the good outweights the bad then we are accepted into the family for eternity?

Odd, that seems so 'works' based.

QuoteWhat I'm saying is that you can pick any period in history and make it look like an abysmal, horrid time if you only look for negatives. How will future historians remember the twentieth century?

The bloodiest in history, but at least we laughed through it all thanks to "I love Lucy" reruns.

QuoteAs the century of two world wars, a dozen smaller ones, the rise and spread of Communism, AIDS, endemic poverty, crime, abortion and racial predjudice? Or will they view it as the century of the automobile, the computer, global communications, the landing on the moon and space exploration, the cures to malaria, polio and other diseases, the fall of Communism in Russia and Eastern Europe, the end of segregation and apartheid, the century of Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, Fred Rogers, CS Lewis, Ghandi, Billy Graham and Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Are you justifying the bad for the good Lee?

QuoteI don't think the medieval world was any more or less "dark" than the 20th century. But I object to the term "dark ages" because no serious medival scholar has used it in 75 years to describe the whole medieval period;

Lee, there are books that are over 150 years old that use the term "Dark Ages."

Quoteit is used to describe the early medieval period, from 475 to roughly 1000, but not because scholars believe the period was any more horrid than any other period in history.

Dark Lee, as in "no light."

Psalm 119:105
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a lightunto my path.

QuoteCompare medieval Europe to the early years of the 20th century in Europe and medieval Europe doesn't look so bad. Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler-all atheists (Hitler played at being religious but it was all a sham).

Hitler was a Catholic, which I'm certain led to his 'atheistic' behavior. Mussolini was also Catholic. Lenin, and Stalin were both confirmed "Freemasons."

QuoteFor that matter the 18th century French Revolution was supposedly based upon reason and enlightenment philosophy rather than religion, esp. Catholicism, and look what horrors it achieved. Was Napoleon a good Catholic? Was Idi Amin a good Catholic? Fidel Castro? Is Kim Jung Il? Mohammed? Saddam Hussein? Osama bin Laden? Yassar Arafat? Was Jim Jones a Catholic? Mao Tse Tung? Che Guevarra? Joseph Smith? David Khoresh? Rev. Sung Yung Moon? The Heaven's Gate cultists? Anton LaVey? Nero? Domition? Diocletion? Alexander the Great? Nebuchednnezer?

Oh, are you justifying the historical persecution of the Romanist's by listing "non-catholic" persecutions Lee? Does this obvious fact excuse Rome's behavior?

QuoteProtestants did some very heinous things, too. There's more than enough guilt to go around.

I never suggested there wasn't did I?

QuoteThe Inquisition of 1250 is not the Inquisition of 2007. I haven't heard of any auto-da-fes being conducted yet.

Uh, well the Bible says that tribulation and persecutions will come to those who beleve in Christ. Now I realize that many think this as already happened, but I'm wondering what the 850,000 dead Rwandan Christian Tutsis thought as they were being hacked to death by supposedly "christian" Hutus?

Do you have any ideas Lee?

Remembering Rwanda

True. That was horrible.  Haven't done enough homework, how would the hutus and tutsis be classified?

I'm arguing from a historian's vantage point that the Catholic Church is no worse and actually a lot better than many other historical groups or individuals I could, and did, name. I'm also arguing that the modern Catholic Church and the medieval Catholic Church
are different entities. You don't seem to see that difference. You can't hold Benedict XVI responsible for the actions of his predecessors, esp. since he wasn't there. Most conscientious Catholics I know are embarassed by the dark periods of their Churchs past.

The fact that there are books over 150 years old that use the term "dark ages" makes my point for me. Modern historians 75 years ago abandoned the term "dark ages" for the period of 475-1500 because they now know that the Middle Ages were anything but dark. Those old books that refer to the Middle Ages as the "dark ages" are outdated. If you want to use the term "Dark Ages" for the early medieval period, that is acceptible.

During the Dark Ages the Catholic Church was the primary light of Western Europe. Bede wrote his Ecclesiastical History, the monks in their scriptoria copied countless works of classical antiquity, the pagan trbes of the Germanies and the British Isles were peacefully converted and Charlemagnes's 8th century Renaissance flowered. I could go on, but these are enough. None of these things could have occurred without the Catholic Church.

As for Hitler being a Catholic, he despised the Catholic Church and murdered hundreds if not thousands, of Catholic clergy. The Lutheran Church (save for those courageous Confessing Churches led by Dietcrich Bonhoeffer who went underground)  rolled over and accomodated Hitler's Germanization of it into the Nazi State Church while the Catholic Church resisted. Hitler knew his biggest opponent was the Vatican.

The Nazis created a Germanicized state church only lossely based upon the historic Lutheran Church. Hitler himself believed in some kind of impersonal "providence" which kept him alive, but was, for all practical purposes, an atheist. But when it suited his political ambitions he pretended to be religious.

Richard Steigmann-Gall's written an excellent book entitled Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. Steigmann-Gall argues that what Hitler was actually trying to do was to Arianize Christianity. That meant getting rid of the Jewish origins of Christianity and re-casting it in a Germanic mold, while still keeping much that was/is familiar. Hitler was definitely no fan of traditional Catholicism or traditional Lutheranism. He wanted to coopt the church and make it Arian, while still keeping enough that people were familiar with. Erwin Lutzer also writes about this in his book Hitler's Church. Lutzer has photos of the inside of Nazi churches, in which the crucifixes and sacred images have been replaced with Nazi iconography, and Swastikas are draped over the altars as altar cloths.

I've never read that Lenin and Stalin were Freemasons. I can't even imagine a secret fratenal society which acknowledges a creator as Freemasonry does even being allowed to exist in Communist Russia. Have you got a reliable source for this statement?

Mussolini may have been Catholic, but he wasn't an orthodox Catholic, viewing the Vatican as his enemy just as his ally Hitler did. If memory seves, Il Dulce had some Catholic clergy murdered himself.

As for the Rwandan persecutions, are the Hutus and Tutsis Roman Catholic agents? I didn't think so. Show me one country in which the Catholic Church is currently persecuting anybody. What I can show you is Catholics in these third-world countries being persecuted.

So again, what documentation do you have for these assertions?


Pax.

Hitler was a Catholic, which I'm certain led to his 'atheistic' behavior. Mussolini was also Catholic. Lenin, and Stalin were both confirmed "Freemasons."

Hi RND.....I'm a little new to this board, but I've been reading thru some discussions between you and Lee I really would like to know where you get your statement regarding Lenin and Stalin being "Freemasons"....? Freemasonry was outlawed during Soviet times. In addition, the very philosophy at the heart of Freemasonry is diametrically opposed to anything that constricts liberty and especially totalitarinism.

Not only was Freemasonry outlawed in the Soviet Union, it was also outlawed in NAZI Germany. Numbers vary, but Freemasons in Germany were also put in concentration camps...the numbers range from 80,000 to 200,00. It had become well known by this point in history to people like Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, that Freemasonry had often found itself at the forefront of revolutions that involved throwing off the shackles of oprresive monarchies, governments, etc.

Hi, Daniel. RND was banned a couple of weeks ago. I, too wanted a source for that because like you, I know that Freemasonry was outlawed in the Soviet Union. RND is a typical Seventh-Day Adventist who tend to be virulently anti-Catholic. But RND also quoted SDA literature which quotes Alexander Campbell (and other famous historic clergy) out of context to make him seem like a sabbatarian. When I called him on it and posted material by Campbell in context that proved he was not a sabbatarian RND at first tried to argue that Campbell's misquoted, out-of-context statement spoke for itself, then began back-peddling, saying that that sites literature wasn't officially sanctioned by the  SDA Church and that Campbell probably wasn't a sabbatarian.

You should read through some of the other threads and give us your thoughts.

Pax.

Lee,
I just wanted to say that as a Catholic, I was very impressed with your article.  It was objective and well researched.

As a history major and teacher, I learned from a professor that no one should judge history through our own values and the current cultural norms of today.  When we start applying current values and norms to historical events, the events of those periods can not be fairly or accurately studied or understood.

Job well done.