Christanity and the Middle ages

[jerome1232]

In this thread http://lds.net/forums/topic/55461-if-you-were-not-lds-what-religion-would-you-be/?p=793946 Traveller alleges that Christianity ushered in the dark ages and the genocide of Americans (as in people who natively lived on this continent, not as in United States of America Nationals) on the North and South American continents.

I certainly don't belong to that school of thought. While I'm no historian, I generally understand the collapse of the Roman empire (which wasn't caused by it's conversion to Christianity) caused the regressive period in Europe known as the dark ages, and that priests and monks tended to be the only class of people making attempts at furthering science and keeping histories during this time period in the region.

As far as the American continent goes, disease is what caused a rampant decline in population, I am aware there was rampant religious persecution but it's not what wiped out up to 90% of the native population.

Maybe some history buffs can chime in .

[PolarVortex]

If history buffs chime in, I hope they are good history buffs who understand the folly of reducing whole eras in human history to a few simple causes and effects. 

[Jane_Doe]

Oh my… this is going to be a long answer.

 

Native American genocide: Europeans did decimate Native American populations, but it had nothing to do with Christianity or even the Europeans themselves.  Rather, it was the nasty passenger of European populations: small pox.  With no immune resistance to disease, 90% of Native Americans died within 100 years of European arrival (disclaimer: numbers are from memory, I’m too lazy to confirm right now).  Nothing to do with Christianity.   

 

Destruction of Native American culture: somewhat had to do with Christianity.  Europeans sent missionaries over to Christianize the natives.  Frequently this meant erasing the pre-existing religions and culture, sometimes violently.   Europeans also very frequently destroyed Native American cultures and civilizations simply due to greed (want land, resources, etc). 

 

How Christianity/Catholic-church made the Dark Ages not so bad: the Dark Ages were caused due to fall of Rome and the resulting power/civilization vacuum.  The fall of Rome was not due to Christianity, but rather Rome’s incredible corruption.  The church preserved the remints of civilization by teaching people how to read, basic moral values, and some sense of order.  They also took some of the only records from the time and preserved relics of civilization (like the Bible).

 

How Christianity/Catholic-church contributed to the Dark Ages: after several hundred years of the Dark Ages, the Catholic church had become very powerful, power which also sowed corruption.  Once the Renaissance started to brew, the church feared these radical new ideas because it A) threatened the traditions the church had spent centuries preserving and B ) it threatened their political power.  So the Catholic Church did fight the development of these ideas (like slamming Galileo).

Edited October 18, 2014 by Jane_Doe

[Guest]

Traveler falls in the same mindset as people who establish dictatorships... they use/abuse/blame religion for everything.  Because... it is very easy to do.

 

Guns (and religion) don't kill people.  People (and disease) kill people.

[mrmarklin]

There is a very good book on the subject: 1493.

[Jamie123]

Edward Gibbon certainly blamed Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire, but I don't think this was ever more than "his opinion". Whatever religion it practiced, the Empire was under pressure from nations arriving from Eastern Asia in Europe, who were themselves being driven by peoples such as the Huns and the Mongals. By the 5th Century the Western Roman Empire had lost control of the British Isles and the Hispanic peninsula, and maintained a nominal soverignty over Gaul by cooperating with chieftains of the Germanic tribes who had settled there. In 451 the Roman general Aetius defeated Atill the Hun, but most of his army was not Roman but Visigothic. Eventually the tribes Rome relied upon became so powerful they pretty much controlled the Empreror and and in the end abolished him altogether. The Eastern Roman Empute - fully Christianized and centred on Byzantium flourished beyond the Middle Ages.

 

(Sorry Jerome - I rushed this off yesterday, but I realize now I misread your original post - you said it "wasn't" caused by its conversion to Christianity.)

Edited October 21, 2014 by Jamie123

[Blackmarch]

In this thread http://lds.net/forums/topic/55461-if-you-were-not-lds-what-religion-would-you-be/?p=793946 Traveller alleges that Christianity ushered in the dark ages and the genocide of Americans (as in people who natively lived on this continent, not as in United States of America Nationals) on the North and South American continents.

I certainly don't belong to that school of thought. While I'm no historian, I generally understand the collapse of the Roman empire (which wasn't caused by it's conversion to Christianity) caused the regressive period in Europe known as the dark ages, and that priests and monks tended to be the only class of people making attempts at furthering science and keeping histories during this time period in the region.

As far as the American continent goes, disease is what caused a rampant decline in population, I am aware there was rampant religious persecution but it's not what wiped out up to 90% of the native population.

Maybe some history buffs can chime in .

every collapse is due to a multitude of variables, however greed, pride, and disregard for human life is up there in each one. as for the european part of history as christianity became a leading force, it would in turn go hand in hand with major events and the developement of history.

Did christianity have a hand in ushering in the dark ages? I would agree. Did it have a hand in any of the genocides that occurred during imperial expansion? quite likely (and probably a significant one in both cases). is it soley responsible for it? thats hard to say.

[Traveler]

I will ask a very simple question - When was the first law passed (actually recorded historically) by a "Christian" controlled society, that directly ended by law, the confiscation of personal property and the threat of death for the single reason of not believing in the Trinity - for groups or individuals?

 

Some argue that such laws did not exist among early Traditional Christians because of the culture and the times.  - This is without realizing that many pagan religions and cultures of the same time periods and earlier times did, by law, protect minority religious rights.  So why didn't the early Traditional Christians in power respect minority religions especially in light of their persecutions by some societies when they were the minority?

[Urstadt]

I will ask a very simple question - When was the first law passed (actually recorded historically) by a "Christian" controlled society, that directly ended by law, the confiscation of personal property and the threat of death for the single reason of not believing in the Trinity - for groups or individuals?

Some argue that such laws did not exist among early Traditional Christians because of the culture and the times. - This is without realizing that many pagan religions and cultures of the same time periods and earlier times did, by law, protect minority religious rights. So why didn't the early Traditional Christians in power respect minority religions especially in light of their persecutions by some societies when they were the minority?

Traveler, I know you're making a point here. And you always make good points. I enjoy reading your posts. I am having trouble understanding what you're trying to say here, though. Forgive me. I don't think it's you. I just think it's not clicking with me for some reason.

I think you are trying to ask, in the first paragraph, when a law was passed, effectively ending a prior law, to prohibit the state from confiscating property from, or putting to death, those who did not believe in the Trinity. Or in other words, when was it made illegal to kill those who didn't believe in the Trinity? Is this the correct understanding?

In the second paragraph, I believe you are asking why early Christian Traditions protected minority religions even though they themselves were persecuted at one point. Again, is this the correct understanding?

And, if so, please help me understand the connection you're trying to make between both points, and the OP.

Please, bear with me, I know you're making a good point. I am seeking clarification because I don't want to miss it. Thank you.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Urstadt

[Traveler]

Traveler, I know you're making a point here. And you always make good points. I enjoy reading your posts. I am having trouble understanding what you're trying to say here, though. Forgive me. I don't think it's you. I just think it's not clicking with me for some reason.

I think you are trying to ask, in the first paragraph, when a law was passed, effectively ending a prior law, to prohibit the state from confiscating property from, or putting to death, those who did not believe in the Trinity. Or in other words, when was it made illegal to kill those who didn't believe in the Trinity? Is this the correct understanding?

In the second paragraph, I believe you are asking why early Christian Traditions protected minority religions even though they themselves were persecuted at one point. Again, is this the correct understanding?

And, if so, please help me understand the connection you're trying to make between both points, and the OP.

Please, bear with me, I know you're making a good point. I am seeking clarification because I don't want to miss it. Thank you.

 

 

My point is that when early Christianity transitioned from being punishing for their religious thinking by those in positions of power; that they followed the same spirit of apostasy and abuse of power by punishing by law religious thinking with which they did not agree. 

 

The point I am making is that the destructive forces towards divine enlightenment and revelation (also including technological advances) that were so prevalent during the "Dark Ages" were only because the institutions of Traditional Christianity were bringing such "darkness" about in their apostate state.

 

I am also making the point that as Traditional Christianity began to lose power and control in dictating law that then and only then was religious freedom allowed to become a protected right by the force of law. 

 

I asked the question to help guide those who are interested in determining truth by historical empirical evidence and then I made a preemptive statement intended to dismantle arguments based only in bias by those that - have eyes to see but will not see.

[jerome1232]

My point is that when early Christianity transitioned from being punishing for their religious thinking by those in positions of power; that they followed the same spirit of apostasy and abuse of power by punishing by law religious thinking with which they did not agree.

Me not being knowledge enough about history, is it possible that theocracy is to blame and not the specific religion which held theocracy in this case? From my little knowledge I can see more of a pattern there than I can see in just Christianity specifically.

[Traveler]

Me not being knowledge enough about history, is it possible that theocracy is to blame and not the specific religion which held theocracy in this case? From my little knowledge I can see more of a pattern there than I can see in just Christianity specifically.

 

Not really - in essence pre WWII Japan was a theocracy that was very open to other religions with the exception of Christianity because of the first Christians that come to Japan caused a lot of political problems because the emperor of Japan was considered a deity.  As a result the Christian religion is looked down on as trouble makers to this day even though the emperor is no longer considered a deity.