On balance, has the Catholic Church been a good thing?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Western culture as we know it wouldn't exist were it not for the Catholic Church, crimes and all, so yes. I like existing.TheokhothIt would be different, certainly. Better, though? I'm not so sure. Western culture was also changed irrevocably by the slave trade; by imperalism; by the Nazis. That something has had a transformative effect on Western culture is, therefore, not an argument for its goodness.
Lol. You can't be serious.
The Church has done so many good things it's unconscionable to even think someone believes it's evil. :lol:
Wow.
Snipes_2
Historically its neither a force of good or evil, its just a organization like any monarchy or government out there.. To some how suggest they are good is as ludicrious is claiming they are evil.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Lol. You can't be serious.
The Church has done so many good things it's unconscionable to even think someone believes it's evil. :lol:
Wow.
sSubZerOo
Historically its neither a force of good or evil, its just a organization like any monarchy or government out there.. To some how suggest they are good is as ludicrious is claiming they are evil.
Yay casuistry![QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Western culture as we know it wouldn't exist were it not for the Catholic Church, crimes and all, so yes. I like existing.sigh-_-It would be different, certainly. Better, though? I'm not so sure. Western culture was also changed irrevocably by the slave trade; by imperalism; by the Nazis. That something has had a transformative effect on Western culture is, therefore, not an argument for its goodness. True, however, as neither the slave trade nor Nazisim ever contributed any good whereas the Catholic church contributed significant good (sometimes in direct opposition to Nazism and the slave trade), and since the Catholic Church as a whole does not hold the power or the will to commit such crimes as others leading the organization has in past centuries, I think the Catholic church has, in its general unity of global communities under a single banner, contributed more good to humanity than evil, significant though its evil contributions may be. The Catholic Church as an organization should not be judged, I think, by actions committed by its leadership hundreds of years ago, as the Catholic Church has had various impacts on culture as it's had various leaders. Pope John Paul II, for instance, was a champion of human rights and religious unity; whereas Pope Paul IV (the Pope behind the Inquisitions) was, well, not. Should another man with the beliefs of Pope Paul IV become pope (very highly unlikely, but just in case), the Church no longer has the power or influence to orchestrate another Inquisition, at least not one that would be remotely successful in any part of the European or American war. The Church's leadership has also apologized for the actions of the organization (such as the trial of Galileo and the Inquisitions), which is really all it can do in this day and age, as time can't be rewound.
[QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Western culture as we know it wouldn't exist were it not for the Catholic Church, crimes and all, so yes. I like existing.TheokhothIt would be different, certainly. Better, though? I'm not so sure. Western culture was also changed irrevocably by the slave trade; by imperalism; by the Nazis. That something has had a transformative effect on Western culture is, therefore, not an argument for its goodness. True, however, as neither the slave trade nor Nazisim ever contributed any good whereas the Catholic church contributed significant good (sometimes in direct opposition to Nazism and the slave trade), and since the Catholic Church as a whole does not hold the power or the will to commit such crimes as others leading the organization has in past centuries, I think the Catholic church has, in its general unity of global communities under a single banner, contributed more good to humanity than evil, significant though its evil contributions may be. The Catholic Church as an organization should not be judged, I think, by actions committed by its leadership hundreds of years ago, as the Catholic Church has had various impacts on culture as it's had various leaders. Pope John Paul II, for instance, was a champion of human rights and religious unity; whereas Pope Paul IV (the Pope behind the Inquisitions) was, well, not. Should another man with the beliefs of Pope Paul IV become pope (very highly unlikely, but just in case), the Church no longer has the power or influence to orchestrate another Inquisition, at least not one that would be remotely successful in any part of the European or American war. The Church's leadership has also apologized for the actions of the organization (such as the trial of Galileo and the Inquisitions), which is really all it can do in this day and age, as time can't be rewound.
Thats a tall order.. How bout the fact that the Catholic church/faith contributed to the genocide of the native population within the new world? Through both Port and Spanish forces.. Its absurd to some how claim they are good or bad, you can't put a price on that its a mix bag..
[QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Western culture as we know it wouldn't exist were it not for the Catholic Church, crimes and all, so yes. I like existing.TheokhothIt would be different, certainly. Better, though? I'm not so sure. Western culture was also changed irrevocably by the slave trade; by imperalism; by the Nazis. That something has had a transformative effect on Western culture is, therefore, not an argument for its goodness. True, however, as neither the slave trade nor Nazisim ever contributed any good whereas the Catholic church contributed significant good (sometimes in direct opposition to Nazism and the slave trade), and since the Catholic Church as a whole does not hold the power or the will to commit such crimes as others leading the organization has in past centuries, I think the Catholic church has, in its general unity of global communities under a single banner, contributed more good to humanity than evil, significant though its evil contributions may be. The Catholic Church as an organization should not be judged, I think, by actions committed by its leadership hundreds of years ago, as the Catholic Church has had various impacts on culture as it's had various leaders. Pope John Paul II, for instance, was a champion of human rights and religious unity; whereas Pope Paul IV (the Pope behind the Inquisitions) was, well, not. Should another man with the beliefs of Pope Paul IV become pope (very highly unlikely, but just in case), the Church no longer has the power or influence to orchestrate another Inquisition, at least not one that would be remotely successful in any part of the European or American war. The Church's leadership has also apologized for the actions of the organization (such as the trial of Galileo and the Inquisitions), which is really all it can do in this day and age, as time can't be rewound.Firstly, I was careful to state 'on balance' and thus while the church has contributed some good, the evil it has contributed must also be taken into account, and secondly, I was equally careful to word the topic's title in the past tense and thus its innumerable crimes from ages gone by must be taken into account too. So while I appreciate what you're saying, I think you're answering a different question to the one I posed.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Oh, you're a Catholic, presumably. Good things such as?Lol. You can't be serious.
The Church has done so many good things it's unconscionable to even think someone believes it's evil. :lol:
Wow.
sigh-_-
Mother Theresa for starters. All the money given to the Poor, Charities, setting a moral code etc..
And here's a link for you to read.
http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/is-the-catholic-church-a-force-for-good-in-the-world/
Good book to read with a summary:
http://www.regnery.com/books/howcatholic.html
Schools for Poor Children to go to. Nursing homes, sending aid to foreign countries in need. Missionaries and all the work they have done.
True, however, as neither the slave trade nor Nazisim ever contributed any good whereas the Catholic church contributed significant good (sometimes in direct opposition to Nazism and the slave trade), and since the Catholic Church as a whole does not hold the power or the will to commit such crimes as others leading the organization has in past centuries, I think the Catholic church has, in its general unity of global communities under a single banner, contributed more good to humanity than evil, significant though its evil contributions may be. The Catholic Church as an organization should not be judged, I think, by actions committed by its leadership hundreds of years ago, as the Catholic Church has had various impacts on culture as it's had various leaders. Pope John Paul II, for instance, was a champion of human rights and religious unity; whereas Pope Paul IV (the Pope behind the Inquisitions) was, well, not. Should another man with the beliefs of Pope Paul IV become pope (very highly unlikely, but just in case), the Church no longer has the power or influence to orchestrate another Inquisition, at least not one that would be remotely successful in any part of the European or American war. The Church's leadership has also apologized for the actions of the organization (such as the trial of Galileo and the Inquisitions), which is really all it can do in this day and age, as time can't be rewound.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="sigh-_-"]It would be different, certainly. Better, though? I'm not so sure. Western culture was also changed irrevocably by the slave trade; by imperalism; by the Nazis. That something has had a transformative effect on Western culture is, therefore, not an argument for its goodness.sSubZerOo
Thats a tall order.. How bout the fact that the Catholic church/faith contributed to the genocide of the native population within the new world? Through both Port and Spanish forces.. Its absurd to some how claim they are good or bad, you can't put a price on that its a mix bag..
Catholicism never did that actually to my knowledge. If you could provide a link where I could read further on this?[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="sigh-_-"]It would be different, certainly. Better, though? I'm not so sure. Western culture was also changed irrevocably by the slave trade; by imperalism; by the Nazis. That something has had a transformative effect on Western culture is, therefore, not an argument for its goodness.sigh-_-True, however, as neither the slave trade nor Nazisim ever contributed any good whereas the Catholic church contributed significant good (sometimes in direct opposition to Nazism and the slave trade), and since the Catholic Church as a whole does not hold the power or the will to commit such crimes as others leading the organization has in past centuries, I think the Catholic church has, in its general unity of global communities under a single banner, contributed more good to humanity than evil, significant though its evil contributions may be. The Catholic Church as an organization should not be judged, I think, by actions committed by its leadership hundreds of years ago, as the Catholic Church has had various impacts on culture as it's had various leaders. Pope John Paul II, for instance, was a champion of human rights and religious unity; whereas Pope Paul IV (the Pope behind the Inquisitions) was, well, not. Should another man with the beliefs of Pope Paul IV become pope (very highly unlikely, but just in case), the Church no longer has the power or influence to orchestrate another Inquisition, at least not one that would be remotely successful in any part of the European or American war. The Church's leadership has also apologized for the actions of the organization (such as the trial of Galileo and the Inquisitions), which is really all it can do in this day and age, as time can't be rewound.Firstly, I was careful to state 'on balance' and thus while the church has contributed some good, the evil it has contributed must also be taken into account, and secondly, I was equally careful to word the topic's title in the past tense and thus its innumerable crimes from ages gone by must be taken into account too. So while I appreciate what you're saying, I think you're answering a different question to the one I posed. I've referred to its past evils. Among its past goods are: The translation of Greek texts, such as that of Plato, into then-modern languages; The creation of countless libraries and universities; The commercial transport of goods and people across Europe, The Americas and west Asia; And others. Yes, the Catholic Church has done bad stuff, but as I said, the contributions of the church have changed as much as its leadership; the Pope before Paul IV (Marcellus II) would have been extremely opposed to the idea of the Inquisitions and even tried to reform the inner workings of the Catholic Church to a more liberal ideal (sadly, he was only Pope for 22 days before his death). There've been good periods and bad periods. The bad periods get more history because they've had a more significant impact on history.
I think the evils of the crusades and authoritarian laws are worse than the total of good things. I fail to see how this discussion can promote anything relevant today though, and is only meant to cause anger and arguments. The Catholic church now is doing more good than bad, in my opinion, and that is all that they should be held accountable for.guynamedbillyThe crusades weren't even started by Christians. They were trying to reclaim what was the "Holy Land" from Muslims who had previously taken it over. It also wasn't sanctioned by the Pope. What Authoritarian laws?
Snipes_2As it happens, watching Hitchens and Fry's crushing victory in that debate was what inspired me to create this topic. Funny, by the way, that you mention Mother Theresa, the twisted, hateful woman who said of suffering 'it is the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ', and who helped to participate in the Catholic church-caused suffering of millions through arguing in favour of its prohibition on birth control. Funny also that you mention 'setting a moral code' when in fact the Church, despite its hypocritical condemnation of 'moral relativism', is quite happy to change its doctrines when they become utterly disgusting as opposed to merely unpleasant, perhaps most notably in its 1964 admission that the Jews weren't collectively responsible for deicide after all.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]sigh-_-As it happens, watching Hitchens and Fry's crushing victory in that debate was what inspired me to create this topic. Funny, by the way, that you mention Mother Theresa, the twisted, hateful woman who said of suffering 'the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ', and who helped to participate in the Catholic church-caused suffering of millions through arguing in favour of its prohibition on birth control. Funny also that you mention 'setting a moral code' when in fact the Church, despite its hypocritical condemnation of 'moral relativism', is quite happy to change its doctrines when they become utterly disgusting as opposed to merely unpleasant, perhaps most notably in its 1964 admission that the Jews weren't collectively responsible for deicide after all. Lol, They had no victory at all. They were obliterated in that argument :? Mother Theresa was not twisted or hateful, do you have any links for these unsubstantiated claims? Preferably a reputable source?
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]I think the evils of the crusades and authoritarian laws are worse than the total of good things. I fail to see how this discussion can promote anything relevant today though, and is only meant to cause anger and arguments. The Catholic church now is doing more good than bad, in my opinion, and that is all that they should be held accountable for.Snipes_2The crusades weren't even started by Christians. They were trying to reclaim what was the "Holy Land" from Muslims who had previously taken it over. It also wasn't sanctioned by the Pope. What Authoritarian laws? :? You deny that Pope Urban II was responsible for launching the First Crusade?
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]sigh-_-As it happens, watching Hitchens and Fry's crushing victory in that debate was what inspired me to create this topic. Funny, by the way, that you mention Mother Theresa, the twisted, hateful woman who said of suffering 'it is the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ', and who helped to participate in the Catholic church-caused suffering of millions through arguing in favour of its prohibition on birth control. Funny also that you mention 'setting a moral code' when in fact the Church, despite its hypocritical condemnation of 'moral relativism', is quite happy to change its doctrines when they become utterly disgusting as opposed to merely unpleasant, perhaps most notably in its 1964 admission that the Jews weren't collectively responsible for deicide after all. If you're talking about collective good over collective evil then I'd hardly call Mother Theresa a "twisted, hateful woman" just because she viewed suffering as a means to get closer to God (she never went out and tortured people, saying "pray more!").
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Oh, you're a Catholic, presumably. Good things such as? I'm protestant. And The Vatican has always been good for the world imo. I assume your an Atheist no?Lol. You can't be serious.
The Church has done so many good things it's unconscionable to even think someone believes it's evil. :lol:
Wow.
sigh-_-
[QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]TheokhothAs it happens, watching Hitchens and Fry's crushing victory in that debate was what inspired me to create this topic. Funny, by the way, that you mention Mother Theresa, the twisted, hateful woman who said of suffering 'it is the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ', and who helped to participate in the Catholic church-caused suffering of millions through arguing in favour of its prohibition on birth control. Funny also that you mention 'setting a moral code' when in fact the Church, despite its hypocritical condemnation of 'moral relativism', is quite happy to change its doctrines when they become utterly disgusting as opposed to merely unpleasant, perhaps most notably in its 1964 admission that the Jews weren't collectively responsible for deicide after all. If you're talking about collective good over collective evil then I'd hardly call Mother Theresa a "twisted, hateful woman" just because she viewed suffering as a means to get closer to God (she never went out and tortured people, saying "pray more!").Pardon me, but I can find no kinder words to describe someone with a positive view of such an obviously bad thing as suffering.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]The crusades weren't even started by Christians. They were trying to reclaim what was the "Holy Land" from Muslims who had previously taken it over. It also wasn't sanctioned by the Pope. wstfld
Wrong.
Yeah, that's pretty far out there, even for Snipes. Urban II started the First Crusade, going as far as to forgive the sins of the Crusaders in advance (pretty much allowing them to do whatever they wanted).as an atheist I say this:
The Catholic Church is one of the most important organizations in the western world and without it the western way of life as we know it wouldn't exist, it preaty much saved the western world on more than one ocassion through history from internal and external problems
who keeps all the writings from the roman empire and greece, translated and studied them? The catholic church
who gave Charles Martel the founding to be able to raise and train his army with which he defeated the muslim invaders at tours? the church
who organized the holy league that united otherwise rival European factions to stand together against ottoman invaders on more than one ocasion? the catholic church
and that is just a small part without going into stuff like the influence over art, architecture, philosophy, education etc etc
without the catholic church you might aswel throw the whole of europe into the trash bin
yes it's also responsible for quite a lot of bad stuff, but on balance I am glad it exist
oh and the Crusades get a bad rep, mostly due to western guilt,, they were a reaction to muslim agression and weren't any more "evil" than any other big military campaigns in that time
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="sigh-_-"]As it happens, watching Hitchens and Fry's crushing victory in that debate was what inspired me to create this topic. Funny, by the way, that you mention Mother Theresa, the twisted, hateful woman who said of suffering 'it is the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ', and who helped to participate in the Catholic church-caused suffering of millions through arguing in favour of its prohibition on birth control. Funny also that you mention 'setting a moral code' when in fact the Church, despite its hypocritical condemnation of 'moral relativism', is quite happy to change its doctrines when they become utterly disgusting as opposed to merely unpleasant, perhaps most notably in its 1964 admission that the Jews weren't collectively responsible for deicide after all.sigh-_-If you're talking about collective good over collective evil then I'd hardly call Mother Theresa a "twisted, hateful woman" just because she viewed suffering as a means to get closer to God (she never went out and tortured people, saying "pray more!").Pardon me, but I can find no kinder words to describe someone with a positive view of such an obviously bad thing as suffering. *Shrug* People who never suffer are people who never grow. She herself suffered a lot in her life.
I like how most people will defend the issue driven by the notion that the church isnt directly responsible for negative things and that its motives behind it that used it that lead to x, y and z bad things, while they dont have the consistency to maintain the same rationale for the good stuff the catholic church did.
Anyway, personally I dont know much about the Catholic church so I cant say.
[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]The crusades weren't even started by Christians. They were trying to reclaim what was the "Holy Land" from Muslims who had previously taken it over. It also wasn't sanctioned by the Pope. Theokhoth
Wrong.
Yeah, that's pretty far out there, even for Snipes. Urban II started the First Crusade, going as far as to forgive the sins of the Crusaders in advance (pretty much allowing them to do whatever they wanted). I try not to follow snipes off on tangent arguments anymore, but its a little ridiculous to claim that.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="sigh-_-"]Firstly, I was careful to state 'on balance' and thus while the church has contributed some good, the evil it has contributed must also be taken into account, and secondly, I was equally careful to word the topic's title in the past tense and thus its innumerable crimes from ages gone by must be taken into account too. So while I appreciate what you're saying, I think you're answering a different question to the one I posed.sigh-_-I've referred to its past evils. Among its past goods are: The translation of Greek texts, such as that of Plato, into then-modern languages; The creation of countless libraries and universities; The commercial transport of goods and people across Europe, The Americas and west Asia; And others. Yes, the Catholic Church has done bad stuff, but as I said, the contributions of the church have changed as much as its leadership; the Pope before Paul IV (Marcellus II) would have been extremely opposed to the idea of the Inquisitions and even tried to reform the inner workings of the Catholic Church to a more liberal ideal (sadly, he was only Pope for 22 days before his death). There've been good periods and bad periods. The bad periods get more history because they've had a more significant impact on history.I have to say, bringing up the Catholic Church's contributions to literature probably isn't a good idea given their nasty habit of banning people from reading the Bible in their native language. The Church systematically restricted literature to an elite as a way of enforcing their theology through depriving laypeople of any means of challenging it.And it mostly helped to save only the texts that helped in the defense of its doctrines, generally.
So it wasnt a purely benevolent act of conserving precious literature.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="sigh-_-"]Firstly, I was careful to state 'on balance' and thus while the church has contributed some good, the evil it has contributed must also be taken into account, and secondly, I was equally careful to word the topic's title in the past tense and thus its innumerable crimes from ages gone by must be taken into account too. So while I appreciate what you're saying, I think you're answering a different question to the one I posed.sigh-_-I've referred to its past evils. Among its past goods are: The translation of Greek texts, such as that of Plato, into then-modern languages; The creation of countless libraries and universities; The commercial transport of goods and people across Europe, The Americas and west Asia; And others. Yes, the Catholic Church has done bad stuff, but as I said, the contributions of the church have changed as much as its leadership; the Pope before Paul IV (Marcellus II) would have been extremely opposed to the idea of the Inquisitions and even tried to reform the inner workings of the Catholic Church to a more liberal ideal (sadly, he was only Pope for 22 days before his death). There've been good periods and bad periods. The bad periods get more history because they've had a more significant impact on history.I have to say, bringing up the Catholic Church's contributions to literature probably isn't a good idea given their nasty habit of banning people from reading the Bible in their native language. The Church systematically restricted literature to an elite as a way of enforcing their theology through depriving laypeople of any means of challenging it. You're right, and it was this very issue that led to the founding of the Anglican Church, the denomination of which I'm part; however, their contribution to the realm of literature was, even with these setbacks, unparalleled until the printing press was invented. Had they not done this, we very well may not have had ANY access to much of the Greek philosophy that has shaped the entire world.
As a whole, considering its entire history, NO. The catholic church killed many people in wars like the crusades, actively fought the advancement of science (who doesn't know about the Galileu Galilei issue?, also, the dark ages), and prosecuted many people on completely arbitrary reasons like when accusing people of being "witches" and reading "unapproved" books. Back in the day, the Catholic Church was a MONSTER and more akin to a Satanic cult than anything else.
Nowadays, fortunately, it has changed *considerably*, and even though I may or may not believe in the same things, I recognize the Catholic Church has done a lot of good things lately, mainly in the form of charities.
But it's still not perfect by any means. With all the pedophilia running around, the pope protecting said pedophiles, etc etc.
Stephen Fry explained quite well what's wrong with the Catholic Church nowadays: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEhtOhwL8xk
No, any anti-reason organization is evil and destructive. Evil as a means, cannot lead to a good end.
Pic related, The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.
I have to say, bringing up the Catholic Church's contributions to literature probably isn't a good idea given their nasty habit of banning people from reading the Bible in their native language. The Church systematically restricted literature to an elite as a way of enforcing their theology through depriving laypeople of any means of challenging it. You're right, and it was this very issue that led to the founding of the Anglican Church, the denomination of which I'm part; however, their contribution to the realm of literature was, even with these setbacks, unparalleled until the printing press was invented. Had they not done this, we very well may not have had ANY access to much of the Greek philosophy that has shaped the entire world.I doubt that; who's to say that they wouldn't have been translated and preserved through some other means? Plus, the church's campaigns of book-burning against heretics in attempts to totally wipe dissenting beliefs from history surely negates any benefits it may have made to literature.[QUOTE="sigh-_-"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] I've referred to its past evils. Among its past goods are: The translation of Greek texts, such as that of Plato, into then-modern languages; The creation of countless libraries and universities; The commercial transport of goods and people across Europe, The Americas and west Asia; And others. Yes, the Catholic Church has done bad stuff, but as I said, the contributions of the church have changed as much as its leadership; the Pope before Paul IV (Marcellus II) would have been extremely opposed to the idea of the Inquisitions and even tried to reform the inner workings of the Catholic Church to a more liberal ideal (sadly, he was only Pope for 22 days before his death). There've been good periods and bad periods. The bad periods get more history because they've had a more significant impact on history.Theokhoth
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Western culture as we know it wouldn't exist were it not for the Catholic Church, crimes and all, so yes. I like existing.sigh-_-It would be different, certainly. Better, though? I'm not so sure. Western culture was also changed irrevocably by the slave trade; by imperalism; by the Nazis. That something has had a transformative effect on Western culture is, therefore, not an argument for its goodness. Imperialism is a bad thing sure, but it DID contribute to the rise of Europe.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="wstfld"] [QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]The crusades weren't even started by Christians. They were trying to reclaim what was the "Holy Land" from Muslims who had previously taken it over. It also wasn't sanctioned by the Pope. wstfld
Wrong.
Yeah, that's pretty far out there, even for Snipes. Urban II started the First Crusade, going as far as to forgive the sins of the Crusaders in advance (pretty much allowing them to do whatever they wanted). I provided links with quotes in a Separate Thread. What happened in response to his speech, was not his intent.http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0018.html
[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]I think the evils of the crusades and authoritarian laws are worse than the total of good things. I fail to see how this discussion can promote anything relevant today though, and is only meant to cause anger and arguments. The Catholic church now is doing more good than bad, in my opinion, and that is all that they should be held accountable for.Snipes_2The crusades weren't even started by Christians. They were trying to reclaim what was the "Holy Land" from Muslims who had previously taken it over. It also wasn't sanctioned by the Pope. What Authoritarian laws?
I don't even know where you got that idea about the crusades so I can't reply to that.
As for laws, surely you've heard of the execution of Joan of Arc. This was because of the church's influence on laws regarding heresy. Included in this were the Medievel and Spanish Inquisitions.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]You're right, and it was this very issue that led to the founding of the Anglican Church, the denomination of which I'm part; however, their contribution to the realm of literature was, even with these setbacks, unparalleled until the printing press was invented. Had they not done this, we very well may not have had ANY access to much of the Greek philosophy that has shaped the entire world.I doubt that; who's to say that they wouldn't have been translated and preserved through some other means? Plus, the church's campaigns of book-burning against heretics in attempts to totally wipe dissenting beliefs from history surely negates any benefits it may have made to literature. I think it was Voltaire who said that Christianity is a religion created by Jesus and Plato; that is, the reason why these works were translated and reproduced was because they heavily influenced Christian theology (Plato's theory on the natures of love, Aristotle's virtue ethics, etc.), and as such they were considered "acceptable" and were widespread. The church also made many book-burnings, but I'm unaware of any beliefs that were actually wiped out and, in many cases (such as the Protestant Revolution), some beliefs viewed this as a sign of encouragement to continue their beliefs underground, which enhanced their popularity with an ever-growing dissatisfied status quo. This topic's fun, but I gotta go to school at 6:30 AM tomorrow, so. . .goodnight. :P[QUOTE="sigh-_-"]I have to say, bringing up the Catholic Church's contributions to literature probably isn't a good idea given their nasty habit of banning people from reading the Bible in their native language. The Church systematically restricted literature to an elite as a way of enforcing their theology through depriving laypeople of any means of challenging it.sigh-_-
The crusades weren't even started by Christians. They were trying to reclaim what was the "Holy Land" from Muslims who had previously taken it over. It also wasn't sanctioned by the Pope. What Authoritarian laws?[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]I think the evils of the crusades and authoritarian laws are worse than the total of good things. I fail to see how this discussion can promote anything relevant today though, and is only meant to cause anger and arguments. The Catholic church now is doing more good than bad, in my opinion, and that is all that they should be held accountable for.guynamedbilly
I don't even know where you got that idea about the crusades so I can't reply to that.
As for laws, surely you've heard of the execution of Joan of Arc. This was because of the church's influence on laws regarding heresy. Included in this were the Medievel and Spanish Inquisitions.
Indeed; however, Joan of Arc herself was Catholic and based her actions upon visions of St. Michael, so had the Catholic Church not existed, Joan of Arc (who is now canonized as a saint) would not have freed the French, as she would never have had any Catholic-based visions or hallucinations or whatever it was that inspired her at the age of nineteen.Now I'm really going to bed; St. Joan's just one of my favorite historical figures. :P
The crusades weren't even started by Christians. They were trying to reclaim what was the "Holy Land" from Muslims who had previously taken it over. It also wasn't sanctioned by the Pope. Snipes_2
Wrong.
Yeah, that's pretty far out there, even for Snipes. Urban II started the First Crusade, going as far as to forgive the sins of the Crusaders in advance (pretty much allowing them to do whatever they wanted). He is right about the fact that the Muslim conquests of the preceeding centuries played a large role in prompting the Crusades, however; at least the first one.The crusades weren't even started by Christians. They were trying to reclaim what was the "Holy Land" from Muslims who had previously taken it over. It also wasn't sanctioned by the Pope. What Authoritarian laws?[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]I think the evils of the crusades and authoritarian laws are worse than the total of good things. I fail to see how this discussion can promote anything relevant today though, and is only meant to cause anger and arguments. The Catholic church now is doing more good than bad, in my opinion, and that is all that they should be held accountable for.guynamedbilly
I don't even know where you got that idea about the crusades so I can't reply to that.
As for laws, surely you've heard of the execution of Joan of Arc. This was because of the church's influence on laws regarding heresy. Included in this were the Medievel and Spanish Inquisitions.
Read the link I provided on the First crusade. I also posted a Link on this: "Before the 12th century, the Roman Catholic Church already suppressed what it saw as heresy, usually through a system of ecclesiastical proscription or imprisonment, but usually without using torture[2] and seldom resorting to executions.[3] Such punishments had many ecclesiastical opponents, although some non-secular countries[which?] punished heresy with the death penalty.[4][5]""Because of its objective - combating heresy - the Inquisition had jurisdiction only over baptized members of the Church"Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment