|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 21, 2011 2:31:48 GMT -5
Which is why there was no charity, hospitals, scientific research, or anything else altruistic done by the church whatsoever in the middle ages. To my knowledge, that sort of thing was done for the sake of PR rather then altruistic reasons. Same again.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Feb 21, 2011 2:39:32 GMT -5
I'm not sure what Lt Fred's point is, (I rarely am), but my own point, was all the mediaeval religious wars were wars of annexation, not independence. There were, of course, myriad secular wars of independence in the period, including the Scottish and Welsh ones. Well, my point was that you said that the Pope had power. It's inconsistent to now say that the Pope didn't have power. Maybe I was inelegant in phrasing ('head of state' and all) but I think it's correct to say that one reason for the Pope's relentless lobbying to prevent war was that he liked his semi-kingdomy-thing over which he had some control (hence the name Christendom) nice and intact.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 21, 2011 2:45:22 GMT -5
I'm not sure what Lt Fred's point is, (I rarely am), but my own point, was all the mediaeval religious wars were wars of annexation, not independence. There were, of course, myriad secular wars of independence in the period, including the Scottish and Welsh ones. Well, my point was that you said that the Pope had power. It's inconsistent to now say that the Pope didn't have power. Maybe I was inelegant in phrasing ('head of state' and all) but I think it's correct to say that one reason for the Pope's relentless lobbying to prevent war was that he liked his semi-kingdomy-thing over which he had some control (hence the name Christendom) nice and intact. Your phrasing was actually "king of Europe", which is grossly misleading. Yes, the Pope certainly had a degree of power, and a great deal of influence in political matters. However, to try to claim that the Popes, or anyone else for that matter, percieved themselves as some sort of secular head of state with direct political control over the entirety of Christendom is simply wrong, and, I would suggest, indicative of either a modern understanding of the way the world works, or just possibly, a little too much Hollywood/popular culture. It blindly ignores the fact that, while inter-Christian warfare was campaigned against by the church, it was also given limited blessing in exceptional circumstances. For example, William the Bastard waited until the Pope gave permission before he invaded England. If the Pope had the sort of power you seem to think, one would imagine he either wouldn't allow such military action at all, OR, alternatively, that he could have simply ordered Harold to hand over the throne to William.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Feb 21, 2011 6:03:02 GMT -5
To my knowledge, that sort of thing was done for the sake of PR rather then altruistic reasons. Same again. So I'm supposed to take it on faith that the Catholic church were in fact a strictly loving and benevolent organisation with only the welfare of Catholics everwhere in mind, and all actions were because of this and not at all for their own gain?
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Feb 21, 2011 6:07:58 GMT -5
Well, my point was that you said that the Pope had power. It's inconsistent to now say that the Pope didn't have power. Maybe I was inelegant in phrasing ('head of state' and all) but I think it's correct to say that one reason for the Pope's relentless lobbying to prevent war was that he liked his semi-kingdomy-thing over which he had some control (hence the name Christendom) nice and intact. Your phrasing was actually "king of Europe", which is grossly misleading. Yes, the Pope certainly had a degree of power, and a great deal of influence in political matters. However, to try to claim that the Popes, or anyone else for that matter, percieved themselves as some sort of secular head of state with direct political control over the entirety of Christendom is simply wrong, and, I would suggest, indicative of either a modern understanding of the way the world works, or just possibly, a little too much Hollywood/popular culture. It blindly ignores the fact that, while inter-Christian warfare was campaigned against by the church, it was also given limited blessing in exceptional circumstances. For example, William the Bastard waited until the Pope gave permission before he invaded England. If the Pope had the sort of power you seem to think, one would imagine he either wouldn't allow such military action at all, OR, alternatively, that he could have simply ordered Harold to hand over the throne to William. Dude, he's not saying the church had absolute power, just that the church had an interest in keeping all Catholic states from fighting each other, and it's attempt to influece peace between Catholics was a reflection of this and not simply good intentions on the church's part, as you seem to be claiming.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 21, 2011 8:20:54 GMT -5
So I'm supposed to take it on faith that the Catholic church were in fact a strictly loving and benevolent organisation with only the welfare of Catholics everwhere in mind, and all actions were because of this and not at all for their own gain? You understand what a false dichotomy is, right? If you heard a fundie making similar statements about, say, Obama... think you'd respond to them as though they were being reasonable?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 21, 2011 8:22:12 GMT -5
Your phrasing was actually "king of Europe", which is grossly misleading. Yes, the Pope certainly had a degree of power, and a great deal of influence in political matters. However, to try to claim that the Popes, or anyone else for that matter, percieved themselves as some sort of secular head of state with direct political control over the entirety of Christendom is simply wrong, and, I would suggest, indicative of either a modern understanding of the way the world works, or just possibly, a little too much Hollywood/popular culture. It blindly ignores the fact that, while inter-Christian warfare was campaigned against by the church, it was also given limited blessing in exceptional circumstances. For example, William the Bastard waited until the Pope gave permission before he invaded England. If the Pope had the sort of power you seem to think, one would imagine he either wouldn't allow such military action at all, OR, alternatively, that he could have simply ordered Harold to hand over the throne to William. Dude, he's not saying the church had absolute power, just that the church had an interest in keeping all Catholic states from fighting each other, and it's attempt to influece peace between Catholics was a reflection of this and not simply good intentions on the church's part, as you seem to be claiming. Once again, cynical. And, given the forum, one suspects a conclusion onfluenced more by anti church bias than historical scholarship.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Feb 21, 2011 8:28:38 GMT -5
Once again, cynical. And, given the forum, one suspects a conclusion onfluenced more by anti church bias than historical scholarship. To chime in, Europe didn't need any additional reasons to fight, they kept at spats for whatever reasons they could find, forge, or pretend existed. Though when the church did make moves, at least openly, they typically took down who ever they aimed for, which would change based on the Pope. There is some history of the church picking fights, or deciding they wanted a fight finished, but it wasn't all that common from what I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Feb 21, 2011 8:29:51 GMT -5
So I'm supposed to take it on faith that the Catholic church were in fact a strictly loving and benevolent organisation with only the welfare of Catholics everwhere in mind, and all actions were because of this and not at all for their own gain? You understand what a false dichotomy is, right? If you heard a fundie making similar statements about, say, Obama... think you'd respond to them as though they were being reasonable? If someone told me that when Obama gives his usual speeches about loving the American people so much and wanting only to bring about a golden age for the benefit of all, that he'd more speaking for the sake of winning votes or some other political maneuvre(sp?) rather then expressing a genuine opinion, I'd agree wholeheartedly.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Feb 21, 2011 8:32:31 GMT -5
Dude, he's not saying the church had absolute power, just that the church had an interest in keeping all Catholic states from fighting each other, and it's attempt to influece peace between Catholics was a reflection of this and not simply good intentions on the church's part, as you seem to be claiming. Once again, cynical. And, given the forum, one suspects a conclusion onfluenced more by anti church bias than historical scholarship. So are you actually going to give a reason why my stance is invalid or are you just going to keep calling me cynical (which, for the record, I consider a compliment) in the hope of convincing me that you just know better?
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 21, 2011 8:53:10 GMT -5
Once again, cynical. And, given the forum, one suspects a conclusion onfluenced more by anti church bias than historical scholarship. To chime in, Europe didn't need any additional reasons to fight, they kept at spats for whatever reasons they could find, forge, or pretend existed. Though when the church did make moves, at least openly, they typically took down who ever they aimed for, which would change based on the Pope. There is some history of the church picking fights, or deciding they wanted a fight finished, but it wasn't all that common from what I've seen. Read more. I'm reading a history of the Hundred Years War at the moment... before EVERY significant battle, the Papal emissaries were trying to broker peace
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 21, 2011 8:57:35 GMT -5
Once again, cynical. And, given the forum, one suspects a conclusion onfluenced more by anti church bias than historical scholarship. So are you actually going to give a reason why my stance is invalid or are you just going to keep calling me cynical (which, for the record, I consider a compliment) in the hope of convincing me that you just know better? What would convince you? Because from here it looks like anything presented is just going to get hand waved away... (see previous claims about charitable works being "pr")
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Feb 21, 2011 9:25:00 GMT -5
I haven't participated in any of the spear trials. I only do rapier so far. My tips for fencing... always keep your point right in the other guy's face, present as small a target to your oponent as possible, and always be prepared to scream and Fleche... no one ever expects it. Actually, what no-one expects is the SPANISH INQUISITION!
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Feb 21, 2011 9:39:44 GMT -5
To chime in, Europe didn't need any additional reasons to fight, they kept at spats for whatever reasons they could find, forge, or pretend existed. Though when the church did make moves, at least openly, they typically took down who ever they aimed for, which would change based on the Pope. There is some history of the church picking fights, or deciding they wanted a fight finished, but it wasn't all that common from what I've seen. Read more. I'm reading a history of the Hundred Years War at the moment... before EVERY significant battle, the Papal emissaries were trying to broker peace Also true: Higher up members of the Church were good at trying to influence things behind the scenes (again, Robert the Bruce comes to mind - roughly the majority of Scottish clergy backed him in his wars against England) rather than openly (although this did become more apparent in the Second Wars of Independence. Another point is about the charity work done: While there would have most definitely been those higher up who saw it as good for what we'd now call PR, there would also have been a lot (possibly more) who saw it as altruism: Certainly those who worked with Lepers and later on those who worked with those dying of plague certainly seemed to have done so out of a sense of duty and care. In some cases (such as the Monks of Alva) they worked so well as to prevent outbreaks to other areas, despite it meaning they would lose their own lives in the process.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Feb 21, 2011 11:38:51 GMT -5
Read more. I'm reading a history of the Hundred Years War at the moment... before EVERY significant battle, the Papal emissaries were trying to broker peace Also true: Higher up members of the Church were good at trying to influence things behind the scenes (again, Robert the Bruce comes to mind - roughly the majority of Scottish clergy backed him in his wars against England) rather than openly (although this did become more apparent in the Second Wars of Independence. Another point is about the charity work done: While there would have most definitely been those higher up who saw it as good for what we'd now call PR, there would also have been a lot (possibly more) who saw it as altruism: Certainly those who worked with Lepers and later on those who worked with those dying of plague certainly seemed to have done so out of a sense of duty and care. In some cases (such as the Monks of Alva) they worked so well as to prevent outbreaks to other areas, despite it meaning they would lose their own lives in the process. I don't think the modern western mind really comprehends just how involved in day to day real world care the Church was in the period discussed. ALL medical care, homeless charity, aged care, nursing home and paliative style care, orphan care, and lets not forget education, was conducted by religious organisations. We're not talking about a hospital with a saint's name over the door either, we're talking staffed and run by members of holy orders. You think the mediaeval period was bleak? Without the church, it would have been a great deal worse.
|
|