Why Does Scotland Want To Be Independent?

“Yes, because for 2000+ years the world really progressed well under hereditary dictatorship er Royalty and a cabal of the misinformed er Religion leadership.”
"One would think that minimising the stranglehold anyone individual or group has on the rest of society would be a good thing."
Well, agree as most of the time it was against the will and desire of these "elites", the ones who knew better what was good.
The Magna Carta was imposed to John Lack lands for having been defeated by the French, and Louis XVI was against the Revolution. And History of Religions shows you how much the road to Knowledge, Freedom and Enlightenment was welcome by all religions…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Yes, because for 2000+ years the world really progressed well under hereditary dictatorship er Royalty and a cabal of the misinformed er Religion leadership.”
"One would think that minimising the stranglehold anyone individual or group has on the rest of society would be a good thing."
Well, agree as most of the time it was against the will and desire of these "elites", the ones who knew better what was good.
The Magna Carta was imposed to John Lack lands for having been defeated by the French, and Louis XVI was against the Revolution. And History of Religions shows you how much the road to Knowledge, Freedom and Enlightenment was welcome by all religions…

---

Conveniently ignores the fact that you can only type that because religious houses preserved writing and knowledge.

"Conveniently ignores the fact that you can only type that because religious houses preserved writing and knowledge" That is because you conveniently ignores the fact that the religious houses destroyed others writing and knowledge from others sources and origins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Conveniently ignores the fact that you can only type that because religious houses preserved writing and knowledge.

---

Are you suggesting that if not for religion(christianity), we would not have a written language today....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Conveniently ignores the fact that you can only type that because religious houses preserved writing and knowledge" That is because you conveniently ignores the fact that the religious houses destroyed others writing and knowledge from others sources and origins.

---

Not true - Aristotle, Plato, Lycan, Cicero, Caesar, Catallus, all preserved in Monastic Libraries.

Christian book burning was a Renaissance, post printing, activity.

Now, despite being the likely culprit in Alexandria and definitely being responsible for some burnings in India Islam also preserved Pagan, Christian, and Jewish texts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Are you suggesting that if not for religion(christianity), we would not have a written language today....?

---

Not at all - but the story of Linear B, Egyptian Hieroglyphs and Babylonian script demonstrates that the ability to write can be lost. That's exactly what happened around 1200 BC in the Meditaranian - imagine if, after Rome fell, the religious houses had not spirited away the libraries of the Great and the Good to remote places like Ireland and Pictland?

The Romans had to rediscover aquaducts, something the Cretans had been building a millenia before, but by the 13th Century (800 years after the collapse of the Western Empire) the Medieval City of Exeter had a new built plumbing system on Roman lines, piping water into the City in lead pipes and using Roman techniques to filter the water before it was fed up to fountains and wash houses distributed across the city.

http://www.exetermemories.co.uk/em/undergroundp.php

That's practical application of Clerical learning, right there.

PVC is dead on the money - the Dark ages could have been utterly devastating to Western civilization if the Church hadn't squirreled away all the teachings of the past - and the same is true in the Middle East, Islamic scholars preserved and improved upon the works of Plato et al.

The Booking burning encouraged by the Christian churches was a reaction to Printing which basically broke their monopoly on the control and circulation of books allowing ideas (even those considered heretical) to circulate to a much greater audience.

The problem I see is you have a complete wrong idea of what were the Middle Ages.
This idea of the Churches protecting culture (especially Christian ones) was built by the Christians. The recent discovery of Wicking Hoards in UK and Archaeology show how the so-called blood-thirsty Vikings were in fact building towns and markets.
The barbarians were the Christians who razed to the ground all Pagan Cultures, annexing their beliefs and symbols in order to subdue the locals: Killing their Priests and destroying their monuments, as they will do again in South and Central America, then in Africa. Same things than the Taliban did later. The Baltic States were not Christian and had books, culture as well, and researchers. And same can be said for the Chinese, Indians and others Asiatic populations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

The problem I see is you have a complete wrong idea of what were the Middle Ages.
This idea of the Churches protecting culture (especially Christian ones) was built by the Christians. The recent discovery of Wicking Hoards in UK and Archaeology show how the so-called blood-thirsty Vikings were in fact building towns and markets.
The barbarians were the Christians who razed to the ground all Pagan Cultures, annexing their beliefs and symbols in order to subdue the locals: Killing their Priests and destroying their monuments, as they will do again in South and Central America, then in Africa. Same things than the Taliban did later. The Baltic States were not Christian and had books, culture as well, and researchers. And same can be said for the Chinese, Indians and others Asiatic populations.

---

who was claiming the Christians of the Dark Ages were "civilized" or the Vikings "barbarians" (a silly word really since it literally was termed to mean anyone who wasn't Greek (and later re-purposed by the Romans to anyone who wasn't Roman)) - you seem to be putting words in mine and PVC's mouths there...

you are entirely correct - after the initial wave of Norse Raiders there was a large influx of Norse SETTLERS most notable in Northern France and Northern "England" (England didn't really exist at this point) - contrary to popular belief most of them were not blood thirsty warriors and were just family men looking to settle in what was more climate lands.

The Christians of the Dark ages were certainly not saints either - especially throughout Britain where Christianity was spread by the point of a spear...

none of this however changes the fact that the teachings of Plato et al were preserved by the Christian church (and the Islamic scholars in the Middle East) - if they hadn't then a vast amount of Scientific knowledge which forms the basis of a lot of our Sciences may have had to have been "rediscovered" which potentially could have set back our progress by quite a bit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

The problem I see is you have a complete wrong idea of what were the Middle Ages.
This idea of the Churches protecting culture (especially Christian ones) was built by the Christians. The recent discovery of Wicking Hoards in UK and Archaeology show how the so-called blood-thirsty Vikings were in fact building towns and markets.
The barbarians were the Christians who razed to the ground all Pagan Cultures, annexing their beliefs and symbols in order to subdue the locals: Killing their Priests and destroying their monuments, as they will do again in South and Central America, then in Africa. Same things than the Taliban did later. The Baltic States were not Christian and had books, culture as well, and researchers. And same can be said for the Chinese, Indians and others Asiatic populations.

---

Do you not consider modern science to be a product of history?

“Do you not consider modern science to be a product of history?” And your point is?

“who was claiming the Christians of the Dark Ages were "civilized" or the Vikings "barbarians" (a silly word really since it literally was termed to mean anyone who wasn't Greek (and later re-purposed by the Romans to anyone who wasn't Roman)) - you seem to be putting words in mine and PVC's mouths there..” And pretending that the Churches were the ultimate shelter of books and knowledge is precisely doing this.
As in modern language you probably note that the use of “barbarian” had an extension of meaning than purely “non-Greeks”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

And pretending that the Churches were the ultimate shelter of books and knowledge is precisely doing this.

---

no it isn't - outside of a few notable institutions the Church was the primary source of books (both new and old) and teaching the skill of reading and writing for centuries within the West - this is historical fact you cant disagree with it.

Would the Pagan cultures have preserved this knowledge? maybe, its hard to argue either way because Christianity crushed them mercilessly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

The Christians of the Dark ages were certainly not saints either - especially throughout Britain where Christianity was spread by the point of a spear...

---

That's a bit of a misnomer - Britain was Christianised largely peacefully, with the exception of the Synod of Whitman where Roman Christianity was enforced on the Gaelic missionaries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

And pretending that the Churches were the ultimate shelter of books and knowledge is precisely doing this.

---

They were not the ultimate shelter, they were virtually the only shelter - until the secularisation of the universities Higher Learning was the preserve of the Church, and outside the more isolated places like Ireland (and Wessex England), and a few brief epochs like the rule of Charlemagne, secular lords were not interested in learning letters. Private book ownership was not common even among the gentry until the High Middle Ages.

The Roman Church was the only part of Roman society that was able to endure, by offering the barbarian lords sanction and a way to organise their large new holdings effectively.

You mentioned the Vikings - in France and Ialy they Romanised, and in Britain they Anglisised - which included their leaders adopting Christianity, building Churches and Monasteries and having clerical tutors for their children. They really wanted to be Roman, everyone did, and the Church was able to do that for them.

Hell - look how Roman we are. We're having a Roman debate, writing Roman script, using a language which is part-Latin...

All because of the Church - the script is even based on the one used by Charlemagne's monks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That's a bit of a misnomer - Britain was Christianised largely peacefully, with the exception of the Synod of Whitman where Roman Christianity was enforced on the Gaelic missionaries.

---

yes and no - the immigration and spread of the Saxons (mostly through conquest) spread Roman Christianity as a byproduct - there was no "crusade" to specifically stamp out Celtic Christianity and the few remaining pagan kingdoms but it happened any way as Saxon Kingdoms supplanted the natives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Not true - Aristotle, Plato, Lycan, Cicero, Caesar, Catallus, all preserved in Monastic Libraries.

Christian book burning was a Renaissance, post printing, activity.

Now, despite being the likely culprit in Alexandria and definitely being responsible for some burnings in India Islam also preserved Pagan, Christian, and Jewish texts.



Not at all - but the story of Linear B, Egyptian Hieroglyphs and Babylonian script demonstrates that the ability to write can be lost. That's exactly what happened around 1200 BC in the Meditaranian - imagine if, after Rome fell, the religious houses had not spirited away the libraries of the Great and the Good to remote places like Ireland and Pictland?

The Romans had to rediscover aquaducts, something the Cretans had been building a millenia before, but by the 13th Century (800 years after the collapse of the Western Empire) the Medieval City of Exeter had a new built plumbing system on Roman lines, piping water into the City in lead pipes and using Roman techniques to filter the water before it was fed up to fountains and wash houses distributed across the city.

http://www.exetermemories.co.uk/em/undergroundp.php

That's practical application of Clerical learning, right there.

---

Horribly euro-centric.

And proving that something happened one way is no way of proving that it was the only way, as you well know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

The recent discovery of Wicking Hoards in UK and Archaeology show how the so-called blood-thirsty Vikings were in fact building towns and markets.

---

Danes don't count as proper vikings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Horribly euro-centric.

And proving that something happened one way is no way of proving that it was the only way, as you well know.

---

I'm talking about Europe - and how it actually happened. The Dark Ages in Europe prove Brenus wrong - Christianity was responsible for the preservation, advancement, and dissemination, of knowledge prior to the Renaissance - it was not an impediment to it.

That's not to say it was a universal good but - to take one example - the study of anatomy was held up by scholastic adherence to Galen (who never dissected a human) when the Church had allowed the dissection of human corpses for several centuries. A clear case of the clerical authorities allowing a taboo practice in order to advance medical knowledge, and then academics quite literally refusing to look at what the Church was offering them.

Bashing Christianity as a weird anti-intellectual mysticism is an Enlightenment thing - which explains why the French do it - but it's still not justified.

The Dark Ages was post the fall of the Roman Western Empire.

A fall precipitated by Odoacer.

Odoacer being a Hindi, A Jew, A Pagan or a Christian?

A Christian. The Dark Ages was a time of infighting between different Christian sects tearing Europe apart and only stopped once one sect had enough of a dominant majority to gain control.

Of course all the other sects are written off as heretics. But they were still Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Shut up Dad.

---

Go make me a cup of tea and get my slippers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The Dark Ages was post the fall of the Roman Western Empire.

A fall precipitated by Odoacer.

Odoacer being a Hindi, A Jew, A Pagan or a Christian?

A Christian. The Dark Ages was a time of infighting between different Christian sects tearing Europe apart and only stopped once one sect had enough of a dominant majority to gain control.

Of course all the other sects are written off as heretics. But they were still Christians.

---

The Germanic tribes stayed primarily Germanic. Like most pagan peoples they were willing to accept another new and powerful god and get his help. But they really weren't christian in any meaningful sense of the word, that came much later.

Here's from the saxon heliand:

Quote:

---

There were many whose minds urged them
to begin the reckoning of the runes,
the word of God, those well-known accomplishments
that Christ the mighty achieved among men
in words and in works.
...
But among all these were only four,
out of the many, granted the might of God,
help from heaven and the Holy Ghost,
strength from Christ. They were selected,
they alone, to inscribe the evengelium,
to write in a book the rules of God,
the holy heavenly word. Of all the heroic
sons of men alone they were to attempt it,
since the power of God had picked the four:
Mathew and Mark, so were these men named,
Luke and John, loved by God,
worthy of the work. The all-wielding ruler
placed the Holy Spirit in their heroic hearts,
with many wise words, and as well
an attitude of holiness and a keen heart,
to raise their voices, repeating the Gospel.
There is nothing in words comparable in the world.
Nothing could glorify our great Lord more;
nor can anything lop each loathed thing,
or wicked work; nor withstand better
the aggression and enmity of the enemy.
...
At that time the Lord God granted to the Romans
the widest of kingdoms. They conquered all nations
for he granted strength to their soldiers.
Those warriors from Rome
had seized an empire. Their overlords
were in every place, and they possessed power
over the nations, each noble folk.

---

“when the Church had allowed the dissection of human corpses for several centuries.”
Galen: 158 AD, hardly Middle-Ages and dissected apes and pigs. Pigs have a similar skeleton to human. You should read books of History, not Christian sites rewriting history.
Some Christians preserved some books, but most of the job was done by Secular Rulers using the Clergy to do so (Charlemagne). “In the profoundly Christian centuries of the European Middle Ages the prevailing mood is not conducive to scientific enquiry. God knows best, and so He should - since He created everything. Where practical knowledge is required, there are ancient authorities whose conclusions are accepted without question” From http://www.historyworld.net/

Pope Boniface VIII (1235- 1303) prohibited the cutting of human bodies. I give you it was not specially against dissection, but it had the same result.

“Christianity was responsible for the preservation, advancement, and dissemination, of knowledge prior to the Renaissance” Wrong again. The preservation, advancement and dissemination of knowledge were Muslim and Jewish.

“which explains why the French do it” How many French do you know?

“Bashing Christianity as a weird anti-intellectual mysticism is an Enlightenment thing” Bashing? To tell that Christianity was not that great and responsible for more obstruction than step forward is bashing? All great sciences discoveries were done against the will of all Christianities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

To tell that Christianity was not that great and responsible for more obstruction than step forward is bashing? All great sciences discoveries were done against the will of all Christianities.

---

So with your first sentence you make it sound like you acknowledge the good and the bad (whetever proportions they happen to be in) - only to resort to absolute condemnation in the second sentence.

You even went to the trouble to point out that "all Christianities" are guilty of this - so according to you there was not one strain within the Catholic Church, one of the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, one of the countless Oriental or African churches that has ever been anything but destructive to any and all scientific advancement.

This seems to me to be a pretty extraordinary claim to make, and I guess I should presume you have a very advanced knowledge of every denomination that has ever existed, and how the churches related with every scientific discovery that has ever occured.

But since you are the man that quotes Landover Baptist Church as a source of Christian doctrine, somehow I doubt you have such knowledge.

Calvinism => natural philosophy, surely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Calvinism => natural philosophy, surely.

---

Are you saying Calvinism caused the development of natural philosophy?

Doesn't natural philosophy long predate Calvinism?

Quote:

---

Are you saying Calvinism caused the development of natural philosophy?

---

Rather, its invigoration for the modern era.

“So with your first sentence you make it sound like you acknowledge the good and the bad” I do not make distinction between bad and good. That is your interpretation of words. These are facts. Tell me, what great scientific discovery was done with the full support of the Church? And don’t speak of individual cleric, I mean the Church as a system.

“destructive” Your word, mine is obstructive at minimum.

And yes, there are various Christianities, in the Middle-Ages, being Catholic and Orthodox. And within, of course, streams of interpretation, dogmas and practises…

“the churches related with every scientific discovery that has ever occured.” No need for this, you just have to know how much time the Churches were against scientific discoveries.

But since you are the man that quotes “At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel” somehow I doubt you have such knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“So with your first sentence you make it sound like you acknowledge the good and the bad” I do not make distinction between bad and good. That is your interpretation of words. These are facts. Tell me, what great scientific discovery was done with the full support of the Church? And don’t speak of individual cleric, I mean the Church as a system.

---

I think it is implied in your argument that opposing scientific advancement is a bad thing. Certainly, I've never heard you praise the church for it!

As for your question - I don't know, the moon landings? Here's a better idea, since you are the one making positive claims and feeling confident enough to apply these to every Christian denomination and every scientific discovery, how about you provide the wealth of evidence you must have to support such absolute claims?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“destructive” Your word, mine is obstructive at minimum.

---

I shall hold you to this in future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“the churches related with every scientific discovery that has ever occured.” No need for this, you just have to know how much time the Churches were against scientific discoveries.

---

You stated the churches opposition in absolute, rather than general terms. You went to the trouble to point out that all denominations were guilty of this with all scientific progress. Don't backtrack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

But since you are the man that quotes “At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel” somehow I doubt you have such knowledge.

---

Um... while you believe that my conclusion might be the result of a lack of knowledge, it is not necessarily so.

I pointed out a clear and outright error on your part - something you have been unable to do in return, despite your attempt at a 'comeback'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Rather, its invigoration for the modern era.

---

Yes, Calvinism in particular, and the Reformation more generally, did complement a resurgence in natural philosophy. But the relationship may have been one of mutual reinforcement, rathern than one-way causation - Calvin had studied philosophy and law and was well acquainted with humanism before his conversion.

“As for your question - I don't know, the moon landings?” Err, when did the Church actively support it?

“Here's a better idea, since you are the one making positive claims and feeling confident enough to apply these to every Christian denomination and every scientific discovery, how about you provide the wealth of evidence you must have to support such absolute claims?”
Better idea indeed. Where do I start? Copernic Revolution, evolution, modern surgery, all these were actively fought against by the Church. Not only scientific discoveries, mind you, but all human progress as individual freedom, of course, and Gay marriage, equality between gender and races, democracy, as in St Augustine describe the world of the Warriors, the Labourers and the Priests. Forget freedom of thinking and opinions (even minor), you might finish on the stakes.

By the way, it is a minor exaggeration from your part to say that I apply “to every Christian denomination and every scientific discovery” as I clearly stated the Churches as system. But truth and facts don’t bother you too much, as I understand.

“Don't backtrack” I am surely not as dates prove than Europe entered the age of Discovery when Religion(s) lost their grips on Europeans Monarchs and Countries. But surely, it is a pure coincidence.

“I pointed out a clear and outright error on your part - something you have been unable to do in return, despite your attempt at a 'comeback'.” Nope, you did point out a site, not that what they were saying was wrong. And as you know I did my points at that time with others sites and reference (more “neutral”) you carefully avoided answering.

“I think it is implied in your argument that opposing scientific advancement is a bad thing.” Aaah, so, according to you (so to the Churches you defend), to oppose scientific advancement is a good thing. Well, you are logic with yourself, I have to admit…:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“As for your question - I don't know, the moon landings?” Err, when did the Church actively support it?

---

Lol at how you've switched from "they get in the way and suppress things!" to "where is the active support?".

But whatever, here's a pretty long list of Catholic cleric-scientists. This is not just a collection of individuals, since a) the numbers are large enough to show an institutional trend and b) many of them were employed as scientists by the Vatican or institutions that it funded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“[B]“Here's a better idea, since you are the one making positive claims and feeling confident enough to apply these to every Christian denomination and every scientific discovery, how about you provide the wealth of evidence you must have to support such absolute claims?”
Better idea indeed. Where do I start? Copernic Revolution, evolution, modern surgery, all these were actively fought against by the Church. Not only scientific discoveries, mind you, but all human progress as individual freedom, of course, and Gay marriage, equality between gender and races, democracy, as in St Augustine describe the world of the Warriors, the Labourers and the Priests. Forget freedom of thinking and opinions (even minor), you might finish on the stakes.

---

Please stop switching the goalposts - we were talking about science, not politics or social issues.

Of course there are examples where the Christian churches did stand in the way of legimate scientific discoveries - the Copernican Revolution is one such example. I have never contested this, what I did contest was your claim that it opposed any and all scientific advancement. The churches have engaged in scientific debate over issues like evolution and modern surgery, but I don't believe that it has ever actively suppressed them.

Or is disagreement now considered oppression?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“[B]By the way, it is a minor exaggeration from your part to say that I apply “to every Christian denomination and every scientific discovery” as I clearly stated the Churches as system. But truth and facts don’t bother you too much, as I understand.

---

As you said, "all Christianities", which could only really be understood as referring to "any denomination" - as far as I can see that is still the meaning you give it, so I have no idea what your issue is here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“[B]“Don't backtrack” I am surely not as dates prove than Europe entered the age of Discovery when Religion(s) lost their grips on Europeans Monarchs and Countries. But surely, it is a pure coincidence.

---

Historical trends are never down to pure coincidence - but your simplistic take on things here (that the decline of religion led to a flourishing of science) is pretty lame and would not stand up to scrutiny. There were countless social and political changes going on at this time. The Reformation, the printing press, the opening up of the New World, the decline of the gentry at the hands of the lower gentry and merchants, the growth of parliaments and national consciousness - all these are factors which would far better explain the phenoma that the Age of Discovery was.

In any case, you narrative of the declining influence of religion coinciding with the Age of Discovery is actually incorrect. The Age of Discovery was a period of hugely populist and radical religion that pervaded society and politics in a way in had never done before. Things actually got to the stage that monarchs were being beheaded by fundamentalists. Or in the case of Scotland, being made puppets to a cabal of fanatics - as happened with Charles II. Funnily enough, staunchly Presbyterian Scotland is renowned for having one of the most fruitful Enlightenment periods. This has often been attributed ot the strenght of Scotland's education system - where the teaching of the Bible had created one of the highest literacy levels in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“[B]“I pointed out a clear and outright error on your part - something you have been unable to do in return, despite your attempt at a 'comeback'.” Nope, you did point out a site, not that what they were saying was wrong. And as you know I did my points at that time with others sites and reference (more “neutral”) you carefully avoided answering.

---

I pointed out your error in claiming that these people were presenting genuine Christian doctrine. I don't know why I have to labour this point when they are a well known spoof site. I also don't think I have avoided anything you have said.

The point is that you made a careless mistake, and one that demonstrates just how little you know about Christian doctrine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“[B]“I think it is implied in your argument that opposing scientific advancement is a bad thing.” Aaah, so, according to you (so to the Churches you defend), to oppose scientific advancement is a good thing. Well, you are logic with yourself, I have to admit…:laugh4:

---

No, and how on earth you could get that to be my argument, only you know.

tbh I think you are just like an atheist version of total relism - you have a ridiculously simplistic, black-and-white worldview, and whenever challenged on it, you either flutter madly from one topic to the next*, change your argument**, or accuse the other person of making arguments they never made.***

* for example when you switched from scientific issues to gay marriage and democracy
** indeed, it has morphed from 'oppresing every scientific discovery' to 'oppresing some scientific disoveries' to 'not actively supporting scientific discovery'
*** eg that I applaud churches for deliberately suppressing scientific progress

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“when the Church had allowed the dissection of human corpses for several centuries.”
Galen: 158 AD, hardly Middle-Ages and dissected apes and pigs. Pigs have a similar skeleton to human. You should read books of History, not Christian sites rewriting history.
Some Christians preserved some books, but most of the job was done by Secular Rulers using the Clergy to do so (Charlemagne). “In the profoundly Christian centuries of the European Middle Ages the prevailing mood is not conducive to scientific enquiry. God knows best, and so He should - since He created everything. Where practical knowledge is required, there are ancient authorities whose conclusions are accepted without question” From http://www.historyworld.net/

Pope Boniface VIII (1235- 1303) prohibited the cutting of human bodies. I give you it was not specially against dissection, but it had the same result.

---

Galen was prohibited from dissecting human bodies, though irrc he saw a human skeleton at the Library in Alexandria.

I have read plenty of books - and no "Christian" sites whatsoever - ironic that you quote a website. Galen was accepted as being the authority throughout the Middle Ages, and into the Renaissance. This despite the Church having allowed human dissection, doctors continued to insist that (against all evidence) humans should have two bones in their jaws. Galen got this from the apes he dissected, a problem he recognised.

As to the rest of your post - I would like you to go away and read up on the formulation of the rules of magnetism, discovered and codified by a priest. Though, I have to say I take exception to the charactarisation of Charlemagne as a "secular" ruler, maybe that's the line taken in modern France to occlude the fact that he spent most of his time and effort of Christianising his own nobles and "Romanising" them (which was the same thing).

Now - here's a question - are you aware, Brenus, that I'm an academic researching the dissemination of knowledge from the Classical to the Medieval, and the difference between heterodoxy and orthodoxy?

Same to you, Pape.

You think I don't know that the Germans were Arrians? Are you aware that the "filoque" controversy between East and West was the result of the Latin Church trying to enforce the Co-eternity of the Trinity on the Germanic tribes?

My line is that it isn't a black and white situation that Christianity rose the world out of the dark ages.

First off the Roman Empires collapse had many factors, one of which can be attributed to its change in faith systems.
The dark ages was limited to Europe and the near east. One has only to look at the rest of the world to see progress happening in the non-Christian areas to do very high level counter to Christianity being responsible for progress.

Second, survivors and victors get to write history. The surviving Christian sects get to define what was orthodox and what was not.

Third, I do not take the positon that religion is the cause of the issue. It is fundamentalism and the belief that there is one source of truth and all others need to be snuffed out. That formalized insitutions favour this to gather power to themselves should be no shock to anyone and is a human empire building attitude. Religion can be just as easily used as a platform to opening up ones mind.

So it is quite easy to find in one insitution those who run counter to each other. Those who are fundamentalist and limiting knowledge whilst others use the religion as shoulders to stand on. A review of various sections within the Catholic Church will show this such as the Jesuits. It should also be noted that other denominations often will show a bent one way or the other along the spectrum and will either create more fundentalists or scientists then average.

Also there are some that create more of both.

So i don't take the point of view that religion automatically stamps down on human endeavor. I do take the point of view that the dark ages was limited to the portions of the world that had Abrahmic religions and that there is some correlation between the two, say 0.8, just not 1.

Another way of looking at it would be to point to the breakdown of central authorities, which leads to smaller communities and less efficient economies, leading to smaller surpluses and fewer people with the leisure to study non-essential and non-martial subjects. The church, having carved out a niche for itself that was independent of worldly realities, was able to support a relatively sizeable class of such folk. In comparison with peaceful secular times such as now, the church would seem backwards and dogmatic. But in comparison with the constant struggle of local warlords, the church would be a haven of learning.