Secularists having a paddy over the KJV Bible Readings

[Beskar]

Rome didnt collapse due to Christianity it's time had come and it was extinguished in effect by an entirely natural process.

Actually, Christianity changed the nature of the Empire on a fundamental level. Instead of the bloodthirsty "Go against us, and you will be on a cross from here to Rome", they became far more 'nicer', preaching peace and other things. Which led to the destruction of the Empire, and the loss of technology, scienfitic advances and philosophical thought, which were recovered from the Muslims around 700 years later..

[CBR]

Actually, Christianity changed the nature of the Empire on a fundamental level. Instead of the bloodthirsty "Go against us, and you will be on a cross from here to Rome", they became far more 'nicer', preaching peace and other things. Which led to the destruction of the Empire, and the loss of technology, scienfitic advances and philosophical thought, which were recovered from the Muslims around 700 years later..

Doing my best John McEnroe impersonation: You can not be serious!

[al Roumi]

I also remember some talking head on a documentary saying the demise of the roman empire could be inversely tracked by the growing length of the gladius... His theory was that the longer the sword, the further the legionaries were fromt he action, the less their bravery and the greater the detachment from what was going on. Sounds like tripe to me but anyway.

Personaly, I think the downfall was precipitated by Atilla and the other mass migrations of people and prepared by the over-extension and the ever decreasing gains of a large empire.

[rory_20_uk]

I also remember some talking head on a documentary saying the demise of the roman empire could be inversely tracked by the growing length of the gladius... His theory was that the longer the sword, the further the legionaries were fromt he action, the less their bravery and the greater the detachment from what was going on. Sounds like tripe to me but anyway.

Personaly, I think the downfall was precipitated by Atilla and the other mass migrations of people and prepared by the over-extension and the ever decreasing gains of a large empire.

I tihnk your latter observation is more likely part of the cause. The gladius never stopped the Legionaries fighting toe to toe with their enemy. I imagine that controlling a UAV is sufficiently far from the action to create detachment.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The length of a standard legio's sword was important not so much in terms of bravery -- Rory is quite correct that hand-to-hand combat with ANY weapon requires some degree of personal courage -- but in terms of discipline. Longer blades require looser formations and necessitate a) better education and training along with the encouragement/reward for independent action or b) less discipline. Over time, too many troops/commanders/funders chose the latter route.

Beskar:

You are simplifying things far too glibly. You imply that the Catholic Church specifically set out to eliminate knowledge as a coordianated element in their consolidation of power. The history of the early Church does not support this. Moreover, the Church has never been the monolithic force so gleefully referred to by so many. Were there elements of the Church that took such a stance? Probably so. Those elements were never more than part of the whole tapestry.

In addition, there are a host of reasons playing into the development of the "Dark Ages." Again, religion is at best only one component of understanding that epoch.

[rory_20_uk]

Beskar:

You are simplifying things far too glibly. You imply that the Catholic Church specifically set out to eliminate knowledge as a coordianated element in their consolidation of power. The history of the early Church does not support this. Moreover, the Church has never been the monolithic force so gleefully referred to by so many. Were there elements of the Church that took such a stance? Probably so. Those elements were never more than part of the whole tapestry.

In addition, there are a host of reasons playing into the development of the "Dark Ages." Again, religion is at best only one component of understanding that epoch.

The Catholic Church resisting translation of the Bible into native languages to me indicates not so much an elimination of knowledge as the control of knowledge in the hands of the Church.

The Catholic Church either undermined or destroyed all perceived threats to their power and free dissemination of information is an important avenue as any other.

[gaelic cowboy]

The Catholic Church resisting translation of the Bible into native languages to me indicates not so much an elimination of knowledge as the control of knowledge in the hands of the Church.

The Catholic Church either undermined or destroyed all perceived threats to their power and free dissemination of information is an important avenue as any other.

None of which led directly to the Dark Ages, it's not like they wiped a USB drive or summit to cause it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Catholic Church resisting translation of the Bible into native languages to me indicates not so much an elimination of knowledge as the control of knowledge in the hands of the Church.

The Catholic Church either undermined or destroyed all perceived threats to their power and free dissemination of information is an important avenue as any other.

1. The primary resistance to the translation of the Bible into vernacular versions was doctrinal. The Catholic -- meaning universal -- church was supposed to be the same for all, the same mass in the same language throughout the Church as a means of bringing us together. Latin had been chosen as the nearest thing to a common language among all of the various early Christians (and as a means of asserting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the Patriarchs of Constantinople or Alexandria). Obviously the Church had relaxed its views on this matter, even prior to the results of the Second Vatican conference. However, it would not be difficult to put you in contact with US Catholics who are STILL annoyed at the V2's switch to the vernacular mass -- my Mom still prefers the Latin.

2. The Church is a large, hierarchical organization of people -- and those people are no less flawed than any other. There have certainly been instances where Church officials have made decisions that were done to preserve the Church's power. It is probable (bordering on certainty) that some of those decisions were made on the basis of preserving personal power as opposed to preserving the Church's power to do good for the greater number. Some of those decisions, such as the famous "kill them all..." quotation, were obviously wrong.

However, the Church has never been quite so sweeping or programmatic in its efforts to "stymie" any perceived threats as you suggest. The Templars were crushed, but the Jesuits were not. Certain heresies were exterpiated with violence, such as the Albighesians, while other doctrinal variances -- Liberation Theology, the Latinists, the Charismatic movement, etc. -- have been addressed far more quietly. You're putting things too monolithically.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, Christianity changed the nature of the Empire on a fundamental level. Instead of the bloodthirsty "Go against us, and you will be on a cross from here to Rome", they became far more 'nicer', preaching peace and other things. Which led to the destruction of the Empire, and the loss of technology, scienfitic advances and philosophical thought, which were recovered from the Muslims around 700 years later..

Christianity only began a true rise during the age of Constantine, and by that time the Roman Empire had been sliced, diced, carved, seperated and segregated to no good effect. The idea was to spread Christianity in order to reunify the Empire ideaologically and recreate the early Us (now Christian) and Them (now heathan) mentality that had dissapated with the ethnic widening of the Legions and Roman Citizenship.

It wasn't about being nice.

Well, at least this topic has been lievely while I have been down.