The Dark Ages & The Rennaisance, two atheist misconceptions.
Atheists are fond of saying that what they call the Dark Ages of
Europe, 476AD - 1000 AD, were dark because of the repression of the
Christian Church. They like to claim that so-called Dark Ages ended as
men liberated themselves from the the yoke of the Church by developing
the arts and sciences as an alternative leading to the Italian
artistic Renaissance of the 1400’s AD and the scientific developments
of the 1600’s AD. Both of these fanciful and self-serving notions are
false.
Those ‘Dark Ages’ or as they are known to day to all except atheists,
the Early Middle Ages, were the result of invasions of Europe by the
Germanic tribes, the Scandinavians and most significantly the Arabs
that resulted in an abrupt decline in trade, the emptying of cities,
and a return to subsistence agriculture. Far from being a cause of the
Early Middle Ages, the Church play a central role in maintaining a
semblance of order, in maintaining the operation of reduced cities
and eventually, in resisting and overpowering the Arabs and retaking
the Mediterranean.
.
The concept of a Dark Age of Europe was first created by one man, the
Italian scholar Petrarch in the 1330s and was originally intended by
him only as a lament for the lost of Classical Latin due to the fall
of the Roman Empire and its decline first into Vulgar Latin and then
into today’s romance languages by the 9th century. Later, some
historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period
between Classical Roman Antiquity and the High Middle Ages that
including not only the lack of Classical Latin literature, but also a
lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline,
limited building activity and a decline in cultural achievements in
general and a return to an agricultural society. Popular culture has
further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as
a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its
scope. Atheists have debased the process one step further by
mistakenly blaming the Church for the decline of cities and
population, the decline of building and of cultural achievements, and
the return to an agricultural society.
Today that period is known as simply the Early Middle Ages to mark the
period of European return to an agricultural society and the
recovery.
After the fall of Rome, Germanic tribes flooded into nothern Europe.
The Franks set up the Merovingian Empire from the late 5th century to
the mid 8th century which was followed by a continuation of Frankish
rule, the Carolingian Empire from the mid 8th century to the end of
the 9th century. But the Frankish kings succession method was to
divide their land between their sons, creating countries,
principalites, duchies and counties over time that weakened imperial
authority , gave rise of a very local aristocracy that resulted in
less rigorous record keeping and, most importantly left northern
Europe open to invasions by the Scandinavians.
To the east, Europe was invaded by the Maygars or Hungarians.
The largest influence on the decline of Europe was its loss of the
Mediterranean due to the Arab conquests. With the loss of trade with
the East, European cities were depopulated and the people moved back
onto the land for subsistance agriculture. The cities were left mainly
to the Church. With no central government and a weak local
aristocracy, the Church had de facto government thrust upon it.
The only place in Europe that continued to trade with the East and was
commercial in character was Venice, because its defensible location
left it unconquered by the Germanic tribes leaving it part of the
Byzantine Empire and able to trade into the Mediterranan. Venice grew
stronger and stronger, developed its own navy to protect itself, and
conquered other, nearby areas.
The rest of Europe had fallen into paralysis and fragmentation because
of all of the invasions of the Germanic and Scandinavian tribes and
the Arabs.
In time, by the 10th and 11th centuries, Genoa and Pisa had emulated
Venice and defeated its neighbours in the eastern Mediterranean, who
happened to be Arab force, and began trading with the East again. The
Crusades reopened the Mediterranean to the West beginning in 1096 AD.
By the 12th century, the Mediterranean coasts of France and Spain had
been retaken from the Arabs. As trade increased, cities were
revitalized and began to grow again and society was also revitalized.
Meanwhile, in the North, the Scandinavians by the 10th century after
their European conquests had also settled into trade. Northern
European cites revived and some new cities sprang up.
By the 12th century, Europe had freed itself from subsistence
agriculture and the stagnation of business and cities which were the
immediate results of total wars waged by the Germanic tribes, the
Scandinavians and particularly the Arabs. Agricultural products
become trade items instead of merely feeding local lords, other landed
proprietors and their serfs. Cities again became the center of
attention.
Wealth and peace enabled people to turn their attentions to other
pursuits in the arts and sciences. The so-called Renaissances were
only continuations of this process at the heart of which was the
Church with its maintenance of what little authority there was during
the difficult period of war, its maintenance of what learning that was
possible, and its promotion of the reconquest of the Mediterranean
from the Arabs.
It was not the Church that plunged Europe into backwardness. It was
incessant war and particularly the loss of the Mediterranean to the
Arabs. It was the Church that maintained what was left of the cities
and a semblance of European society and government and readied
Europe for its rapid development when the wars ceased. It was the
Church that was instrumental in the retaking of the Mediterranean
along with the commercial centers of Venice, Pisa, and Genoa.
Atheists have misrepresented history to suit their warped agenda.
On Jun 27, 3:25 am, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> The Dark Ages & The Rennaisance, two atheist misconceptions.
> Atheists are fond of saying that what they call the Dark Ages of
> Europe, 476AD - 1000 AD, were dark because of the repression of the
> Christian Church. They like to claim that so-called Dark Ages ended as
> men liberated themselves from the the yoke of the Church by developing
> the arts and sciences as an alternative leading to the Italian
> artistic Renaissance of the 1400’s AD and the scientific developments
> of the 1600’s AD. Both of these fanciful and self-serving notions are
> false.
Clearly you have very little understanding of history,
A "dark age" is dark because of the absence of writing, thus a lack of
an historical record.
We were "plunged" into the DA because of the Christian take-over of
the Roman state left Europe defenceless against the "pagan" tribes
from the east, who over many years weakened and destroyed the empire,
splitting it into a myriad of ever changing mini-nations who survived
with minimal literacy.
The DA is considered to have ended as the "middle Ages" began. In
Britian this is held to be 1066, when the yoke of Christianised
feudality hled its grip over the indigenous populations: saxon, jute,
norse, scots, picts, pritani.
It is THIS period of which you speak - in which Church dogma and
barely digested ancient writings mainly Aristotle, Ptolemy, Plato held
a death grip on thought and progress.
It was not really until Luther made the first significant challenge to
the Roman church that intellectual progress became a possibility.
Fueled by the printing press, new ideas began to undermine the church
dogma in medicine, astronomy, physics, law, and political thought. The
story of human progress is the story of the initial division of the
church, the diaspora of ideas and sects, the gradual destruction of
its authority, and the eventual decline of the church and religion in
to the lower ranks of significance and importance. It is no co-
incidence that in the century in which the church, religion and faith
have reach there lowest ebb in the West was the period of man's
greatest technical progress. And by contrast in the Middle East where
idiotic religious dogma still holds sway over people's lives progress
is the lowest in any comparable way you care to imagine. Islam
produces nothing, contributes nothing, and is a continual restraint on
progress - just as the Roman church was 600 years ago.
> Those ‘Dark Ages’ or as they are known to day to all except atheists,
> the Early Middle Ages, were the result of invasions of Europe by the
> Germanic tribes, the Scandinavians and most significantly the Arabs
> that resulted in an abrupt decline in trade, the emptying of cities,
> and a return to subsistence agriculture. Far from being a cause of the
> Early Middle Ages, the Church play a central role in maintaining a
> semblance of order, in maintaining the operation of reduced cities
> and eventually, in resisting and overpowering the Arabs and retaking
> the Mediterranean.
And it did that by destroying the personal freedoms that were enjoyed
by Germanic Societies by instituting the feudal system in which 95% of
the population were slaves. 3 Cheers for the Roman Church.
> .
> The concept of a Dark Age of Europe was first created by one man, the
> Italian scholar Petrarch in the 1330s and was originally intended by
> him only as a lament for the lost of Classical Latin due to the fall
> of the Roman Empire and its decline first into Vulgar Latin and then
> into today’s romance languages by the 9th century. Later, some
> historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period
> between Classical Roman Antiquity and the High Middle Ages that
> including not only the lack of Classical Latin literature, but also a
> lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline,
> limited building activity and a decline in cultural achievements in
> general and a return to an agricultural society. Popular culture has
> further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as
> a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its
> scope. Atheists have debased the process one step further by
> mistakenly blaming the Church for the decline of cities and
> population, the decline of building and of cultural achievements, and
> the return to an agricultural society.
You are taking bullshit. Name one "atheist" in this context!
> Today that period is known as simply the Early Middle Ages to mark the
> period of European return to an agricultural society and the
> recovery.
> After the fall of Rome, Germanic tribes flooded into nothern Europe.
> The Franks set up the Merovingian Empire from the late 5th century to
> the mid 8th century which was followed by a continuation of Frankish
> rule, the Carolingian Empire from the mid 8th century to the end of
> the 9th century. But the Frankish kings succession method was to
> divide their land between their sons, creating countries,
> principalites, duchies and counties over time that weakened imperial
> authority , gave rise of a very local aristocracy that resulted in
> less rigorous record keeping and, most importantly left northern
> Europe open to invasions by the Scandinavians.
> To the east, Europe was invaded by the Maygars or Hungarians.
> The largest influence on the decline of Europe was its loss of the
> Mediterranean due to the Arab conquests. With the loss of trade with
> the East, European cities were depopulated and the people moved back
> onto the land for subsistance agriculture. The cities were left mainly
> to the Church. With no central government and a weak local
> aristocracy, the Church had de facto government thrust upon it.
> The only place in Europe that continued to trade with the East and was
> commercial in character was Venice, because its defensible location
> left it unconquered by the Germanic tribes leaving it part of the
> Byzantine Empire and able to trade into the Mediterranan. Venice grew
> stronger and stronger, developed its own navy to protect itself, and
> conquered other, nearby areas.
> The rest of Europe had fallen into paralysis and fragmentation because
> of all of the invasions of the Germanic and Scandinavian tribes and
> the Arabs.
> In time, by the 10th and 11th centuries, Genoa and Pisa had emulated
> Venice and defeated its neighbours in the eastern Mediterranean, who
> happened to be Arab force, and began trading with the East again. The
> Crusades reopened the Mediterranean to the West beginning in 1096 AD.
> By the 12th century, the Mediterranean coasts of France and Spain had
> been retaken from the Arabs. As trade increased, cities were
> revitalized and began to grow again and society was also revitalized.
> Meanwhile, in the North, the Scandinavians by the 10th century after
> their European conquests had also settled into trade. Northern
> European cites revived and some new cities sprang up.
> By the 12th century, Europe had freed itself from subsistence
> agriculture and the stagnation of business and cities which were the
> immediate results of total wars waged by the Germanic tribes, the
> Scandinavians and particularly the Arabs. Agricultural products
> become trade items instead of merely feeding local lords, other landed
> proprietors and their serfs. Cities again became the center of
> attention.
> Wealth and peace enabled people to turn their attentions to other
> pursuits in the arts and sciences. The so-called Renaissances were
> only continuations of this process at the heart of which was the
> Church with its maintenance of what little authority there was during
> the difficult period of war, its maintenance of what learning that was
> possible, and its promotion of the reconquest of the Mediterranean
> from the Arabs.
Wrong. Fighting the authority of Roman dogma enabled people to turn
their attentions to the arts and sciences.
> It was not the Church that plunged Europe into backwardness. It was
> incessant war and particularly the loss of the Mediterranean to the
> Arabs. It was the Church that maintained what was left of the cities
> and a semblance of European society and government and readied
> Europe for its rapid development when the wars ceased. It was the
> Church that was instrumental in the retaking of the Mediterranean
> along with the commercial centers of Venice, Pisa, and Genoa.
> Atheists have misrepresented history to suit their warped agenda.
chazworth: "A "dark age" is dark because of the absence of writing,
thus a lack of
an historical record. "
Omprem: Then why do we know so much about it? At one time, after the
'dark' of Petrarch was eliminated as personal bias, some tried to
claim that 'dark' then meant lack of records but that too fell by the
wayside. Sure business records didn't exist because there was no
business, government records didn't exist because there was no
government. But the Church kept records, bless their hearts, and that
is why we know so much today. Plus once the Venetians, Pisans,
Genoans, Scandinavians settled down and prospered they kept records
that recapitulated their oral histories. Today, that notion of
'dark' meaning lack of records is viewed as quaint and a ploy by the
ignorant to cover up their lack of application and scholarship by
blaming a lack of records when all the time the records were hiding in
plain view if only they had gotten off their smug asses to look at
them.
chazworth: "We were "plunged" into the DA because of the Christian
take-over of
the Roman state left Europe defenceless against the "pagan" tribes
from the east, who over many years weakened and destroyed the empire,
splitting it into a myriad of ever changing mini-nations who survived
with minimal literacy. "
Omprem: Nope. The main cause of the decline of Europe was the invasion
of the Arabs and subsequent cutting off of Europe from trading with
the East which had been the economic life blood of both the Roman
Empire and the Europe that followed it. The subsidiary causes were the
German and Scandinavian invasions which dislocated trade and emptied
cities. The third cause was the unfortunate succession laws of the
Franks that created many small warlords that were incapable of co-
operating or defending Europe and only made the tendency to
decentralization and agricultural subsistence more intense. None of
this had the slightest thing to do with the Christian Church.
There are more than 200 theories about why the Roman Empire fell and
they all include one or more of the above. None of them claim
Christianity had anything to do with the fall of the Empire.
chazworth: “The DA is considered to have ended as the "middle Ages"
began. In Britian this is held to be 1066”
Omprem: Only in your mind. Reputable historians see only the Early
Middle Ages (476-1000 AD), the High Middle Ages (11th century - 13th
Century) and the Late Middle Ages (14th century - 15 th Century)
give or take a couple of decades. By 1066, the process of rebuilding
was well underway all through Europe.
FYI: In England in 1066, both Harald II and William I were Christian.
This was just another war for power and territory.
chazworth: “It was not really until Luther made the first significant
challenge to
the Roman church that intellectual progress became a possibility. ?
Omprem: You have left not only the Early Middle Ages and the High
Middle Ages but also the Late Middle Ages and jumped ahead more than
500 years... and then an additional 600 years to today. Shall we stick
to the Early Middle Ages and how the Church had leadership thrust upon
it because of the absense of central governments and how it preserved
towns, made records of the times, and by the end of the Early Middle
Ages had rallied support to throw back the Arabs.
chazworth: “And it did that by destroying the personal freedoms that
were enjoyed
by Germanic Societies by instituting the feudal system in which 95% of
the population were slaves.”
Omprem: The Church had absolutely nothing to do with the descent of
Europe into a subsistance agriculture economy. That state of affairs
was entirely the result of both local aristocracy carving out fiefdoms
in the chaos of war and the fragmenting Frankish successions, all of
which aided by the decline of cities (also due to the Arab invasions
cutting off trade on the Mediterranean).
If you want to discuss history you have to learn it first. Repeating
an error-riddled rant against Christianity and Islam with zero
evidence to back you up and all possible evidence against you does not
rise to that level.
chazworth: “You are taking bullshit. Name one "atheist" in this
context! “
Omprem: You. And all the other atheists on this board and all atheists
in existence.
Fortunately, the insane rants of you and others of your ilk against
religion are seen by people who know history as just that - rants of
the insane. Your views of the Early Middle Ages are wrong, each and
every one of them, and ludicrously so. You would be laughed out of a
university class that focused on the Early Middle Ages.
On Jun 27, 8:47 am, chazworth <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 3:25 am, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> > The Dark Ages & The Rennaisance, two atheist misconceptions.
> > Atheists are fond of saying that what they call the Dark Ages of
> > Europe, 476AD - 1000 AD, were dark because of the repression of the
> > Christian Church. They like to claim that so-called Dark Ages ended as
> > men liberated themselves from the the yoke of the Church by developing
> > the arts and sciences as an alternative leading to the Italian
> > artistic Renaissance of the 1400’s AD and the scientific developments
> > of the 1600’s AD. Both of these fanciful and self-serving notions are
> > false.
> Clearly you have very little understanding of history,
> A "dark age" is dark because of the absence of writing, thus a lack of
> an historical record.
> We were "plunged" into the DA because of the Christian take-over of
> the Roman state left Europe defenceless against the "pagan" tribes
> from the east, who over many years weakened and destroyed the empire,
> splitting it into a myriad of ever changing mini-nations who survived
> with minimal literacy.
> The DA is considered to have ended as the "middle Ages" began. In
> Britian this is held to be 1066, when the yoke of Christianised
> feudality hled its grip over the indigenous populations: saxon, jute,
> norse, scots, picts, pritani.
> It is THIS period of which you speak - in which Church dogma and
> barely digested ancient writings mainly Aristotle, Ptolemy, Plato held
> a death grip on thought and progress.
> It was not really until Luther made the first significant challenge to
> the Roman church that intellectual progress became a possibility.
> Fueled by the printing press, new ideas began to undermine the church
> dogma in medicine, astronomy, physics, law, and political thought. The
> story of human progress is the story of the initial division of the
> church, the diaspora of ideas and sects, the gradual destruction of
> its authority, and the eventual decline of the church and religion in
> to the lower ranks of significance and importance. It is no co-
> incidence that in the century in which the church, religion and faith
> have reach there lowest ebb in the West was the period of man's
> greatest technical progress. And by contrast in the Middle East where
> idiotic religious dogma still holds sway over people's lives progress
> is the lowest in any comparable way you care to imagine. Islam
> produces nothing, contributes nothing, and is a continual restraint on
> progress - just as the Roman church was 600 years ago.
> > Those ‘Dark Ages’ or as they are known to day to all except atheists,
> > the Early Middle Ages, were the result of invasions of Europe by the
> > Germanic tribes, the Scandinavians and most significantly the Arabs
> > that resulted in an abrupt decline in trade, the emptying of cities,
> > and a return to subsistence agriculture. Far from being a cause of the
> > Early Middle Ages, the Church play a central role in maintaining a
> > semblance of order, in maintaining the operation of reduced cities
> > and eventually, in resisting and overpowering the Arabs and retaking
> > the Mediterranean.
> And it did that by destroying the personal freedoms that were enjoyed
> by Germanic Societies by instituting the feudal system in which 95% of
> the population were slaves. 3 Cheers for the Roman Church.
> > .
> > The concept of a Dark Age of Europe was first created by one man, the
> > Italian scholar Petrarch in the 1330s and was originally intended by
> > him only as a lament for the lost of Classical Latin due to the fall
> > of the Roman Empire and its decline first into Vulgar Latin and then
> > into today’s romance languages by the 9th century. Later, some
> > historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period
> > between Classical Roman Antiquity and the High Middle Ages that
> > including not only the lack of Classical Latin literature, but also a
> > lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline,
> > limited building activity and a decline in cultural achievements in
> > general and a return to an agricultural society. Popular culture has
> > further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as
> > a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its
> > scope. Atheists have debased the process one step further by
> > mistakenly blaming the Church for the decline of cities and
> > population, the decline of building and of cultural achievements, and
> > the return to an agricultural society.
> You are taking bullshit. Name one "atheist" in this context!
> > Today that period is known as simply the Early Middle Ages to mark the
> > period of European return to an agricultural society and the
> > recovery.
> > After the fall of Rome, Germanic tribes flooded into nothern Europe.
> > The Franks set up the Merovingian Empire from the late 5th century to
> > the mid 8th century which was followed by a continuation of Frankish
> > rule, the Carolingian Empire from the mid 8th century
> The Dark Ages & The Rennaisance, two atheist misconceptions.
> Atheists are fond of saying that what they call the Dark Ages of
> Europe, 476AD - 1000 AD, were dark because of the repression of the
> Christian Church.
no we dont.
first assumption wrong, rest likely to be rubbish. (and that was
without taking the fact that oompy is the OP)
> On 27 Jun, 03:25, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> > The Dark Ages & The Rennaisance, two atheist misconceptions.
> > Atheists are fond of saying that what they call the Dark Ages of
> > Europe, 476AD - 1000 AD, were dark because of the repression of the
> > Christian Church.
> no we dont.
> first assumption wrong, rest likely to be rubbish. (and that was
> without taking the fact that oompy is the OP)
Atheists are fond of saying that religion is and has been a hindrance to learning and scientific advancement. It is just the opposite for the most part.
On 6/27/08, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 27 Jun, 03:25, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote: > > The Dark Ages & The Rennaisance, two atheist misconceptions.
> > Atheists are fond of saying that what they call the Dark Ages of > > Europe, 476AD - 1000 AD, were dark because of the repression of the > > Christian Church.
> no we dont.
> first assumption wrong, rest likely to be rubbish. (and that was > without taking the fact that oompy is the OP)
On Jun 26, 9:25 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> The Dark Ages & The Rennaisance, two atheist misconceptions.
You might start by spelling "Renaissance " correctly.
> Atheists are fond of saying that what they call the Dark Ages of
> Europe, 476AD - 1000 AD, were dark because of the repression of the
> Christian Church.
Atheists, Christians, and anyone else with a grasp of history thinks
so.
On 27 Jun, 16:53, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 27 Jun, 03:25, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> > The Dark Ages & The Rennaisance, two atheist misconceptions.
> > Atheists are fond of saying that what they call the Dark Ages of
> > Europe, 476AD - 1000 AD, were dark because of the repression of the
> > Christian Church.
On 27 Jun, 20:29, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 26, 9:25 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
> > The Dark Ages & The Rennaisance, two atheist misconceptions.
> You might start by spelling "Renaissance " correctly.
> > Atheists are fond of saying that what they call the Dark Ages of
> > Europe, 476AD - 1000 AD, were dark because of the repression of the
> > Christian Church.
> Atheists, Christians, and anyone else with a grasp of history thinks
> so.
You don't seem very educated about any of the above, then. Your
willingness to assert as fact something which everyone knows is
nonsense alone would indicate you're a fool.
> What made you think only atheists believe this?
Who said that only atheists do? But Christians don't believe it, and
normal sensible people don't believe it either. Which leaves only
atheists...
