The corruption of the Church.

Originally posted by Comet I don't think this is an exaggeration at all. Think about why people are calling it the "Dark Ages" in hindsight. One of the major reasons why they call it dark is because of the Church's dominance over the minds of men. Let's go back to Ancient Greece and Rome. You would see academies flourish with the goal of education in mind. There was no reason why one couldn't think and understand the world around them. Now think about the nature of education during the so called "Dark Ages". Academies are few in number (if they even existed at all)...the only education worth achieving was an education taught by the Church.

1. Dark ages are dark because of the lack of historical sources.

the "church" is man made, and man is inherently corrupt...

Originally posted by YAFES Originally posted by Komnenos May I just intervene in your fascinating bi-lateral discussion. The main reason for the mass conversion to Islam in Bosnia only was, that the country was the stronghold of Bogomilism. Large parts of the population belonged to this sect, that was a heresy both in the eyes of the Roman-Catholics and the Orthodox.The rest of Bosnians belonged to the Bosnian Church, an independent Christian national church, also regarded as heresy. Both sects were severly persecuted by Rome and The Orthodox. I guess the experiences the Bosnians made with the official Christendom made them far more susceptible for Islam, or they were generally tired of religious persecution. It's also been allegded that the conversion was only a cover and the Bogomils carried on for another few centuries in secret.   aha yeah yeah just remembered

QUOTE


It is well known that the Catholic Church uin Medieval Europe
was one of the most corrup organizations in history. their power
rivaled that of many of the kings. They would demand
payments to ensure that people would have passage to
heaven....

RESPONSE
1. The Roman Church (Latin Church) as distinct from the
Orthodox Church. There were many other jurisdictions, Antioch,
Constantinople, Alexandria, Tblisi, Moscow & Kiev, Jerusalem,
etc. These are also Catholic churches dating back to and
before the 1st Ecumenical Council.

2. Beginning with the Carolingians, the Latin Church was
overtaken and controlled at the administrative level by the
State. Clergy were appointed in contradiction to Canonical
Laws by the feudal lords�so the state bears the burden of
corruption more so than any legitimate clerical administration.

QUOTE:
well all the recovering catholics I know still have that
indoctrinated opinion that the church saw Europe through the
dark ages, even though you could make just as effective of an
argument that the church was the biggest problem of the dark
ages...

RESPONSE:
The argument can certainly be made for this. The Native Irish
Church did collect and maintain a great deal of literature. The
monastic movement did clear and develop a great deal of land
for agriculture and people collected nearby for safety

QUOTE:
That is exaggerated, and I don't see why the Catholic Church
should be singled out here. I'd go ahead and make this
statement: the Catholic Church did have elements of
corruption, but wasn't particularly so.


REPONSE:
I would go further and say that just because someone identifies
themselves with an institution or belief does not mean that is
who they are. It is the old church and garage analogy. Being in
a church does not make one a Christian anymore than being in
a garage makes one a car. Lots of folks, then as now, latched
on and controlled what they could of the Church for personal
gain. That did not mean they were legitimately the Church.
MengTzu gives the example of indulgences, which makes this
point rather well. Just because someone claimed it was of the
Church does not mean it was. No one here would have any
problem understanding this if I was to claim to be the President
of the United States and then start making outrageous claims.
The same is true of the Church.

QUOTE:
If your Orthodox, you never branched away, because you were
there since the beginning.

REPONSE:
Too true. The Roman Church broke away. The Latins� claims
not withstanding, when one of the five patriarchs refuses to
have communion with the other four, they do not break away
from the one. It is also a fact that the Jurisdictional dispute
involves the Papacy�s refusal to abide by canonical laws, not
the other way around.

QUOTE:
beauracracy alone euqals corruption, this is why if you want a
sucessful faith remove large established power structures from
it.

RESPONSE
Uh?! Alone? Always? And what is �successful�?

QUOTE:
Although as MengTzu said the church never sactuioned the
sale of indulgences that didn't mean that in practice it wasn't
done. The church today doesn't saction many things that goes
on either. And how is the sale of   indulgences all that differant
than the common practices in roman era of selling preisthoods
and offerings to the gods?

RESPONSE:
Misses the point entirely. No one says it did not take place.
What is being argued is that you can not lay it at the feet of the
Church. It was, by the act alone, in contradiction to the laws and
traditions of the Church. When someone by force or subterfuge
takes control of an institution and then claims that authority, that
hardly means the institution is to blame�the actors are to
blame. What is there that can not be subverted?

QUOTE:
Perhaps it is better to stop judging the situation and try and
figure out why it was happening.


RESPONSE:
Fair point but trivial given that it has been elucidated and the
causes of these sort of things are so common. They subverted
the Church because they could, because they wanted what it
had. Old story. Whether it is the Saracens or the Vandals or
Napoleon�s troops sacking and plundering or some Emperor or
King taking it over, the result is the same. The Church was
being violated and abused and can hardly be accused of the
crimes.

QUOTE:
Careful there. This could be taken as bashing nonprotestants.

REPONSE:
I am perfectly willing to bash protestants. Can we get a new
topic going? Oh, and the bastards parading around as Roman
Catholic clergy. The Assyrians know what I am talking about.

�and the pseudo-Orthodox clergy. Them too.


QUOTE:
Lets bring this back into a medieval perspective.

The following linkcontains an article that talks about the
protasant reform movement http://www.the-orb.net/non_spec/
missteps/ch11.html


REPONSE:
Yes. The topic is pretty much dealing with the Medieval
perspective in my opinion�though many of the comments are
leaking over into the modern era. And that article�Yes--makes
a lot of good points but one I did not see (I�ll reread just in case)
was the fact that Luther preached in the German vulgate rather
than in Latin. No one outside of a very small group understood
Latin by that time so the scriptures were a mystery to the
common people. The Orthodox Churches have a well
established tradition of communicating in the language of the
people.


QUOTE:
Calvinist rule in Geneva was so harsh, that on a certain
moment women were tried as well if they were raped, because
for some reason the calvinists thought they'd enjoyed it
somehow.

REPONSE:
Illustrates the extent to which crimes have been committed by
bogus Christians in the name of God. The inquisition is another
prime example as are the atrocities committed by the Spanish
and the Portuguese in the Americas with the blessings of the
ya-bos parading as Popes.

QUOTE:
I guess the emergence of christianity and islam was the origin
of dark ages.
So then religion was used as nationalism later. If we compare
the church in the Middle ages with today's government, we can
see why they were corrupted.

RESPONSE:
I think the subjugation of religion�excluding those that were
specifically invented for the purposes of the secular
government�to the whims of those in power over the state are
as old as religion and states. Religion is a great unifier and this
was not lost on even the most ancient of states.

QUOTE:
That's the point - we can demonize the Catholic Church today
because its politically correct or expedient to do so - but the fact
remains that if you look into any organization created by
mankind with this kind of power, you will find the same level of
corruption.

REPONSE:
Yea, good point. Being singled out when there are so many
qualified examples does smack of blind prejudice.

Although the Tammy Faye Mascara Fund sub-thread here is
certainly a creative approach to the nonsense that takes place.
The examples of stupidity and outright abuse on the part of
those parading as the voice of God are legion throughout time.
Here is one, not really a bigee but, at the First Ecumenical
Council to dispose of Arianism, our Blessed St. Nicholas of
Myra (as in St. Nick�who we now know as the jolly little fat guy
in red) got steamed up, decked the heretic and was thrown out
of the Council. Someone had a vision in the night and he was
brought back but . . . even the best of us do step way over the
line.

QUOTE:
BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT WE ALWAYS
OPENED OUR LANDS FOR THE HELPLESS. YOU SHOULD
KNOW HOW AND WHY BOSNIANS CHOSE ISLAM UNDER
THE OTTOMAN RULE, WANT TO TELL THIS, TOO???

AND SURE WE WOULD HAVE PLACE FOR 40.000 MORE
AND MORE.
-----------------------

REPONSE:
Boy does this distort historical fact.
There is no doubt that the scum who were operating within the
Church and co-opting it from outside were hardly acting in a
Christian way. This hardly means the Ottoman Empire were the
good guys. Show me an Aremenian, a Serb, a Croat, a
Georgian, a Bulgar, or a Greek that thinks the Ottomans were
their salvation from the excesses of the Roman Catholic
executive and I will show you a figment of your imagination.
The sheer numbers of slaves taken by the Ottoman Empire out
of the Balkans enabled them to build their army and was the
primary reason for their power and longevity. And since they
were taken as Christian slaves, they could then be turned on
other Moslems. (The weird point that has never been explained
is, how, after forcing them to convert to Islam, they could then
be turned on the other Moslems.)

So, no, you can�t use the abuses of the Latin Church to paint
the Ottomans as the good guys. Lesser of two evils for a very
brief period of time, maybe. But it was very brief.


QUOTE:
Besides, majority of Bosnians are muslim now, this is why
serbians murdered them. Europe watched the gratest
massacre of the world since WWII, between 1992-1995.

Bosnians chose the religion we brought, because they were
(almost) used to be treated like slaves by Vatican.

When Turks came and noticed that everyone was free what to
believe, Bosnians began to slide to Islam

RESPONSE:
I take it you meant that the subjugated saw that they were free
to believe what they would.

What utter distortion. This is as bad as the Ultra-right in Japan
claiming they were the victims in WWII. The Moslems have
always converted by the sword. When they weren�t forcing the
issue with steel they simply taxed the hell out of them, restricted
their freedoms, abused them by taking slaves, and thereby
forced their conversions.

QUOTE:
They were Orthodox factions which Ottomans didn't see as
harmful as the Catolic factions. Also " the othodox cult" was
another enemy of the crusader mentality. And wasn't cruel as
much as the catholic cult

OK?

REPONSE:
Cults? Looks like someone went over the edge a long time
ago.

Komnenos (Liechtenstein? No kidding?) adds a constructive
dimension here. Not sure I think it was that clear cut but, yes, a
complicated situation with real events and real actors. The
entire Balkan Peninsula was fought over because it had a lot to
offer strategically and economically. No one has even
mentioned the Hapsburgs, their wars with the Ottomans (who
were continually attacking Europe) and their occupation of the
Balkans and treaties with the Ottomans who eventually ran out
of steam.

Mosquito also offers a better rounded contribution. Real actors,
real events, real reasons. Broad brush strokes do not really
advance the debate.

Originally posted by Komnenos May I just intervene in your fascinating bi-lateral discussion. The main reason for the mass conversion to Islam in Bosnia only was, that the country was the stronghold of Bogomilism. Large parts of the population belonged to this sect, that was a heresy both in the eyes of the Roman-Catholics and the Orthodox.The rest of Bosnians belonged to the Bosnian Church, an independent Christian national church, also regarded as heresy. Both sects were severly persecuted by Rome and The Orthodox. I guess the experiences the Bosnians made with the official Christendom made them far more susceptible for Islam, or they were generally tired of religious persecution. It's also been allegded that the conversion was only a cover and the Bogomils carried on for another few centuries in secret.

 

aha yeah yeah just remembered

Originally posted by Cywr You know, the people who lived there for centuries? All those orthradox and catolics and jews and gypsies who had lived in Bosnia since before the Ottomans came along?

 

haha

then i should call JUPITER to fire you away from the lands of Vatican

you know, it's just hired by remus and romulus

in addition

slavicness of bosnians and albanians is the least of all the BALKAN

even they were no valuable as a political material for russian tzars

Originally posted by Cywr 1) Vatican never needed to rule Vatican. Tyrants who Bosnians were suffered were ruled by the Vatican. Bosnians suffered for "the holiness of the holy see". Come again in English? 2) The rest of the BALKANS were SLAVIC; They were under the Orthodox factions which Ottomans didn't see as harmful as the Catolic factions. OK? Bosnians were and still are Slavic. Bosnia was traditionaly a mix of catholic and Orthradox. Of they were so oppresed, then why are there still catholics in Bosnia?

mixture???

come on what mixture?

did they leave any mixture after 500.000 muslim bosnians were murdered by serbians in 1992-1995??

Yeah after all you can call Bosnia a mixture of orth. and cath.

Originally posted by Cywr Edit: Cywr, we joined on the same day, yet you have 1600+ more posts than me. Explain. More active would seem the obvious guess. Besides, majority of Bosnians are muslim now, this is why serbians murdered them. Europe watched the gratest massacre of the world since WWII, between 1992-1995. Most Bosnians are still croatioan/Serbian, Muslims just make the single biggest group, but this is a recent development, and has bugger all to do with your initial claims. Biggest massacre since WWII? Rwanda? Bosnians chose the religion we brought, because they were (almost) used to be treated like slaves by Vatican. When was Bosnia ruled by the Vatican? When Turks came and noticed that everyone was free what to believe, Bosnians began to slide to Islam. So why not the rest of the Balkans then?

1) Vatican never needed to rule Bosnia. Tyrants from whom Bosnians suffered were ruled by the Vatican. Bosnians suffered for "the holiness of the holy see".

2) The rest of the BALKANS were SLAVIC;

They were Orthodox factions which Ottomans didn't see as harmful as the Catolic factions. Also " the othodox cult" was another enemy of the crusader mentality. And wasn't cruel as much as the catholic cult

OK?

Edited by YAFES

Originally posted by Ptolemy YOU SHOULD KNOW HOW AND WHY BOSNIANS CHOSE ISLAM UNDER THE OTTOMAN RULE, WANT TO TELL THIS, TOO??? Are you sure that muslims do not make up 40% of of the population?   Edit: Cywr, we joined on the same day, yet you have 1600+ more posts than me. Explain.

 

NOT EVERY MUSLIM; ITS AN ARABIC HABIT TO ERODE INFORMATION

Besides, majority of Bosnians are muslim now, this is why serbians murdered them. Europe watched the gratest massacre of the world since WWII, between 1992-1995.

Bosnians chose the religion we brought, because they were (almost) used to be treated like slaves by Vatican.

When Turks came and noticed that everyone was free what to believe, Bosnians began to slide to Islam.