Posted on 11/16/2001 1:08:51 PM PST by veronica
If you want to debate me, please respond to the points I have made. I don't play games.
Pretty funny. There have been times in the history of the world that those calling themselves Christians have behaved in unchristianlike ways, but it is not the fault of the Church as such.
I think you should do more research on the Middle Ages before you, like Voltaire, decide to condemn it completely. As one of my history teachers mentioned, the epochs of history were not actually labeled until the 1700's, when (mosty Deist) historians saw fit to call the expansion of Christianity as "The Dark Ages" and their own time as "The Age of Enlightenment."
I would recommend to you the works of historians Edward Peters and Regine Pernoud.
Catholic and Protestant sources will tell two different accounts. Both sides wronged each other at various times in history. Historically there were a number of saintly Catholics who lived up to the Christian ideal (I have read and treasured their writings). The same goes for the Protestants.
I think the attrocities committed were motivated by chuch/state intermingling, greed, and lust for power; more likely a political agenda wrapped in a cloak of religion. There always have been, and always will be, wonderful examples of Christianity in both the Catholic and Protestant churches.
I agree that this applies to many of the Franciscan friars, who at that time were quite corrupt. However, the Jesuit missions in Paraguay were so successful and beneficient that many natives flocked to them to escape the slave traders. As no good deed goes unpunished, this success contributed to the Jesuits' suppression at the close of the 18th century. (Incidentally, the slave trade was also officially condemned by the papacy within the lifetime of Christopher Columbus).
Who said anything about punishing people for having a Bible? Certain translations were no doubt suppressed, as counterfeit currency or fraudulent deeds would have been destroyed. This was a particular problem with the advent of the printing press, when any man with a bit of money and some Greek and Latin could crank out a version. But Sir Thomas More, in his Dialogue Concerning Heresies, notes that English law only forbade Luther and Tyndale-influenced versions, as those were of dubious accuracy and deviated from Christian orthodoxy. More, being a man of Law himself, should know more about then-contemporary English law than either of us. I will not speak about the rest of European law, since I am less familiar with its Reformation-era history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.