Coliseum: Is the RCC a Force for Good Postmortem

[Dalton]

This thread is a postmortem of the Coliseum Debate between Zixinus and Ruben regarding the thread topic. It will be opened as soon as Ruben has made his closing statement, or in 48 hours, whichever is sooner. Warm up those turbolasers, folks.

[Dalton]

I am currently waiting for Ruben to get back to me about facing a new challenger. If nothing materializes by tomorrow, I will open this thread.

[Dalton]

This thread will be unlocked on Tuesday night or Wednesday morning.

[Dalton]

This thread is now unlocked. Have at it!

Please do not dogpile, though!

[Zixinus]

I would ask people to not just dissact Ruben's arguments but also mine. As I said, this is the first time I entered such a formal debate and I came inexperienced. For one, I deeply underestimated the time involved. I would like to know what I did right and what I did wrong as a debater.

Oh, and what wanted to be my second post to Ruben, I wanted to list a series of things that RCC... well, late acknowledgements. It is to show that it never was greater in its morality than people in its time. The list would have started with RCC's history with the Crusades, then go trough the Inquisition, great silence during the colonial atrocities and slavery, various anti-jew activities and prosecutions. That would be a list of things that can be viewed as massive errors in retrospect. I wanted to add the HIV thing and the stigmatization of homosexuals as its current activities.
I realise now that I should have started the debate with that. But it is late for that.

I also am unsure of whether I laid out my starting arguments and introductions well.

But I must comment that I do find Ruben funny at how much he tries to self-victimize, especially in his second (proper) post. He shows respect for a position... that he didn't even know? Slander... when I barely talked about him?

[Bakustra]

I'm merely a semi-lurker, but I will note several things that struck me on reading through the debate:

Firstly, it seemed rather disingenuous of Ruben to take a debate that was spawned from a thread primarily about the modern Church, and then focus initially upon the history of the Church. It seems an excellent tactic to slow the debate to a crawl, as he can throw a great deal of junk at his opponent and dare them to attack it all. This is essentially what he did, as the debate turned into "history of a two thousand-year old institution" versus "is the Church a force for good in the world?"

Secondly, Zixinus, I will offer some observations. Apart from the array of historical factoids he threw at you, you conceded far too much to him when he declared that there was a burden of proof on you to show the Church as malevolent. The debate is not two-sided. The Roman Catholic Church can be morally neutral as well as good or evil. The grandstanding you recognized as a little over-the-top and out-of-place. As for the array of historical factoids, it probably would have been a good idea to call him out on that, but I wasn't privy to any of the pre-debate negotiations.

Thirdly, I will repeat that none of the aspects of the original thread were repeated within the debate. There was nothing about condoms and the Church's longstanding opposition to birth control. There was instead, a whole load of garbage about the Church throughout history. That's too bad. I would really have loved to see Ruben advance his arguments about sex, birth control, and homosexuality on stage, but that was not to be, alas.

Fourthly, he decided to declare western civilization as being dependent on the Church. The problem with that statement is that most western nations and cultures (and westernized areas like Japan and South Korea) are noted for their secularity, rather than religiousness. Further, western civilization arguably diverged significantly from its neighbors and gained the qualities for which its survival may be considered beneficial, during the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment, which followed a massive loss of Church authority following the Reformation. Of course, he trotted out the old apologist argument about how the Church wasn't really anti-science, no, it was pro-science! At least he didn't trot out "Galileo was a dick" like other apologists. Instead, he pretends that Galileo's lack of rigour was why he was condemned to house arrest. As for the late Inquisitor's statements, the presence of the Galilean moons disproves the Ptomleian model of the universe, if he had cared to glance through a telescope. Of course, he makes reference to the Bible as his primary source, so so much for a scientific condemnation.

His gigantic wall o'Jesuits is unsurprising. I would like to point out to him that the Society of Jesus was the result of a major shift in the Church as a part of the Counter-Reformation. They also embraced the practice of logic wholeheartedly, which means that there is no surprise in there being scientists among their numbers. What would be remarkable would be if the Church had embraced Copernicus/Galileo whole-heartedly, or sunspots, for that matter. I will also note that the Society of Jesus was noted for its tolerance of foreign, heathen practices, as evidenced by Francis Xavier's adoption of Chinese culture during his long mission there. This hardly confirms that the rest of the church was this open or tolerant.(PS: Boscovich's atomic theory is the same as Democritus'. Thought you'd might like to know.)

Though individual priests did attempt to gain humane treatment for the Native Americans, the Pope merely declared that the natives had souls, so they could no longer be hunted like animals. Certainly a great moral victory for the Church. What you can say about the rest of the Church's conduct in the Americas is a matter of debate, since Ruben likely would consider missionary work beneficial.

Finally, I would have brought up the Albigensians. Apologists can cry "political in motive" and "blatant land-grab" about the Crusades against the Middle East, but they cannot say the same about the Albigensians, who were a religious sect in southern France (they are more properly known as the Cathars) who were violently repressed with the death of about a million people, most of southern France's population, from 1213-1255. It is about this crusade that it was said:

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

or in English:

Kill them. For the Lord knows those who are His

There are also the Hussites and Wyclifites, from later periods, for all your persecution needs, but they don't have any quotes summing up the Church's approach to religious differences in such a pithy manner. For that matter, you can go back even further to Arianism, for all your petty difference needs!

Wow. This turned out to be a far longer post than I anticipated. I apologize if this does not fit the intended tone of the thread. If that is so, feel free to split this off.

EDIT: Honestly, what probably would have been the best course is to focus on the modern world rather than on the totality of Church history, and focus more on the harm involved with persecution of homosexuals, collaboration and support of Fascist movements in Italy and Germany, along with the Nationalists and Franco in the Spanish Civil War, and the whole birth control issue, Zixinus. But then the debate would have likely taken far longer to move forward if Ruben didn't budge from his pre-Vatican II argument.

EDIT:Added a little on Boscovich.

[Dalton]

That's exactly what we're looking for. Thanks.

[Feil]

Zixinus' initial proposal for a topic is ludicrous - it basically proposes an indefensible strawman, and asks Ruben to defend it.

Ruben's focus on history, and Zixinus' acceptance of that focus in his response, turns the whole thing into a match of encyclopedia-slogging drudgery wherein each side throws examples of bad or good things until one person gets tired and goes home. Which is exactly what happened.

Including the complete history of the church as direct evidence in the discussion seems pointless - particularly because people of ancient times were generally monstrous bastards deserving of scorn. That the Church was monstrous in the past is indicative of very little except that the Church has been around for a long time. A discussion about what something is should be limited to things that it has done or is doing that directly affect the living. This can include some reference to history - for instance: "The catholic church is a force for evil insofar as its continued existence helps perpetuate the hatred between the West and the Middle East that began in the crusades," or "The catholic church is a force for good because its long stable history has provided many disparate civilizations with elements of common culture on which they can relate and avoid conflict." But just throwing historical anecdotes back and forth like hand grenades isn't going to answer anything.

It's fine to say that Ruben shouldn't have focused on history, but no-one can fault him for going off-topic or shifting goalposts, since there wasn't a reasonable challenge to begin with. Perhaps Zixinus should have called him out on the history focus, and pushed the discussion towards a more modern focus - but what if he had? What then if Ruben had disliked Zixinus' counterproposal to Ruben's counterproposal to Zixinus' proposal? Now everybody would be at least one essay-length post in, several days would have passed, and nobody would even agree on what they're fighting about.

This whole thing was a mess from the beginning, which could easily have been avoided if the debaters had agreed upon their set of equal and opposite premises before hand.

[Zixinus]

I think that I should have done what I was thinking about but was unnecessary: first agree on what to debate on. I did that, by changing the question a bit due to how the debate's medium changed from a TV show's to a formal forum debate. It is unsurprising that he called me out on that point.

Afterwards, I'm not sure. Homosexuality and anti-birth control was a must. I considered adding anti-feminism into the mix, but I didn't find much in that mix. My argument wanted to rest on how the RCC only acknowledged morality under outside pressure, throughout its history.

but I wasn't privy to any of the pre-debate negotiations.

Wasn't any. All there was, was within the thread.

EDIT: Honestly, what probably would have been the best course is to focus on the modern world rather than on the totality of Church history, and focus more on the harm involved with persecution of homosexuals, collaboration and support of Fascist movements in Italy and Germany, along with the Nationalists and Franco in the Spanish Civil War, and the whole birth control issue, Zixinus. But then the debate would have likely taken far longer to move forward if Ruben didn't budge from his pre-Vatican II argument.

Quite right. I should have seen that Ruben was going off the point with his little apologist history notes, but I fallen for his bait. I couldn't resist not commenting on his little revisionism.

[Thanas]

Ruben's entire posts were pretty much filled with a very...interpretative reading of history, shall we say. I wonder how you could have missed that, Zixinus.

Let us take a good look a that...

To anyone who has a good understanding of history, it should be known that the “coliseum”, that is to say the real coliseum, holds a special a place for Christians, and especially Catholics; for the coliseum was the ground where so many catholic saints gave their lives for the religion which they followed, and the God whom they loved. The coliseum was the place where Romans from all across the empire could go to see a Christian thrown to lions as a spectacle for amusement. Now, I too come before you as a man thrown to the lions; a man given over to the captors who seek to gnaw away at every fiber of his religious being, and those captors are none-other than the atheists. Yes, I too have been made into a spectacle for your amusement; a man of faith given over to die in an impossible fight to the death. Yet, there is one difference between this fight and the one took place nineteen-hundred years ago; this time, I have the ability to fight back, not physically, but intellectually. If one remembers, or has a good understanding of the way in which the Christians were viewed in those times; one should know that Christians were one of the most hated minority groups in the entire empire. Indeed, the early Christians were blamed for everything from burning Rome to “hating humanity”, and the Romans did not spare any expense in making sure that they did away with these hated people.

This of course neglects to mention that many christians were absolute fanatics who refused to obey the laws of the empire. Some of them even complained that the emperor would not martyr them quick enough and when one emperor refused to do so, some of them even went to him and demanded that they be martyred.

Of course, he also neglects to mention the complete negligible number of christians that were actually martyred - over 300 years of "persecutions", less than a few thousand people were actually martyred. We even have trial records which indicate that to be martyred for your faith, you would have to be a really obstinate fellow. Of course, the christian practice of calling almost every killed christian a martyr also does not help. Hey, X was just executed for thievery. Was he a christian? Check. Voila, a new martyr.

If you actually read sources from that period (Origines) you even find ancient writers that say that the number of people martyred was very low compared to the volume of actual christians living. Heck, even by the time of Gibbon, scholars downgraded the number to a number of a median of less than 150 people a year martyred. Compare that with the jews, who actually were the systematic target of eradication in the first and second century AD and you have got a higher number of Jews killed in just one insurrection (there were at least three) than in the entire history of christian "persecution."

Heck, even Gibbon writes (in 1776):
"The learned Origen, who, from his experience as well as readings, was intimately acquainted with the history of the Christians, declares, in the most express terms, that the number of martyrs was very inconsiderable. His authority would alone be sufficient to annihilate that formidable army of martyrs, whose relics, drawn for the most part from the catacombs of Rome, have replenished so many churches, and whose marvellous achievements have been the subject of so many volumes of holy romance[...]We shall conclude this chapter by a melancholy truth which obtrudes itself on the reluctant mind; that, even admitting, without hesitation or inquiry, all that history has recorded, or devotion has feigned, on the subject of martyrdoms, it must still be acknowledged that the Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of infidels."

At the start of the late 2nd century AD, Rome had begun it’s steady decline. Commodus, the corrupt son of the emperor Marcus Aurelius, had become emperor, and so started a series of events that would eventually lead to Rome’s collapse. The emperor sold government offices to the highest bidder, the Roman Army was neglected, and the morals of the nation began to decline as well. This over expanded, overinflated, and decadent Empire was making it’s way to decline, and though this process, paving the way for a new civilization to rise [1][2][3].

WOW. Outdated information that not a single modern author still uses. What a load of horse manure.

From this point in history onwards, I will make the case for the Catholic Church’s positive role in the course of events by making two major historical assertions: one, the decline of Rome was inevitable;

See above.

two, the Catholic Church helped preserve the culture of the western Roman civilization until the renaissance.

This should be rich...

The collapse of Rome, as stated above, began as an ever increasing process from the time of Commodus onward. The Empire had been engaged in civil war from 234-284 AD. They had seen twenty-two different emperors come and go, most of them by violent means. Hordes of Germanic barbarians were flooding into the empire from the Völkerwanderung. The currency of the Roman Empire had gone from gold to silver, and the government seized live stock and other goods from the population leading to an ever weakening economy. All of these factors contributed to an ever weakening state of the Roman Empire and lead to it’s eventual collapse.[3][4][5]

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Have you ever read a modern history book? Or even wikipedia?

One of the most destructive of these barbarians was Attila the Hun. Attila had spread across Italy leaving destruction in his wake, and was now poised to strike Rome. It was in this time that pope Leo I marched out to meet the great barbarian chieftain, through his intercession Attila was persuaded to turn back, and stop his assault on Rome. The story goes that Attila was persuaded to turn back by an image of saint peter, but it is more likely that he was convinced by the logistical argument that Leo made.[10] In any case, Rome was protected from being sacked by the church, and this undoubtedly served to the protection of western civilization to some extent.

Christian propaganda. Pure and simple. Here is what really happened:

1. It is questionable if Leo ever met Attila
2. To claim that the church protected Rome is a blatant lie. The one to whom the credit belongs is no other than Flavius Aetius, who conducted a brilliant scorched earth campaign with very limited forces available, which greatly depleted the Hunnish force. Attila was forced to turn back due to this great feat of strategy, not because Leo met him.
3. In any case, the credit is not only due to leo, because Leo was not alone when he went to Attila. He was accompanied by several high Roman officials.
4. If Leo even met with Attila, it is not even sure if this was not treason. For he had no authority to negotiate with Attila. The only one who had that was the emperor or Aetius, certainly not Leo.

For more details see Peter J. Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire, London 2005, pg. 333 onwards.

The next important point I will focus on, is the conversion of the Frankish king Clovis I.

Of course, you neglect to mention the murder of pagan philosophers, the prosecutions by the christians against pagans, which were far more destructive than anything the pagans ever did against the christians and which destroyed enormous cultural wealth, for example the destruction of the library of alexandria.

While the other predominately Arian Goths were aiding in the destruction of the Roman Empire [12][13], the church was working to convert the Franks to the preservation of classical civilization. The first major conversion that took place was that of King Clovis I [11]. The conversion to Christianity provided Clovis with a way to unite his people and granted legitimacy to his empire.

During the reign of Clovis I, the Franks beat back the Visgoths and conquered a great deal of land. Much of these conquests constitute land that now forms modern day Italy and France [11]. The success of Clovis brought a sort of stability to the west and paved the way for the Carloingian Renaissance under Charlemagne.

BS. The church converted Clovis to gain influence. And clovis reign was very destructive, for it destroyed the last vestige of Roman administration and civilization in Gaul.

Before the time of Charlemagne, however; another important victory for the west took place. This victory is, of course, the battle of Tours. With the rise Islam in 623, the West had a seen a new horde passing into the western world: the moors. The moors had moved into Europe by the start of 8th century and had conquered all of Spain by 718 AD [16]. The Islamic invaders next set their sights on France [18][17][15]. The battle of tours was ultimately won by the Frankish Catholic general Charles Martel under the guidance of the Church. If this battle had not been won, it is likely that Europe would be speaking Arabic today [15][14][17][18].

BS. The victory at Tours was nothing but a minor setback for the Moors. It was far more overshadowed by the great victory at Constantinople, which did far more to sap arab strength than the french ever did. And what guidance did the church rovide, pray tell?

With victory at the battle of tours, the way was opened up for the next great catholic leader on our list, Charlamagne. The rise of Charlemagne saw the reestablishment of unity in the west

It did not. Major parts of the WRE were never part of Charlemagne's reign. Furthermore, you neglect to mention how Charlemagne's policies weakened the major christian empire of its time, the Byzantine Empire.

and the beginning of the Carlolingian renaissance. After Charlemage’s crowning as the Holy roman emperor and conversion to Christianity, the franks once again were untied under a common cause, which lead to the creation of the Carlolingian Empire [21][22][23]. The empire expanded from northern Italy to the ends of Germany. It constituted the modern day nations of France and Germany, and it sparked the beginning of the Carolingian renaissance.[21][22][23]

It did not constitute anything of that sort. France and Germany were constituted through a lengthy and time-consuming process, and in Germany's case it took Bismarck to constitute anything even remotely resembling modern day Germany.

Under great influence from the Church, the Carloginian renaissance became a period of resurrection for learning, architecture and culture for the Franks who had begun to fall back into barbarism before the rise of Charlamagne [19][20]. The monasteries saw a rise in literacy, and the ancient manuscripts began to be read and copied [19][20]. There were also great strides in economic legal reforms [19][20].

The ancient manuscripts began to be copied? Didn't you mean to say that a very small sample was copied and read?

If the Catholic Church had not converted the franks to Christianity, it is my view that Western Civilization as we see it today would not exist. I would also assert that the unifying effect that the Church had in the west was paramount to surviving the dark ages.

The next area that I will assess is the actions of the Church in preserving literacy, agriculture and knowledge throughout the “dark Ages”. In Dark Age Europe’ the centers of learning and stability became the churches and monasteries. The monks copied the ancient manuscripts, preserved knowledge and developed expansive gardens that contributed to the economy of Europe [24][25][26][27]. If it was not for the work of these monks it is likely that much of ancient antiquity would have been lost.

The medieval monks were known for copying Greek and Roman classical texts, and for their dedication to knowledge and learning [27][26][29]. Not only did they copy many of the ancient texts of antiquity, but they also established schools, and made major contributions to the fields of philosophy [31]. St. Benedict was the monk who established the abbey Monte Cassino, a place that is one of the most important sites to the development of modern western culture [31]. In this abbey, ancient works of antiquity were copied and laid down for future generations. Great minds like Desiderus, also remembered as Pope Victor III, over saw the preservation of such works as: Josephus, Paul Warnfrid, Jordanus, the “novels” of Justinian, the works of Terrance, Virgil, Cicero’s “De natura deorum”, and Ovid’s Fasti [33]. Through the learning and meticulous record keeping of the monasteries, cathedrals eventually established organized school systems. These institutions would later set the foundation for the modern day university [35]. During the Carlolingian Renaissance, the Church also played a crucial role. Scholar and theologian Alcuin is credited as one of the architects of the Carloingian renaissance. He over saw the education of the royalty and improved the abbey schools. Alcuin is credited with the invention of lower case letters; he also contributed to the field of mathematics [32]. Wherever the monks went they established schools and centers of learning. St. Anselm and St. Boniface were some of the leading forces in this area [31][33]. St. Boniface established schools in every abbey he founded in Germany, as did St. Augustine in England and St. Francis in Ireland[31][33]. The monks contributed extensively to the preservation of literacy and knowledge in the barbarian invasions. Without their work, civilization might have been lost.

This is a very...propagandazised view of history that neglects to mention a lot of facts.

1. General literacy did only start to rise with the invention of the banking system and the far trade, which happened in Italy in the 12th-14th centuries. Only this did create a demand for literacy of the common people.
2. The church did a very shoddy job of preserving civilization. Heck, when they talked to the only true advanced christian civilization (the Byzantines) in the 10th century, their top scholar could not even speak decent greek.
3. It is only by the collapse of the Byzantine empire and the subsequent escape of many of the scholars to the west that old manuscripts were even available in Italy. A lot, if not most of the works we read today were not preserved by the church or made available by it, but by Italian merchants purchasing manuscripts from Byzantine libraries.
4. The church was widely involved in falsifying or destroying historical works that did not fit into their viewpoint. One of the more commonly known examples is Flavius Josephus.

In short, your entire reading of history is flawed and would you try to publish anything like that today, you would be laughed out of the publishing houses.

Of course, this selective (shall I say dishonest? I think I shall) reading of history was not merely extended to your opening post. It was also very evident in your rebuttal.

My opponent seems to think that the Catholic Church does not care about non-catholics at all, but I will demonstrate that they do care about the lives of non-catholics by showing papal bulls intended to protect non-christians.

The first one I will address is the papal condemnation of the enslavement of non-Christians in 1537[15].

This condemnation was however not enforced by the Catholic church, for it never threatened the king of spain with consequences for it. In short, it is nothing but empty words. Do not try to make it as if the catholic church was the great cheerleader for human rights back then, it was not. In fact, it explicitly called for and condoned slavery and slave taking for over 400 years. Read up on the history of the eastern european crusades.

Throughout its history it was not afraid to use violence to defeat its religious foes such as the Byzantine Empire.

I’m not sure what force you’re referring to in reference to the Byzantine Empire because the Catholic Church was allies with the Byzantines throughout the Crusades. I think what you could possibly be referring to the sack of Constantinople. If you’ve read history, however, you should know that Pope Innocent III actually condemned the crusaders who took part in the sack[19].

It did however not have any trouble later on defending the so-called latin empire, which was formed out of the crusaders who sacked constantinople. It also had no trouble using the normans against the Byzantines, or the franks, or any other power that came in handy. Heck, they even extorted the Byzantine empire into total submission when the Byzantines had their backs to the wall against the Osmans (which was due in no small part to the Latin kingdom, which the church supported). In the history of the church, it was quite willing to throw the Byzantine Empire under the bus whenever it could.

You should also know that the first crusade was, in fact, called for to protect the Byzantines from Islamic aggression. In fact, the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I had petitioned Pope Urban II for aid in fighting the Muslims. Here is the letter of Alexius I[20][21].

Eh...no. The letter of Alexius only asks for mercenaries. What Urban did was twist it into a general crusade, which Alexius did not want. This is well established by now, even in the most basics of books about the subject.

In fact, the Byzantines were allies with the crusader almost the entire way through, although there was some mistrust between the two groups [22].

Ehem. Actually, the crusaders broke their oath at the first opportunity and even plundered Byzantine lands.

No I don’t. I fully acknowledge the work of the Greeks, the Roman and the other civilizations that contributed to western culture, but the culture we see today was predominately preserved and united by Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church.

It was not, see above.

Clovis I viewed all of his actions as a defense of Christianity. He viewed all of his conquests as Holy Wars and he was always seeking to create a Christian empire. Without this sense of destiny he would not have been able to mobilize himself as effectively against the barbarians[25].

No. That is what christian sources tell us about it.

However, even they cannot gloss over the fact that the most important of Chlodovechus victories, namely the unification of the Franks and the victory over the Alamanni, were done before his conversion to christianity. You also neglect to mention that Chlodovechus did receive a major increase in power to it.

And barbarians....dear god.

Eventually sure, but without the unifying effect that Christianity had, it would have taken a lot longer. Many of the writing of ancient antiquity would also have been lost. Without the learning that took place in the monasteries knowledge would not have taken root.

See above.

My opponent forgets that the Arabs only obtained the ancient writings from conquering Christian kingdoms[26].

No, they did not. Your source is laughable and even so, the church was hardly responsible for maintaining the libraries in the east, which were state-owned in the vast majority of cases.

The only place you can point to show that the Catholic Church “suppressed science” is the case of Galileo.

The destruction of the library of Alexandria does not count? The persecution of pagan intellectuals and scientists does not count? The persecution of apothecaries does not count? The threat of the spanish inquisition does not count? Etc pp.

First, I ask you to show me where the papacy impeded the progress of science.

See above.

I ask my opponent why Roman laws were to become important after the fall of the Roman Empire.

All historians of law recognize that modern day western laws are influenced by the Romans.

Which had nothing to do with the church, but more with the Byzantines and the scholars of law.

In short, Ruben, you had it easy with Zixinus, whose knowledge of history seems to be pretty basic or who for some reason was not able to challenge your claims. However, your dishonest reading of history will not get by me.

[Zixinus]

I knew that Ruben's knowledge of history was very screwed, although I didn't know how much. I didn't want to go and challenge the specifics, although I did ended up with that a bit.

Holy shit, did he twist it rock-hard.

As for me: I am sorry to admit that my history lessons was a bit of a miss-match (due to my bit turbulent school history), so yeah, my level of history knowledge is so-so at best. I have a few books that I hope can remedy that. Of course, I still need to read them to do that.

[Falkenhayn]

Having read Thanas' post, the points he refuted are bog-standard tropes from the Western Civ. courses I took in HS. In New York, FYI. I don't know how things go for the rest of the States.

[Zixinus]

Having read Thanas' post, the points he refuted are bog-standard tropes from the Western Civ. courses I took in HS. In New York, FYI. I don't know how things go for the rest of the States.

I'm not from the States. I'm from Hungary, and as I have mentioned, I have a bit of a turbulent education history and some bits of knowledge got trough either as incomplete, quickly forgotten or entirely left out. I do try to make up with that, but you can guess the quality of the autodidact education.

[Falkenhayn]

I'm not from the States. I'm from Hungary, and as I have mentioned, I have a bit of a turbulent education history and some bits of knowledge got trough either as incomplete, quickly forgotten or entirely left out. I do try to make up with that, but you can guess the quality of the autodidact education.

And I'm sharing educational experience as well. I was taught the same falsehoods, and though it's been a while since our last discussion on public education, people expected me to be from the South. I'm simply saying that my high school education in history sucked, in a state that's supposedly progressive. I did quite well on the NYS history regents examination (as if that's some kind of achievement...), and the material Thanas debunked was heavily emphasized in that curriculum. So more than anything, we're in the same boat.

[Bakustra]

I'm not from the States. I'm from Hungary, and as I have mentioned, I have a bit of a turbulent education history and some bits of knowledge got trough either as incomplete, quickly forgotten or entirely left out. I do try to make up with that, but you can guess the quality of the autodidact education.

And I'm sharing educational experience as well. I was taught the same falsehoods, and though it's been a while since our last discussion on public education, people expected me to be from the South. I'm simply saying that my high school education in history sucked, in a state that's supposedly progressive. I did quite well on the NYS history regents examination (as if that's some kind of achievement...), and the material Thanas debunked was heavily emphasized in that curriculum. So more than anything, we're in the same boat.

I went to high school in Michigan, and my last course in European history was AP Euro History about five years ago. We didn't cover much at all about the Eastern Roman Empire or the Justinian Code. I had to learn about these things on my own time. We covered absolutely nothing about the Roman Empire beyond the minimal basics in all the years of schooling that I had. I doubt we even covered all that much about the Church or Tours. He did bring in the Lollards and the Hussites briefly, but the real focus of the course was on post-medieval history from what I can recall. Now all we need is a Westerner and a Southerner to round out the high-school deficiencies.

[GuppyShark]

What's a history class?

Wish I was joking. In my (public) education, History always got flattened by "Be socially groovy, dude" classes.

[Thanas]

Yes. History education in the United states is dismal to say the least. It is entirely america-centric or western European centric, with way too much emphasis on the modern era. American high schools have what, 2-3 years of history? In German schools, you get at lest 4 and quite probably even 7 or 8 years.

Not too mention the level of US college history classes, which are even worse because the standards of many colleges are a joke.

[Zixinus]

So more than anything, we're in the same boat.

Yeah, because Hungarian education is so much like American, isn't it? And you know the details of both my education and the Hungarian education system, as well as the details of my schools in particular so well?

Both of us may be autodidacts to a certain extent, but I don't think we can quickly say that our patches of ignorance are the same quite so quickly.

[Thanas]

I see the one-hit-wonder Ruben has scurried off - I wonder why. :rolleyes:

[Zixinus]

I would like to think that because my closing arguments were so powerful. But seriously? I think he proved to himself some sort of point, that no one can stand to debate him.

[Bakustra]

I see the one-hit-wonder Ruben has scurried off - I wonder why. :rolleyes:

It's too bad. I'd have loved to see him continue to defend his ideas of "natural law" in the SLAM thread. Ah well.

[Ruben]

Sorry I've been gone so long, I was busy with finals and such. Any way, I don't want to get into any more serious of a debate, but I will address some of the comments being made.

I would like to think that because my closing arguments were so powerful. But seriously? I think he proved to himself some sort of point, that no one can stand to debate him.

I was actually working on a closing statement, but I was too busy to finish it.

I actually had a closing statement in the works, but I never got around to finishing it.
Of course, he also neglects to mention the complete negligible number of christians that were actually martyred - over 300 years of "persecutions", less than a few thousand people were actually martyred. We even have trial records which indicate that to be martyred for your faith, you would have to be a really obstinate fellow. Of course, the christian practice of calling almost every killed christian a martyr also does not help. Hey, X was just executed for thievery. Was he a christian? Check. Voila, a new martyr.

Are you serious? The same arguments could be made for the Spanish inquisition. The inquisition only killed a few thousand in 300 years too, that doesn't stop you from labeling it a slaughter.

This of course neglects to mention that many christians were absolute fanatics who refused to obey the laws of the empire. Some of them even complained that the emperor would not martyr them quick enough and when one emperor refused to do so, some of them even went to him and demanded that they be martyred.

So, its your opinion that the Christians deserved to die? How do you know they were fanatics? Because the Romans said so? The Nazis thought the Jews were evil fanatics too, that doesn't mean they were right. Don't you think that maybe alot of this was propaganda? Which was kind of my point. Hey, you know what, the Cathars were religious fanatics who encouraged suicide and believed that all human life was evil, are you going to defend their persecution too? Or is persecution only wrong when the Catholic Church does it?

Heck, even Gibbon writes (in 1776):
"The learned Origen, who, from his experience as well as readings, was intimately acquainted with the history of the Christians, declares, in the most express terms, that the number of martyrs was very inconsiderable. His authority would alone be sufficient to annihilate that formidable army of martyrs, whose relics, drawn for the most part from the catacombs of Rome, have replenished so many churches, and whose marvellous achievements have been the subject of so many volumes of holy romance[...]We shall conclude this chapter by a melancholy truth which obtrudes itself on the reluctant mind; that, even admitting, without hesitation or inquiry, all that history has recorded, or devotion has feigned, on the subject of martyrdoms, it must still be acknowledged that the Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of infidels."

Really you're quoting Edward Gibbons? You realize this is the same guy who theorized that the christians were SOLEY responsible for the fall of Rome, a claim that has been discredited by modern day historians. Besides , Gibbons was a well know anti-christian.

WOW. Outdated information that not a single modern author still uses. What a load of horse manure.

Hey, your the one who quoted an author from 1776.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Have you ever read a modern history book? Or even wikipedia?

So, basically, your strategy here " I cant refute what hes saying, so I'll just say hes wrong and call him an idiot". Yup, great debate strategy there bud.

1. It is questionable if Leo ever met Attila
2. To claim that the church protected Rome is a blatant lie. The one to whom the credit belongs is no other than Flavius Aetius, who conducted a brilliant scorched earth campaign with very limited forces available, which greatly depleted the Hunnish force. Attila was forced to turn back due to this great feat of strategy, not because Leo met him.
3. In any case, the credit is not only due to leo, because Leo was not alone when he went to Attila. He was accompanied by several high Roman officials.
4. If Leo even met with Attila, it is not even sure if this was not treason. For he had no authority to negotiate with Attila. The only one who had that was the emperor or Aetius, certainly not Leo.

Firstly, we don't know what exactly happened, but there is some reason to believe that the Pope had some ability to sway Atilla to leave, whether by persuasion or not. As for the scorched earth campaign, I already mentioned that, but Atilla would never have heard of it without the procession lead by the Pope. Even if it was the Popes advisors who did he talking, I dobut the proccesion would have taken place without papal support.

Of course, you neglect to mention the murder of pagan philosophers, the prosecutions by the christians against pagans, which were far more destructive than anything the pagans ever did against the christians and which destroyed enormous cultural wealth, for example the destruction of the library of alexandria.

The bigger picture is that Clovises conquests helped to preserve order and to hold off the Visgoths, who were far more destructive than Clovis was.

The Library of Alexandria was burned by the eastern Roman Empire not the Catholic church, or Clovis. I'm not sure why you even brought it up in reference to Clovis I when he had nothing to do with the burning at all. The library was also burned three times in history. First by Julias Ceasar, second by the Christian Roman empreror, and lastly by the muslims in 648.

BS. The church converted Clovis to gain influence. And clovis reign was very destructive, for it destroyed the last vestige of Roman administration and civilization in Gaul.

Now who is taking a very "interpretive" reading of History? You say that the Church only converted Clovis to gain "influence", but you don't have any proof to back that assertion, just your own personal paranoia and prejudice, but either way, Clovis was far better for Roman civilization than the Visigoths were. lastly, how exactly did he destroy Roman administration? Maybe he did, but I would like to see your sources.

BS. The victory at Tours was nothing but a minor setback for the Moors. It was far more overshadowed by the great victory at Constantinople, which did far more to sap arab strength than the french ever did. And what guidance did the church rovide, pray tell?

I'm sorry, but how exactly are the moores and the Turks in Constantinople connected? Sure Constantinople was important, but the moores were rolling through France unchecked until Charles the hammer pushed them back. Charles Martel, by the way, was mentored and taught by St. Boniface.

It did not. Major parts of the WRE were never part of Charlemagne's reign.

How is the fact that Charlamagne weakened the byzantine Empire relevent? The Byzantines didn't fall until the 14th century, hardly Charlamagnes fault. Even still, you can't over look the contribution he made to western civilization, something which all modern day historians acknowledge.

It did not constitute anything of that sort. France and Germany were constituted through a lengthy and time-consuming process, and in Germany's case it took Bismarck to constitute anything even remotely resembling modern day Germany.

Yes, it is true that Germany and France were formed later on, but Charlamagne, and his Empire, laid the foundation for the later development of those nations, again, something which all modern historians acknowledge.

The ancient manuscripts began to be copied? Didn't you mean to say that a very small sample was copied and read?

Nitpicky, aren't we?

1. General literacy did only start to rise with the invention of the banking system and the far trade, which happened in Italy in the 12th-14th centuries. Only this did create a demand for literacy of the common people.

So what?

2. The church did a very shoddy job of preserving civilization. Heck, when they talked to the only true advanced christian civilization (the Byzantines) in the 10th century, their top scholar could not even speak decent greek.

The Byzantines were Roman Catholic up until the tenth century. You also have to recognize that the west went through a major collapse. My point was not that the Church was the best educated in the world, but they did preserve learning in the west.

3. It is only by the collapse of the Byzantine empire and the subsequent escape of many of the scholars to the west that old manuscripts were even available in Italy. A lot, if not most of the works we read today were not preserved by the church or made available by it, but by Italian merchants purchasing manuscripts from Byzantine libraries.

Says who? Anyway, many pre-Collapse of the Byzantine empire scholars had access to the works of antiquity, such as Thomas Aquinas.

4. The church was widely involved in falsifying or destroying historical works that did not fit into their viewpoint. One of the more commonly known examples is Flavius Josephus.

They still preserved most of the valuable ones. The texts that they burned were mostly the books of the ancient Roman religion, which are hardly valuable to civilization. The important works, such as history and philosophy, they preserved.

As for Flavius Josephus, I'm sure your referencing the alleged Jesus forgery, which is not actually a forgery but an interbolation, meaning that they added words, but even if you delete those words the passage still conveys the same meaning.

In short, your entire reading of history is flawed and would you try to publish anything like that today, you would be laughed out of the publishing houses.

There are plenty of history books that back up what I'm saying. In fact, I believe my source was from a book.

This condemnation was however not enforced by the Catholic church, for it never threatened the king of spain with consequences for it..

What do you mean "enforced"? The Catholic church did not have the ability to "punish" the Spanish empire, all they could do was rule on the morality of their actions.

It is nothing but empty words.

No, it was not "empty words", it was the infallible, and dogmatic decree of the magisterium, defiance of which entails automatic excommunication. The difference between this encyclical ( Sublimus Dei) and the encyclicals that condone slavery ( Romanus Ponifex, dum Diversalis) is that this encyclical was infallible, and sent to all bishops, and all leaders of the Catholic World, and was required to be upheld as doctrine. Where as Romaus pontifex and Dum diversalis, were sent only to Portugal, and were not dogmatic or infallible.

It did however not have any trouble later on defending the so-called latin empire, which was formed out of the crusaders who sacked constantinople. It also had no trouble using the normans against the Byzantines, or the franks, or any other power that came in handy. Heck, they even extorted the Byzantine empire into total submission when the Byzantines had their backs to the wall against the Osmans (which was due in no small part to the Latin kingdom, which the church supported). In the history of the church, it was quite willing to throw the Byzantine Empire under the bus whenever it could.

Firstly, our confusing the actions of the crusading army with the actions of the Catholic church. The crusaders screwed over the Byzantines, but the church was their allies.

Eh...no. The letter of Alexius only asks for mercenaries. What Urban did was twist it into a general crusade, which Alexius did not want. This is well established by now, even in the most basics of books about the subject.

Interpretative. Alexius maybe didn't request a "crusade", but he still called for help.

Ehem. Actually, the crusaders broke their oath at the first opportunity and even plundered Byzantine lands.

They were still formally allies, and the Byzantines screwed over the crusaders a few times as well, but either way how is this relevent to the Catholic Church?

No. That is what christian sources tell us about it.

However, even they cannot gloss over the fact that the most important of Chlodovechus victories, namely the unification of the Franks and the victory over the Alamanni, were done before his conversion to christianity. You also neglect to mention that Chlodovechus did receive a major increase in power to it.

And barbarians....dear god.

He still became a Christian ruler. Christianity united him with Rome. What exactly is wrong with christian sources.

The destruction of the library of Alexandria does not count? The persecution of pagan intellectuals and scientists does not count? The persecution of apothecaries does not count? The threat of the spanish inquisition does not count? Etc pp.

Again, this does not prove suppression of science. Which pagan philosopher are you refering too? Prove that scientific documents were burnt at Alexandria, and that there were not copies of these documents else where. The spanish inquistion was aimed at the conversos, not science.

Which had nothing to do with the church, but more with the Byzantines and the scholars of law.

Cannon law, which is excluesively Roman Catholic, also influenced western law.

In closing, I will address some of Zixinuses closing arguments.

Zixinus, again, tried to beat the condom horse. He asserts that the influence of the Catholic Church is making aids worse. If this is true, why do we not see any correlation between catholic nations and higher aids rates? All the countries we have seen where the church has great influence over peoples lives the rates are, either, average, or below average. If Zixinuses thesis were correct aids rates in Catholic Countries would be higher than average, but they are not. Lastly, if Zixinuses thesis were correct, Uganda would not have been able to successfully fight aids, since Uganda has a 41% Catholic population.

[Zixinus]

Horse is it? Let me show you what one of my sources in my closing post said:

Condom Use
According to Wawer, increased condom use also might be " offsetting other high-risk behaviors" in the district (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/24). In 1994, about 10% of men reported that they consistently used condoms with nonmarital partners, compared with 50% in 2003. Reported condom use among women in the same age group increased from 2% to 28% in 2003 (Washington Post, 2/24). However, Uganda "[o]minously" is "in the midst of an acute condom shortage" after the government determined that condoms provided by an unnamed foreign supplier were "substandard," according to the Chronicle. The government currently is reviewing the condom quality control standards of all its suppliers, including the United States. According to Wawer, the shortage has reduced the availability of condoms in the country by 50% and driven up the cost to consumers (San Francisco Chronicle, 2/24).

Reaction
The study's findings suggest that Uganda's "much-lauded success" in reducing its HIV prevalence has "little to do with" the abstinence and monogamy programs emphasized by the Bush administration under the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, Reuters reports (Fox, Reuters, 2/24).

That's one of the best science surveys possible in the region. We have seen that the Pople condemns condoms (and no, do not fucking bring up Green again: he is not saying what you want him to say), in the old thread several catholic clergymen of rank were quoted to tell outright lies.

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/B76E0FA9 ... BB379A.asp

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, told the programme’s makers that HIV can “easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom.” The programme is due to be broadcast on BBC1 on Sunday October 12 (10.15pm - 11.05pm).

I admit that I can't cite direct evidence that Catholicism directly interferes with anti-AIDS movements, but it doesn't take much brains to realise that when you have high-ranking clergymen telling lies like the above, they are not helping.

As for Uganda: one of the reasons why the program was succesful, was raising awareness. If you raise awareness that there is a problem, rather than outright deny it like some countries did beforehand, people will realise they have to be careful. It was Uganda's success that it was able to curb infection rates for a while, not the RCC's. It was the Uganda government that set out to say: we're gonna stop AIDS, even if that means that we have to tell people to use condoms. Which is why the "C" is in ABC.

But I'm not in the debate anymore and I have lunch now. Have fun having Thanas ripping you a new one.

[Thanas]

Of course, he also neglects to mention the complete negligible number of christians that were actually martyred - over 300 years of "persecutions", less than a few thousand people were actually martyred. We even have trial records which indicate that to be martyred for your faith, you would have to be a really obstinate fellow. Of course, the christian practice of calling almost every killed christian a martyr also does not help. Hey, X was just executed for thievery. Was he a christian? Check. Voila, a new martyr.

Are you serious? The same arguments could be made for the Spanish inquisition. The inquisition only killed a few thousand in 300 years too, that doesn't stop you from labeling it a slaughter.

It puts thinks in perspective and how nice of you to ignore my points. Answer them or shut up.

This of course neglects to mention that many christians were absolute fanatics who refused to obey the laws of the empire. Some of them even complained that the emperor would not martyr them quick enough and when one emperor refused to do so, some of them even went to him and demanded that they be martyred.

So, its your opinion that the christians deserved to die?

Holy Strawman, batman.

How do you know they were fanatics? Because the Romans said so?

No, because some of their saints wrote some great letters demanding to be martyred. Oh, and we have actual court records from that time.

You lose.

The nazis thought the Jews were evil fanatics too, that doesn't mean they were right. Don't you think that maybe alot of this was propaganda?

Propaganda written by christians?

Which was kind of my point. Hey, you know what, the Cathars were religious fanatics who encouraged suicide and believed that all human life was evil, are you going to defend their persecution too? Or is persecution only wrong when the Catholic Church does it?

You are an idiot who knows jack about the cathars.

Heck, even Gibbon writes (in 1776):
"The learned Origen, who, from his experience as well as readings, was intimately acquainted with the history of the Christians, declares, in the most express terms, that the number of martyrs was very inconsiderable. His authority would alone be sufficient to annihilate that formidable army of martyrs, whose relics, drawn for the most part from the catacombs of Rome, have replenished so many churches, and whose marvellous achievements have been the subject of so many volumes of holy romance[...]We shall conclude this chapter by a melancholy truth which obtrudes itself on the reluctant mind; that, even admitting, without hesitation or inquiry, all that history has recorded, or devotion has feigned, on the subject of martyrdoms, it must still be acknowledged that the Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of infidels."

Really you're quoting Edward Gibbons? You realize this is the same guy who theorized that the christians were SOLEY responsible for the fall of Rome, a claim that has been discredited by modern day historians. Besides , Gibbons was a well know anti-christian.

I am quoting Gibbon (skip the s) who is quoting Origines, who was a well known christian writer. But of course, you are attacking the source and not the argument. Why am I not surprised?

WOW. Outdated information that not a single modern author still uses. What a load of horse manure.

Hey, your the one who quoted an author from 1776.

To illustrate a point, not to say I agree 100% with him. But hey, let's use this strategy even more.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. Have you ever read a modern history book? Or even wikipedia?

So, basically, your stratagie here " I cant refute what hes saying, so i'll just say hes wrong and call him an idiot". Yup, great debate stratagie there bud.

A) It is strategy
B) Yes, you are wrong.
c) Source your claims. Do so. Immediately.

1. It is questionable if Leo ever met Attila
2. To claim that the church protected Rome is a blatant lie. The one to whom the credit belongs is no other than Flavius Aetius, who conducted a brilliant scorched earth campaign with very limited forces available, which greatly depleted the Hunnish force. Attila was forced to turn back due to this great feat of strategy, not because Leo met him.
3. In any case, the credit is not only due to leo, because Leo was not alone when he went to Attila. He was accompanied by several high Roman officials.
4. If Leo even met with Attila, it is not even sure if this was not treason. For he had no authority to negotiate with Attila. The only one who had that was the emperor or Aetius, certainly not Leo.

Firstly, we don't know what exactly happened, but there is some reason to believe that the Pope had some ability to sway Atilla to leave, whether by persuasion or not.

Only said so by christian writers and very much questionable. In any case, the pope had no real authority to argue in front of Attila, thereby committing treason.

As for the scorched earth campaign, I already mentioned that, but Atilla would never have heard of it without the procession lead by the Pope.

You mean he did not notice the plague in his army, the destroyed wagons, the constant attacks by roman forces against his own command?

Do you know anything about this era at all? Or about the events?

Even if it was the Popes advisors who did he talking, I dobut the proccesion would have taken place without papal support.

Because...you say so?

Of course, you neglect to mention the murder of pagan philosophers, the prosecutions by the christians against pagans, which were far more destructive than anything the pagans ever did against the christians and which destroyed enormous cultural wealth, for example the destruction of the library of alexandria.

The bigger picture is that Clovises conquests helped to preserve order and to hold off he Visgoths, who were far more destructive than the Clovis was.

Source for that? Or an argument in favor of it?

The Library of Alexandria was burned by the eastern Roman Empire not the Catholic church, or Clovis. I'm not sure why you even brought it up in reference to Clovis I when he had nothing to do with the burning at all. The library was also burned three times in history. First by Julias Ceasar, second by the Christian Roman empreror, and lastly by the muslims in 648.

It was burned by a christian mob in a little well known riot called the destruction of the Serapeion in 398.


Do you know who that is? It is St. Theophil, standing above the burning serapeion.

Heck, we even have accounts of a writer going through the serapeion and noticing the burnt scrolls. It is a very, very dammning piece of evidence.

BS. The church converted Clovis to gain influence. And clovis reign was very destructive, for it destroyed the last vestige of Roman administration and civilization in Gaul.

Now who is taking a very "interpretive" reading of History? You say that the Church only converted Clovis to gain "influence", but you don't have any proof to back that assertion, just your own personal paranoia and prejudice, but either way,

Yeah, I am sure the grants given to Clovis to the church, the continued state of power they derives had nothing to do with the conversion.

Clovis was far better for Roman civilization than the Visigoths were. lastly, how exactly did he destroy Roman administration? Maybe he did, but I would like to see your sources.

You really know nothing about Clovis if you think he did not destroy the last remnant of Roman administration in Gaul, the domain of the son of the last magister militum per Gallias, Aegidius, at that time commanded by his son Syagrius.

BS. The victory at Tours was nothing but a minor setback for the Moors. It was far more overshadowed by the great victory at Constantinople, which did far more to sap arab strength than the french ever did. And what guidance did the church rovide, pray tell?

I'm sorry, but how exactly are the moores and the Turks in Constantinople connected? Sure Constantinople was important, but the moores were rolling through France unchecked until Charles the hammer pushed them back. Charles Martel, by the way, was mentored and taught by St. Boniface.

Because:
a) The moorish invasion was little more than a scouting force, nothing serious.
b) at that time, there were no turks. They were all arabs. The turks do not exist until the early appearance of turkish nomades in the 10th and 11th centuries.
c) while Martel won a victory, it is nothing against what a real arab invasion would have looked like.

The force at Constantinople numbered in the tens of thousands and had over 2000 ships. You really think Martel's victory matters in that? Fact is, the arabs would have steamrolled the west had the Byzantines not been always there to stop them.

It did not. Major parts of the WRE were never part of Charlemagne's reign.

How is the fact that Charlamagne weakened the byzantine Empire realevent?

Because it was the best civilized country at that time and your whole line was that the church protected civilization. Somehow, I doubt weakening and waging an aggressive policy against the most civilized country at all does wonders for civilization.

It did not constitute anything of that sort. France and Germany were constituted through a lengthy and time-consuming process, and in Germany's case it took Bismarck to constitute anything even remotely resembling modern day Germany.

Yes, it is true that Germany and France were formed later on, but Charlamagne, and his Empire, laid the foundation for the later development of those nations, again, something which all modern historians acknowledge.

Really? I must have missed the memo in our department. Maybe I'll ask my colleagues about that.

Charlemagne laid the foundation in so far as you can say that any preceding nation laid the foundation for the next in history.

1. General literacy did only start to rise with the invention of the banking system and the far trade, which happened in Italy in the 12th-14th centuries. Only this did create a demand for literacy of the common people.

So what?

Because it had nothing to do with the church, you idiot.

2. The church did a very shoddy job of preserving civilization. Heck, when they talked to the only true advanced christian civilization (the Byzantines) in the 10th century, their top scholar could not even speak decent greek.

The Byzantines were Roman Catholic up until the tenth century.

Source?

You also have to recognize that the west went through a major collapse. My point was not that the Church was the best educated in the world, but they did preserve learning in the west.

Only in a limited way and they did not make it available to the public until events forced them to. Nothing would have prevented them setting up schools in the 10th or 9th century, but they would not.

Says who?

Only every historian who wrote a book about the renaissance.

Anyway, many pre-Collapse of the Byzantine empire scholars had access to the works of antiquity, such as Thomas Aquinas.

Only in a limited manner and his latin does not measure up to Catull.

4. The church was widely involved in falsifying or destroying historical works that did not fit into their viewpoint. One of the more commonly known examples is Flavius Josephus.

They still preserved most of the valuable ones. The texts that they burned were mostly the books of the ancient Roman religion, which is hardly valuable to civilization.

No, of course it is not valuable, anything more than the bible is. Hey, you don't mind if i destroy all bibles, church documents, liturgy books, do you? How idiotic do you have to be to not recognize those books were dammed important and that many people would kill to have them today?

Finally, who made you arbiter to decide that a religion, which existed for far longer than christianity did, was not valuable?

The important works, such as history and philosophy, they preserved.

BS. Or otherwise I await your explanation for why the vast majority of ancient historians is lost, like the majority of the works of Ammianus Marcellinus, Eunapios etc.

As for Flavius Josephus, iIm sure oyur referencing the alleged jesus forgery, which is not actually a forgery but an interbolation, meaning that they added words, but even if you delete those words the passage still conveys the same meaning.

Prove it.

In short, your entire reading of history is flawed and would you try to publish anything like that today, you would be laughed out of the publishing houses.

There are plenty of history books that back up what I'm saying. In fact, I believe my source was from a book.

Name it.

This condemnation was however not enforced by the Catholic church, for it never threatened the king of spain with consequences for it..

What do you mean "enforced"? The Catholic church did not have the ability to "punish" the Spanish empire, all they could do was rule on the morality of their actions.

Sure they could. They could always excommunicate him.

Or..wait, are you saying the church was powerless? How does that square with the powerful defender of civilization theory?

It is nothing but empty words.

No, it was not "empty words", it was the infallible, and dogmatic decree of the magisterium, defiance of which entails automatic excommunication.

So...as the king never got excommunicated, the church was either powerless or in favor of slavery.

Firstly, our confusing the actions of the crusading army with the actions of the Catholic church. The crusaders scewed over the byzantines, but the church was their allies.

Not in the time of the latin kingdom, they were not, which WAS THE ENTIRE ESSENCE OF MY POST.

Eh...no. The letter of Alexius only asks for mercenaries. What Urban did was twist it into a general crusade, which Alexius did not want. This is well established by now, even in the most basics of books about the subject.

Interpretative. Alexius maybe didn't request a "crusade", but he still called for help.

No, this is your ignorance of medieval diplomacy showing. If you contrast it with other letters, it is just a bog-standard letter asking for help.

They were still formally allies, and the Byzantines screwed over the crusaders a few times as well, but either way how is this relevent to the Catholic Church?

Because the church did nothing to stop its allies from screwing over the Byzantines. Nice try, though.

He still became a Christian ruler. Christianity united him with Rome. What exactly is wrong with christian sources.

Because they are biased in favor of christianity? Do I have to spell everything out for you?

The destruction of the library of Alexandria does not count? The persecution of pagan intellectuals and scientists does not count? The persecution of apothecaries does not count? The threat of the spanish inquisition does not count? Etc pp.

Again, this does not prove supression of science.

So if I were to burn one of the best universities in the history of mankind this is somehow not suppression of science?

Which pagan philosopher are you refering too?

We can start with Hypatia and then make our way all over to Damasius.

Prove that scientific documents were burnt at alexandria, and that there were not copies of these documents else where.

Paulus Orosius, a christian source, writes:

Today there exist in temples book chests which we ourselves have seen, and, when these temples were plundered, these, we are told, were emptied by our own men in our time, which, indeed, is a true statement.

Even if there were copies, nothing can excuse the destruction of cultural treasures that had been existing for hundreds of years. What is your excuse for the destruction of the great temples?

[Edi]

It's obvious that Ruben has no idea what he's talking about and, in the very few cases where does have such an idea, he is actively lying and distorting evidence to support his preordained conclusions.

In short, he's a troll who has nothing worth contributing. He reminds me very much of EmperorSolo51, who was a similarly obstinate fuckwit.