The destruction of the Olympics by Christians

[brewer]

 

[SLD]

We took an audio guide for Catholic pilgrims. The correct choice. Made it all make sense.

S:t Peters is pretty awesome

In one sense it is. But I think it’s overkill. It’s too much for the eyes. And I wonder how many mouths could have been fed with that money. And donations to this are a tax break.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We took an audio guide for Catholic pilgrims. The correct choice. Made it all make sense.

S:t Peters is pretty awesome

In one sense it is. But I think it’s overkill. It’s too much for the eyes. And I wonder how many mouths could have been fed with that money. And donations to this are a tax break.

Meh. The church did feed the poor. The only realistic alternative was the aristocrats or emperor taking that money and blowing it on ostentatious pleasure palaces and sex orgies. Or worse, wars

I think you are unfair. You're ignoring the context and having historically impossible standards

 

[bilby]

Meh. The church did feed the poor. The only realistic alternative was the aristocrats or emperor taking that money and blowing it on ostentatious pleasure palaces and sex orgies. Or worse, wars

Meh, the church did blow money on ostentatious pleasure palaces and sex orgies. And worse, on wars.

And many of the aristocrats fed the poor occasionally, too.

The difference was that the church did a massive PR campaign to give themselves the image of being the monopoly doers of good (they weren't) and opponents of evil (they also weren't). They are still trying to sell that spin today, and lots of people still buy it. Apparently, you amongst them, at least with regards to their historical claims.

I think you are unfair. You're ignoring the context and having historically impossible standards

I rhink you are gulled. You're unaware of the context and of the history, and believe their version because you have heard no other.

The church did have a role to play in famine relief, by virtue of being a distributed entity with a representative in every village across Europe; As such they could provide funds (often to or via local aristocrats) in famine struck districts, to buy food from areas where there was surplus. Of course, such funds were not always forthcoming (they gave to their biggest supporters and donors, rather than to those most in need) and were frequently diverted by church officials.

The RCC in the medieval period was a kind of weak federal empire, with a very variable relationship with the kingdoms it encompassed, only the weakest of which agreed that they were subordinate. It collected taxes, had its own legal system (with the associated jurisdictional demarcations and demarcation disputes), its own enforcers, and its own factional squabbles.

It was a lot of things, but omnibenevolent and deeply caring about the ordinary man it was not.

 

[DrZoidberg]

.

It was a lot of things, but omnibenevolent and deeply caring about the ordinary man it was not.

I never said it was. You just made that up. The rest of the post is you arguing a straw man.

In European historical geography, the general rule is, if the nobles live isolated in walled castles, they are extractative maffiosos hated by the peasants. If the nobles act in the benefit to the community then no walls.

All walled castles in England come after the Norman conquest, for instance.

Churches don't have walls. At no point did they ever lose the support by the people of Europe. The reformation was nobles fighting eachother over power. Basically, the reformer kings just wanted church money. The catholic supporter kings were worried how the people might react, so stayed Catholic.

The point is that the will of the people matters for the story.

It is interesting that the protestant/catholic divide roughly follows where Romes borders historically ended.

Anthony Kaldelis argues that Roman civil wars were, in effect, bloody democratic elections. Romes people voted with swords. Romes emperors were meritocratically elected. Ie, within the Roman empire people felt empowered and they thought their opinions mattered.

Outside warlords held power through terror. And this is reflected in their culture.

Simply put, the RCC was a bottom up organisation. You might not like it, and it may offend your modern liberal sensibilities, but it was very much shaped by its members. All of it.

When the RCC misbehaved they reformed and adapted. All the time.

I think we're so marinated in liberalism that we keep forgetting how relatively new it is. People used to think differently.

And people would die randomly for bullshit reasons all the time. They were surrounded by death in a way we aren't today. That will influence people's priorities

 

[bilby]

.

It was a lot of things, but omnibenevolent and deeply caring about the ordinary man it was not.

I never said it was.

No, but THEY did. All the time. And still do.

You just made that up.

No, I just observed it being claimed.

The rest of the post is you arguing a straw man.

There is no "rest"; Your quote is of my last line.

The preceeding parts of my post do not depend upon that last line.

In European historical geography, the general rule is, if the nobles live isolated in walled castles, they are extractative maffiosos hated by the peasants. If the nobles act in the benefit to the community then no walls.

All walled castles in England come after the Norman conquest, for instance.

That's a pretty oversimplified set of generalisations. And building anything in stone was rare in the post-Roman/pre-Norman era in England.

Churches don't have walls.

Are you kidding?? What do you think a "cathedral close" is? Have you never seen a convent or a monastery? Post-Norman church buildings almost always have walls. In the late medieval and early modern eras, particularly during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, they were often the centre of battles and skirmishes, simply because they were highly defensible.

At no point did they ever lose the support by the people of Europe.

Well obviously. The people genuinely believed that their souls were forfeit if they were to be excommunicated.

The reformation was nobles fighting eachother over power. Basically, the reformer kings just wanted church money. The catholic supporter kings were worried how the people might react, so stayed Catholic.

Again, a bit over simplified, but not entirely untrue - nor in any way at odds with what I wrote.

The point is that the will of the people matters for the story.

Well, a bit. But most of the time, not much.

It is interesting that the protestant/catholic divide roughly follows where Romes borders historically ended.

It's hardly a surprise, if the Catholic Church is just a continuation of Roman imperial power, tempered by the realpolitik of powerful secular kings and princes (and it is).

Anthony Kaldelis argues that Roman civil wars were, in effect, bloody democratic elections. Romes people voted with swords. Romes emperors were meritocratically elected. Ie, within the Roman empire people felt empowered and they thought their opinions mattered.

Sure. That has very little to do with the medieval Catholic Church.

Outside warlords held power through terror. And this is reflected in their culture.

Well, sometimes.

Simply put, the RCC was a bottom up organisation.

Nope.

You might not like it, and it may offend your modern liberal sensibilities, but it was very much shaped by its members. All of it.

I don't like or dislike it; I observe that the RCC is a strictly heirarchical organisation with clearly defined ranks, and that the Vatican and the Pope require obedience.

Of course, even the most totalitarian dictators keep an ear to the groundswell of public opinion, as a bulwark against revolution. But you are taking that idea far too far here.

When the RCC misbehaved they reformed and adapted. All the time.

Except when they were overthrown by secular kings, heretical sects, and protestant apostates.

I think we're so marinated in liberalism that we keep forgetting how relatively new it is.

Who is "we"? I am fully aware of how new it is; That's one of the reasons that I know your claim that "the RCC was a bottom up organisation" is incorrect.

People used to think differently.

Yes, they did.

And people would die randomly for bullshit reasons all the time. They were surrounded by death in a way we aren't today. That will influence people's priorities

Yes, it did. Very much so. But that in no way refutes or rebuts anything I said. As a wise man once said, that "is you arguing a straw man".