Why the Pope does not marry? (84)
charmingeyes: can someone answer me..
why the pope dosnt marry?
why the pope dosnt marry?
well most of them are married but there is a famus saying that the umarried were unaweare and the married didt told them any how i think its depend on the person you with.
------ This thread is Archived ------
wulfen: Exactly, it was one of the most enlightened periods of the world before christianity appeared. Then we saw the slow sad descent into the dark ages.
Real historians don't even use the term "dark ages" anymore. It's meaningless. It was coined by protestants who wanted to pretend that between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance there was nothing but darkness.
Modern archeology has proven that to be untrue.
Science, medecine, technology, and art all made great advances during the period formerly referred to as the "dark ages". The "chivalry" of European feudal nobility was at its highest peak during that time.
There were problems of course. Invasions, wars, famines, plagues, etc.
But, in my opinion, if we are speaking of intellectual decay, clueless submission to dogmatic authoritarian figures, and blindness to reality, in all history, there has never been a period as "dark" as the present.
------ This thread is Archived ------
RayfromUSA: Real historians don't even use the term "dark ages" anymore. It's meaningless. It was coined by protestants who wanted to pretend that between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance there was nothing but darkness.
Modern archeology has proven that to be untrue.
Science, medecine, technology, and art all made great advances during the period formerly referred to as the "dark ages". The "chivalry" of European feudal nobility was at its highest peak during that time.
There were problems of course. Invasions, wars, famines, plagues, etc.
But, in my opinion, if we are speaking of intellectual decay, clueless submission to dogmatic authoritarian figures, and blindness to reality, in all history, there has never been a period as "dark" as the present.
Modern archeology has proven that to be untrue.
Science, medecine, technology, and art all made great advances during the period formerly referred to as the "dark ages". The "chivalry" of European feudal nobility was at its highest peak during that time.
There were problems of course. Invasions, wars, famines, plagues, etc.
But, in my opinion, if we are speaking of intellectual decay, clueless submission to dogmatic authoritarian figures, and blindness to reality, in all history, there has never been a period as "dark" as the present.
Sorry but I am as you coined it a real historian and it is still in use by all historians world wide, there is more to it that just what you said and it wasnt protestants who started it but french historians
------ This thread is Archived ------
RayfromUSA: You are???
I think you need to study up on your history.
Paul was writing to the Corinthians (Greeks) at the very beginning of the Roman Empire. A thousand years before the "middle ages". It is considered to be one of the most "enlightened" periods of the ancient world. And Christianity was the fastest growing movement in that world.
Yep,interesting enough,thanks to Islam,then the Fools Bloodied each other so bad,both went down into the Dark Ages!I think you need to study up on your history.
Paul was writing to the Corinthians (Greeks) at the very beginning of the Roman Empire. A thousand years before the "middle ages". It is considered to be one of the most "enlightened" periods of the ancient world. And Christianity was the fastest growing movement in that world.
Since Our Age is so Dark,what Business do you have to use any of the Conveniences and Inventions of it?
If you have a Monopoly like Christianity was given by the State,the fast Growth is no Miracle!
------ This thread is Archived ------
steve6610: Sorry but I am as you coined it a real historian and it is still in use by all historians world wide, there is more to it that just what you said and it wasnt protestants who started it but french historians
sigh, groan, yawn
Wikipedia
The term "Dark Ages" was originally intended to denote the entire period between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance; implying an "intermediate" period between Classical Antiquity and the Modern era.
In the 19th century scholars began to recognize the accomplishments made during the period, thereby challenging the image of the Middle Ages as a time of darkness and decay.
The term is now never used by scholars to refer to the entire medieval period; when used, it generally restricted to the Early Middle Ages....though this usage is also disputed by most modern scholars, who tend to avoid using the phrase (at all)....
Popular culture (also) expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope....
On the rare occasions when the term "Dark Ages" is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely, to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" to us only because of the scarcity of artistic and cultural output, including historical records, when compared with both earlier and later times.
The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature. Petrarch regarded the centuries since the fall of Rome as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity.
Notice that originally the term referred only to one man's opinion of the quality of literature during the period.
But then...
During the Protestant Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries, Protestants wrote of the Middle Ages as a period of Catholic corruption.
And it is this, protestant definition of the term that the so many of the clueless rant about nowadays, a supposed period of intellectual darkness caused by religion.
It's total BS.
I will agree that religion has a lot to do with a person's intellectual capacity. But in the case of normative Christianity, it was almost always in a good sense.
It was the Christian monks that kept literacy alive in Europe during a time when the feudal governments (no more Christian than George Bush) didn't see any need for it.
Village priests were the schoolteachers of Europe for many centuries. In France that only began to change after WW1.
They may not have always been extremely gifted at it, and I grant you that the Catholic church had undue influence in the matter. But nobody else was teaching the kids at all. The governments were happy to leave them uneducated and put them to work as soon as possible.
The Catholic church was (then) as much a social institution as a religious one.
And just who was behind the glorious "renainsance" of the 13-1400s that "ended" the supposed "dark ages"??
Italian gangster families like the Midicis, who placated city governments by funding great artists as a way of getting away with their bloody massacres.
They were catholic too by the way.
------ This thread is Archived ------
And we all know Wikipedia is NEVER wrong!
------ This thread is Archived ------
RayfromUSA: sigh, groan, yawn
Wikipedia
The term "Dark Ages" was originally intended to denote the entire period between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance; implying an "intermediate" period between Classical Antiquity and the Modern era.
In the 19th century scholars began to recognize the accomplishments made during the period, thereby challenging the image of the Middle Ages as a time of darkness and decay.
The term is now never used by scholars to refer to the entire medieval period; when used, it generally restricted to the Early Middle Ages....though this usage is also disputed by most modern scholars, who tend to avoid using the phrase (at all)....
Popular culture (also) expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope....
On the rare occasions when the term "Dark Ages" is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely, to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" to us only because of the scarcity of artistic and cultural output, including historical records, when compared with both earlier and later times.The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature. Petrarch regarded the centuries since the fall of Rome as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity.
Notice that originally the term referred only to one man's opinion of the quality of literature during the period.
But then...
During the Protestant Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries, Protestants wrote of the Middle Ages as a period of Catholic corruption.
And it is this, protestant definition of the term that the so many of the clueless rant about nowadays, a supposed period of intellectual darkness caused by religion.
It's total BS.
I will agree that religion has a lot to do with a person's intellectual capacity. But in the case of normative Christianity, it was almost always in a good sense.
It was the Christian monks that kept literacy alive in Europe during a time when the feudal governments (no more Christian than George Bush) didn't see any need for it.
Village priests were the schoolteachers of Europe for many centuries. In France that only began to change after WW1.
They may not have always been extremely gifted at it, and I grant you that the Catholic church had undue influence in the matter. But nobody else was teaching the kids at all. The governments were happy to leave them uneducated and put them to work as soon as possible.
The Catholic church was (then) as much a social institution as a religious one.
And just who was behind the glorious "renainsance" of the 13-1400s that "ended" the supposed "dark ages"??
Italian gangster families like the Midicis, who placated city governments by funding great artists as a way of getting away with their bloody massacres.
They were catholic too by the way.
Wikipedia
The term "Dark Ages" was originally intended to denote the entire period between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance; implying an "intermediate" period between Classical Antiquity and the Modern era.
In the 19th century scholars began to recognize the accomplishments made during the period, thereby challenging the image of the Middle Ages as a time of darkness and decay.
The term is now never used by scholars to refer to the entire medieval period; when used, it generally restricted to the Early Middle Ages....though this usage is also disputed by most modern scholars, who tend to avoid using the phrase (at all)....
Popular culture (also) expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope....
On the rare occasions when the term "Dark Ages" is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely, to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" to us only because of the scarcity of artistic and cultural output, including historical records, when compared with both earlier and later times.The concept of a Dark Age originated with the Italian scholar Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca) in the 1330s, and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature. Petrarch regarded the centuries since the fall of Rome as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity.
Notice that originally the term referred only to one man's opinion of the quality of literature during the period.
But then...
During the Protestant Reformation of the 16th and 17th centuries, Protestants wrote of the Middle Ages as a period of Catholic corruption.
And it is this, protestant definition of the term that the so many of the clueless rant about nowadays, a supposed period of intellectual darkness caused by religion.
It's total BS.
I will agree that religion has a lot to do with a person's intellectual capacity. But in the case of normative Christianity, it was almost always in a good sense.
It was the Christian monks that kept literacy alive in Europe during a time when the feudal governments (no more Christian than George Bush) didn't see any need for it.
Village priests were the schoolteachers of Europe for many centuries. In France that only began to change after WW1.
They may not have always been extremely gifted at it, and I grant you that the Catholic church had undue influence in the matter. But nobody else was teaching the kids at all. The governments were happy to leave them uneducated and put them to work as soon as possible.
The Catholic church was (then) as much a social institution as a religious one.
And just who was behind the glorious "renainsance" of the 13-1400s that "ended" the supposed "dark ages"??
Italian gangster families like the Midicis, who placated city governments by funding great artists as a way of getting away with their bloody massacres.
They were catholic too by the way.
Oh great a wikipedia quote..piece of advice no historian touches wikipedia with a 10 foot pole so please dont quote from it. Further more at present there are 18 thesis being done worldwide on the dar ages 2 at Cambridge 3 at Oxford and the rest in universities world wide.
------ This thread is Archived ------
RayfromUSA: Real historians don't even use the term "dark ages" anymore. It's meaningless. It was coined by protestants who wanted to pretend that between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance there was nothing but darkness.
Modern archeology has proven that to be untrue.
Science, medecine, technology, and art all made great advances during the period formerly referred to as the "dark ages". The "chivalry" of European feudal nobility was at its highest peak during that time.
There were problems of course. Invasions, wars, famines, plagues, etc.
But, in my opinion, if we are speaking of intellectual decay, clueless submission to dogmatic authoritarian figures, and blindness to reality, in all history, there has never been a period as "dark" as the present.
Modern archeology has proven that to be untrue.
Science, medecine, technology, and art all made great advances during the period formerly referred to as the "dark ages". The "chivalry" of European feudal nobility was at its highest peak during that time.
There were problems of course. Invasions, wars, famines, plagues, etc.
But, in my opinion, if we are speaking of intellectual decay, clueless submission to dogmatic authoritarian figures, and blindness to reality, in all history, there has never been a period as "dark" as the present.
What the heck are you talking about mate? The 'dark ages' actually refers to the pre-medieval period, as there is a huge lack of knowledge about the happenings in Western Europe at the time. It spans roughtly the period from the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the Early Middle Ages, circa 800-900AD (the periods overlap).
The Middle Ages themselves are usually split in Early, High & Late periods, before giving way to the Renaissance.
Scientific knowledge & education in the west was at its lowest ebb in the Dark Ages, and coincides with the spread of christianity throughout Europe. It was after the Crusades that certain knowledge that had been lost in the West trickled slowly back from the East, where the Arabs had kept most of the knowledge gained in Roman times.
The other social upheaval was caused by the 'Black Death' during the mid-late 1300's & 1400's, when the massive deaths across Europe caused the collapse of the Feudal system and gave way to the rise of City States and the Renaissance, from which scientific knowledge speeded up again, coinciding with the slow, but gradually speeding erosion of christianity in Europe up to the present time.
As to art advancing in the dark/middle ages, show me one artwork of that era that is superior to one in the Greco-Roman period? It was only in the Renaissance that art started striving again, most Medieval art lacks the finer points present in the Greco-Roman and Renaissance periods.
------ This thread is Archived ------
steve6610: Oh great a wikipedia quote..piece of advice no historian touches wikipedia with a 10 foot pole so please dont quote from it. Further more at present there are 18 thesis being done worldwide on the dar ages 2 at Cambridge 3 at Oxford and the rest in universities world wide.
Wiki holds some good info AND much bad info. On the wiki piece concerning the T72 main battle tank, it's claimed that it's a match to the American M1 Abrams, go tell that to the Iraqi crews in both Gulf Wars!
As ever when researching history, one should never look up a single source, but preferably multiple sources and then draw his/her conclusions from there.
Glad to have another history buff on board mate!
------ This thread is Archived ------
steve6610: Oh great a wikipedia quote..piece of advice no historian touches wikipedia with a 10 foot pole so please dont quote from it. Further more at present there are 18 thesis being done worldwide on the dar ages 2 at Cambridge 3 at Oxford and the rest in universities world wide.
Wiki holds some good info AND much bad info. On the wiki piece concerning the T72 main battle tank, it's claimed that it's a match to the American M1 Abrams, go tell that to the Iraqi crews in both Gulf Wars!
As ever when researching history, one should never look up a single source, but preferably multiple sources and then draw his/her conclusions from there.
Glad to have another history buff on board mate!
------ This thread is Archived ------
wulfen: Wiki holds some good info AND much bad info. On the wiki piece concerning the T72 main battle tank, it's claimed that it's a match to the American M1 Abrams, go tell that to the Iraqi crews in both Gulf Wars!
As ever when researching history, one should never look up a single source, but preferably multiple sources and then draw his/her conclusions from there.
Glad to have another history buff on board mate!
As ever when researching history, one should never look up a single source, but preferably multiple sources and then draw his/her conclusions from there.
Glad to have another history buff on board mate!
Thanks Wulfen. I totally agree with you, I do use it its a great reference tool, but as you are aware also some people go on there and just take whats written there as their only source of information.
anytime mate you wanna chat about history im happy to
------ This thread is Archived ------
Imagine a dozen Little Popes running all over the Lateran Palace!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Conrad73: Yep,interesting enough,thanks to Islam,then the Fools Bloodied each other so bad,both went down into the Dark Ages!
Since Our Age is so Dark,what Business do you have to use any of the Conveniences and Inventions of it?
If you have a Monopoly like Christianity was given by the State,the fast Growth is no Miracle!
Since Our Age is so Dark,what Business do you have to use any of the Conveniences and Inventions of it?
If you have a Monopoly like Christianity was given by the State,the fast Growth is no Miracle!
My goodness Conrad, you do love to twist things don't you.
The rapid spread of Christianity in the Roman empire occurred at a time of persecution when Christians were being thrown to the lions as public entertainment all across the empire.
Did you forget that?
Jesus was crucified by the Romans at the behest of the Jews.
So were Peter and Paul.
Of all the original 12 apostles. Only John died a natural death. So don't talk about them being given a monopoly.
Constantine didn't come along for several centuries.
And the Romans never "gave a monopoly to the Christians".
Quite the contrary, Constantine seized their holdings and declared himself to be in charge of the whole movement.
He didn't rise up through the church as a leader.
As Caesar he just Ceazed it.
The church didn't take over Rome.
Rome took over the Church.
And yes it did cause a lot of problems and pollute church doctrine.
But thankfully, the power of Christianity has never been the church, its buildings, organization or leadership.
The power of Christianity is the gospel.
Whenever the church organization gets too corrupted (as it is now), individual christians spring up directly from the gospel, totally independent of the churches.
Just like Jesus said about God being able to raise up children to Abraham, right out of the stones on the ground without passing through their religion.
9 Don’t just say to each other, ‘We’re safe, for we are descendants of Abraham. That means nothing, for I tell you, God can create children of Abraham from these very stones.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Iuchi_Zien:
And we all know Wikipedia is NEVER wrong!
And we all know Wikipedia is NEVER wrong!
We are all wrong sometimes.
But, as you know Wikipedia is written not by any single person but by everybody who wishes to participate.
It's not reliable for controversial issues like politics, or cults, or matters where there are diverse, strongly held opinions.
But it's generally very reliable for historical details of non-controversial subjects. Because if some writes something inaccurate, somebody else will correct it. All editing is discussed and is subject to removal if there is a consensus that it is wrong.
------ This thread is Archived ------
RayfromUSA: My goodness Conrad, you do love to twist things don't you.
The rapid spread of Christianity in the Roman empire occurred at a time of persecution when Christians were being thrown to the lions as public entertainment all across the empire.
Did you forget that?
Jesus was crucified by the Romans at the behest of the Jews.
So were Peter and Paul.
Of all the original 12 apostles. Only John died a natural death. So don't talk about them being given a monopoly.
Constantine didn't come along for several centuries.
And the Romans never "gave a monopoly to the Christians".
Quite the contrary, Constantine seized their holdings and declared himself to be in charge of the whole movement.
He didn't rise up through the church as a leader.
As Caesar he just Ceazed it.
The church didn't take over Rome.
Rome took over the Church.
And yes it did cause a lot of problems and pollute church doctrine.
But thankfully, the power of Christianity has never been the church, its buildings, organization or leadership.
The power of Christianity is the gospel.
Whenever the church organization gets too corrupted (as it is now), individual christians spring up directly from the gospel, totally independent of the churches.
Just like Jesus said about God being able to raise up children to Abraham, right out of the stones on the ground without passing through their religion.
9 Don’t just say to each other, ‘We’re safe, for we are descendants of Abraham. That means nothing, for I tell you, God can create children of Abraham from these very stones.
Yep,it gave us Constantine!The rapid spread of Christianity in the Roman empire occurred at a time of persecution when Christians were being thrown to the lions as public entertainment all across the empire.
Did you forget that?
Jesus was crucified by the Romans at the behest of the Jews.
So were Peter and Paul.
Of all the original 12 apostles. Only John died a natural death. So don't talk about them being given a monopoly.
Constantine didn't come along for several centuries.
And the Romans never "gave a monopoly to the Christians".
Quite the contrary, Constantine seized their holdings and declared himself to be in charge of the whole movement.
He didn't rise up through the church as a leader.
As Caesar he just Ceazed it.
The church didn't take over Rome.
Rome took over the Church.
And yes it did cause a lot of problems and pollute church doctrine.
But thankfully, the power of Christianity has never been the church, its buildings, organization or leadership.
The power of Christianity is the gospel.
Whenever the church organization gets too corrupted (as it is now), individual christians spring up directly from the gospel, totally independent of the churches.
Just like Jesus said about God being able to raise up children to Abraham, right out of the stones on the ground without passing through their religion.
9 Don’t just say to each other, ‘We’re safe, for we are descendants of Abraham. That means nothing, for I tell you, God can create children of Abraham from these very stones.
------ This thread is Archived ------
charmingeyes: can someone answer me..
why the pope dosnt marry?
why the pope dosnt marry?
he has many woman begging for casting their sins
------ This thread is Archived ------
wulfen:
As to art advancing in the dark/middle ages, show me one artwork of that era that is superior to one in the Greco-Roman period?
As to art advancing in the dark/middle ages, show me one artwork of that era that is superior to one in the Greco-Roman period?
The "superiority" of art is largely a subjective call.
Art in the middle ages conformed to the artistic trends of the day. And since we don't live in that era our appreciation is different.
For example, during the ancient period perspective in painting was haphazard at best, often without consistent vanishing points. During the midieval period although perspective was understood relative sized was used to denoted importance so perspective was often skewed as a result.
Then later in the rennaisance mathametical perspective came into use.
Which form of art is "superior"?
That which most closely mimics nature?
Tell that to Picasso, or Van Gogh.
------ This thread is Archived ------
RayfromUSA: The "superiority" of art is largely a subjective call.
Art in the middle ages conformed to the artistic trends of the day. And since we don't live in that era our appreciation is different.
For example, during the ancient period perspective in painting was haphazard at best, often without consistent vanishing points. During the midieval period although perspective was understood relative sized was used to denoted importance so perspective was often skewed as a result.
Then later in the rennaisance mathametical perspective came into use.
Which form of art is "superior"?
That which most closely mimics nature?
Tell that to Picasso, or Van Gogh.
Art in the middle ages conformed to the artistic trends of the day. And since we don't live in that era our appreciation is different.
For example, during the ancient period perspective in painting was haphazard at best, often without consistent vanishing points. During the midieval period although perspective was understood relative sized was used to denoted importance so perspective was often skewed as a result.
Then later in the rennaisance mathametical perspective came into use.
Which form of art is "superior"?
That which most closely mimics nature?
Tell that to Picasso, or Van Gogh.
who says believers are uneducated?! Nice post!
------ This thread is Archived ------
charmingeyes: can someone answer me..
why the pope dosnt marry?
why the pope dosnt marry?
Why he doesn't, or can't has already been explained well. But imagine if the church laws changed and they announced that he could?
Italian women would go crazy. It would be bigger than Idol.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
rarotonga
How far is too far?
Salami, Salami, Baloney
everything is changing
What I Lack In Vocabulary
Icebergs Still Around
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
1830's Music
Reality Check
Nature
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
why the pope dosnt marry?
Maybe he is
Maybe the pope is married to the church or to his job