The Darker Ages?

[SoCalRC]

Apparently SoCalRC’s degree is in Sophistry!

I’m relieved to see that after 13000+ posts sharing his knowledge and demonstrating his Christian concience and compassion that Vern has at least one kindred spirit. I was a little concerned when he lamented being victimized and the community he has given so much to did not rally for him.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m relieved to see that after 13000+ posts sharing his knowledge and demonstrating his Christian concience and compassion that Vern has at least one kindred spirit. I was a little concerned when he lamented being victimized and the community he has given so much to did not rally for him.

Have we got to the point where you display your bigotry against people who live in the South?

 

[rpp]

I’m relieved to see that after 13000+ posts sharing his knowledge and demonstrating his Christian concience and compassion that Vern has at least one kindred spirit. I was a little concerned when he lamented being victimized and the community he has given so much to did not rally for him.

I find Vern firm but charitable generally. And not often prone to rising to baiting insults.

In your less than 200 posts, I have not seen the same degree of charity.

For my part, I was simply trying to inject humor as the charity on this thread was deteriorating – again.

Please we shuold all remain charitable. Not just to keep us out of trouble with the moderators, but to keep us out of the Confessional.

 

[Contarini]

It’s one thing if modern historians don’t want to make negative value judgements,but they shouldn’t try to re-define what was meant by Dark Ages. The men of the Renaissance and Enlightenment had their reasons for their contempt for that era

They had their reasons, but they were very bad ones.

Avoiding value judgements about an era is not necessarily better than making them. That is tantamount to moral relativism. The morally bad aspects of an era should be pointed out for just how bad they were.

Pointing out bad “aspects” of a period in history (insofar as periods have aspects) is very different from making a wholesale judgment. By and large, I heartily dislike the Enlightenment. But when I condemn it wholesale (if I were to try to rename it the Endarkenment, which I think would be a much more appropriate term on the whole), I’m being unfair. In many ways it did see a lot of progress, but not as much as people at the time (and secularist sympathizers today) thought–in many other respects it marked a retreat from reason, imagination, mystery, and other things that make life worth living.

It is not moral relativism to say that all periods in history have their good and bad aspects, and that we shouldn’t condemn any of them wholesale. It’s just prudence and charity.

Also, I agree with Herbert Butterfield that historians as historians (i.e., as part of their professional analysis of the past) should generally refrain from moral judgments even on individual people (of course one can’t help but note that certain actions are morally good or bad). Again, this is not moral relativism. It’s not that there is no standard by which to make moral judgments, but that a historian’s task is to understand, and condemning the dead will not accomplish anything. As Butterfield says, the Christian doctrine most relevant to historical understanding is Original Sin–we are all sinners, so we should be slow to assume that one dead person is more sinful than another. (Making wholesale judgments about the living is also generally a bad idea, but at least when we condemn a living person we have some chance of making them better–we can’t do this for the dead.)

Edwin

 

[SoCalRC]

I find Vern firm but charitable generally. And not often prone to rising to baiting insults.

In your less than 200 posts, I have not seen the same degree of charity.

For my part, I was simply trying to inject humor as the charity on this thread was deteriorating – again.

Please we shuold all remain charitable. Not just to keep us out of trouble with the moderators, but to keep us out of the Confessional.

Sophism has two common and two less common meanings. Since you and Vern decided to use the word under the veil of ‘good humor’, I thought I would reply in kind.

It seemed likely to me that the common derogatory form, involving deceitful arguments, was originally implied. If nothing else, I suspect that Vern would gouge his own eyes out with a tongue depressor rather than direct the ‘sophistes’ meaning at me.

So I used the other three meanings in my post to you. After all, if calling me a ‘deceitful liar’ is a joke, using the other, less derogatory, forms should be suitable humor as well. But, of course, one does not call another person ‘deceitful’ in humor.

I admit I was curious what your reaction would be to ‘wit’ in kind. However, we are now into different territory. One recurring theme in Jesus’ ministry was that it is unsuitable to make relative moral judgements of others. So, although Vern has now called me a “pro abortionist”, questioned my Christianity, and now called me ‘deceitful’ as a generality, I will endeavor not to judge on how those acts reflect on his own faith. Nor will I consider the implications of your seemingly passing judgement about mortal sin and unfitness for the Eucharist for others.

In other words, I have no compunctions about challenging reasoning and citations, particularly if there appears to be intellectual dishonesty involved. But when it comes to making judgements as to who is, and who is not a follower of Christ, or what that person’s disposition with God might be, I must pass. I believe it is far too easy to emulate the Pharisee instead of the Tax Collector as it is.

No backhanded insult is intended. The conversation is just in an area I cannot, in my own good faith, respond in kind to.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sophism has two common and two less common meanings. Since you and Vern decided to use the word under the veil of ‘good humor’, I thought I would reply in kind.

No need to be showing off – we know you have a degree in the field.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

The thought occurred to me the other day that during the Dark Ages some or indeed most of the laws were very just and very very moral.

Abortion was outlawed
Homosexuality outlawed
Slavery outlawed
Pornography outlawed
and perhaps most famously of all there was severe restrictions on warfare…QUOTE] (emphasis added)

did you fall asleep watching Camelot again?

given the unending wars and total collapse of civil authority in western europe during the 4th - 7th centuries, I can’t think of how a post could be less informed. to aggravate the situation, we came within an ace of being arian heretics.