The Dark Ages Myth

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Actually, up until recently, a lot of academia (secular and theological) outside of Catholicism believed the beast/antichrist/man of sin of Revelation was the Papacy. Now-a-days I guess it's not politically correct to point out such things...

Whether the Pope is the anti-Christ is a question of interpretation of Bible prophecy. Whether the Middle Ages were a particularly backward period of history is a question of academic history. The Reformers called the papacy the anti-Christ on the ground that it was claiming for itself authority that it had no legitimate claim to - its mouth was writing checks that its behind couldn't cash. Whether Roman Catholic cultures were backward is another matter entirely.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Actually, up until recently, a lot of academia (secular and theological) outside of Catholicism believed the beast/antichrist/man of sin of Revelation was the Papacy. Now-a-days I guess it's not politically correct to point out such things...

As far as the dark ages moniker, I wonder what the millions of martyrs under RC rule thought about it?

What millions? The Catholics? Those who died because of their Catholic faith?

 

[dqhall]

They were not dark at all. In fact, Europe moved far ahead of any other civilization during the Dark Ages.
In technology, Europe began using wind and water to power machinery. Dams were constructed to harness the power of water. Wind was used to reclaim much of Belgium and the Netherlands during the Dark Ages. Agriculture was modernized by the technique of keeping 1/3 of your land idle every year, rotating among your fields. The horse-collar was invented to make plowing more efficient. Selective plant breeding was done to produce better, more nutritious foods. The chimney was invented as well, previously a hole in the roof was used to let smoke out (and rain in). Eyeglasses were invented in 1280. Stirrups and saddles were invented in the Dark Ages. Sails, also, invented during the Dark Ages. The use of gunpowder in warfare, too.

Morally, slavery was abolished in Europe in the Dark Ages.

In the Arts, polyphony and polyphonic instruments were invented. Oil paint and stretched canvas as mediums of art were employed first during the Dark Ages. Gothic architecture was envisioned and used, meaning that you didn't need thick walls for buildings. Regarding Literature, Dante, Chaucer and many others wrote, not in Latin, but in their vernacular languages. The university was invented in the Dark Ages.

The Renaissance is also a myth. The Renaissance simply signaled the return to the ancients, rather than anything new. The key to the Renaissance was the translation of the ancients into Latin, which was done painstakingly in the Dark Ages. The Renaissance was a period of cultural emulation during which people of fashion copied the classical styles in manners, art, literature, and philosophy from Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, Sophacles, Aristophanes, and others.

Sails were invented long before the Dark Ages. A wall mural at Akrotiri on the Greek island of Santorini from c. 1600 BC were preserved under volcanic ash after the volcano Thera erupted. The wall painting showed sail boats on the water.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

He's trying to create a side wash with this thread... if the "if people think the dark ages weren't as bad as history records, then the Papacy gets a pass as well."

Pope John Paul II gave a similar quasi apology for "past sins of the church even though they really weren't that bad" speech in the year 2000.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vatican-looks-back-at-inquisition/

 

[Lepanto]

Actually, up until recently, a lot of academia (secular and theological) outside of Catholicism believed the beast/antichrist/man of sin of Revelation was the Papacy. Now-a-days I guess it's not politically correct to point out such things...

As far as the dark ages moniker, I wonder what the millions of martyrs under RC rule thought about it?

Your ideas might be right, but read these first:

If the Papacy were the beast, then

• why would it survive for 2000 years ? (nothing evil could last that long)
• why Hollywood movies only attack the Catholic Church, not Protestantism ?
• why the beast (what you call the Papacy) would inspire people to do works of love ? (Mother Teresa, St Vincent de Paul, Jeanne Jugan, etc)

_________________________________________________________________________________________
Without knowing it, you've been deceived into looking at everything upside down.

What belong to God, you associate them with evil.
What belong to the Devil, you associate them with truth.
Which is better? Obedience or disobedience ? Humility or lack of humility? To do good works or don't do good works?
The Catholic Church, through its hierarchy (incl. Papacy), teaches and trains us to learn obedience and humility.
The Catholic Church teaches us to avoid sins and do good works. Martin Luther taught people to reject all these.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Now which one belongs to God ? And which belongs to the Devil?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

My replies are in blue...

Your ideas might be right, but read these first:

If the Papacy were the beast, then

• why would it survive for 2000 years ? (nothing evil could last that long) Satan is the power behind this entity and he has been perpetrating evil for 6000 years now.
• why Hollywood movies only attack the Catholic Church, not Protestantism ? Maybe the Jews of Hollywood have an axe to grind with the RCC... she has, after all hung them out to dry on more than a couple of occasions.
• why the beast (what you call the Papacy) would inspire people to do works of love ? (Mother Teresa, St Vincent de Paul, Jeanne Jugan, etc) "Many will say to me on the day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not do all these wonderful things in your name?' and I will say unto them, depart ye workers of iniquity..."

_________________________________________________________________________________________
Without knowing it, you've been deceived into looking at everything upside down.

What belong to God, you associate them with evil. Your own Pope John Paul II apologized for the sins committed by the Church over the last 2000 years
What belong to the Devil, you associate them with truth.
Which is better? Obedience or disobedience ? Humility or lack of humility? To do good works or don't do good works? We do good works because we are saved (fruits of the Spirit) not to be saved... big difference
The Catholic Church, through its hierarchy (incl. Papacy), teaches and trains us to learn obedience and humility. To whom? The Papacy demands unreserved, unquestioning loyalty to her and her traditions. You are a loyal subject of the Pontiff... don't think so? The Pope has said that there can be no salvation outside the RC Church. Jesus says that all who come to Him and give their life and heart to Him will be saved.
The Catholic Church teaches us to avoid sins and do good works. Martin Luther taught people to reject all these. If the Church is teaching you to "avoid sins" then it's not preaching the gospel... of ourselves, we have no power to turn from sin. It is the Holy Spirit that we receive when we surrender ourselves to Him that enables us to be able to resist sin. As far as good works, they cannot save you... our attempt at righteousness is as filthy rags to God.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Now which one belongs to God ? And which belongs to the Devil? The Bible clearly shows the man of sin, the beast power of Revelation is the papal power. She is dressed in scarlet and purple and gold, she is a church/state power, she speaks blasphemies (the only two examples of blasphemy in the Bible are caliming to be God and claiming to be able to forgive sins, both of which the Papacy claims), she persecutes God's people (inquisition) and she claims to be able to change times and laws (changing the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first and instituting a calendar system contrary to what God set up)

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Whether the Pope is the anti-Christ is a question of interpretation of Bible prophecy. Whether the Middle Ages were a particularly backward period of history is a question of academic history. The Reformers called the papacy the anti-Christ on the ground that it was claiming for itself authority that it had no legitimate claim to - its mouth was writing checks that its behind couldn't cash. Whether Roman Catholic cultures were backward is another matter entirely.

Not just the reformers recognized the Papacy as the antichrist power... you respect Isaac Newton? How about some of these other historical figures?

Jonathan Edwards said that the greatest and most cruel enemy of the Church of Christ is the church of Rome.

Jonathan was an American preacher and theologian, who is perhaps best known for his role in the Great Awakenings of the mid 1700’s.

Commenting on the Roman Catholic church in his History of Redemption, Jonathan Edwards stated,

“So that antichrist has proved the greatest and most cruel enemy the church of Christ ever had, agreeable to the description given of the church of Rome, [Rev. xvii. 6.] ‘And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.‘” “Thus did the devil, and his great minister antichrist, rage with violence and cruelty against the church of Christ! And thus did the harlot of Babylon make herself drunk with the blood of the saints and martyrs of Jesus!” (History of Redemption, Jonathan Edwards, 1793, pp. 452, 460)

Marquis de LaFayette said that the Jesuits are the most crafty, dangerous enemy of civil and religious liberty.

Marquis (1757-1834) stated;

“It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country – the United States of America – are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated most of the wars of Europe.” Romanism: A Menace to the Nation, Jeremiah J. Crowley p. 140

Napoleon Bonaparte said that the Jesuits of Rome are a military organization, who seeks world power.

Napoleon (1769-1821) was a great military leader and the Emperor of France after the French Revolution.

“The Jesuits are a military organization, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power – power in its most despotic exercise – absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man [Ed.: i.e., the “Black Pope”, the Superior General of the Jesuits]. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms [sic] – and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses…”

John Adams, 2nd President of the United States, knew the Catholic religion was the enemy of the nation.

“I have long been decided in opinion that a free government and the Roman Catholic religion can never exist together in any nation or Country.” “Liberty and Popery cannot live together.”

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, said that the Jesuits of Rome deserve eternal perdition in hell.

“I do not like the late Resurrection of the Jesuits. They have a General, now in Russia, in correspondence with jesuits in the U.S. who are more numerous than everybody knows. Shall We not have Swarms of them here? In as many shapes and disguises as ever…. In the shape of printers, Editors, Writers, School masters, etc. If ever any Congregation of men could merit, eternal Perdition on Earth and in Hell… it is this Company of Loyola.”

“This irritable tribe of priests, have subverted the pure morality of primitive Christianity to serve their own selfish interests.” The Jesuits have “perverted” Christianity “into an engine for enslaving mankind, a mere contrivance to fetch wealth and power to themselves.”

Abraham Lincoln said that the priests of Rome (the Jesuits) hate the American liberties.

Lincoln (1809-1865), the 16th U.S. President, who was assassinated by agents of Papal Rome, said;

“I see a very dark cloud on America’s horizon, and that dark cloud is coming from Rome”

“The war (the Civil War of 1861-1865) would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits.”

“If the American people could learn what I know of the fierce hatred of the priests of Rome against our institutions, our schools, our most sacred rights, and our so dearly bought liberties, they would drive them out as traitors.”

Charles Spurgeon said the Church of Rome and her teachings are a vast mountain of rubbish covering the Truth of God!

Charles Haddon (C.H.) Spurgeon (1834-1892), was a strong figure in the Reformed Baptist tradition and known as the “Prince of Preachers”.

After preaching his first sermon at the age of 16, he became pastor of the church in Waterbeach at the age of 17. His most fruitful years of ministry were at the New Park Street and later the Metropolitan Tabernacle pulpit in London. Called the “Prince of Preachers,” he had more than 1,900 sermons published prior to his death.

“Her idolatries are the scorn of reason and the abhorrence of faith! The iniquities of her practice and the enormities of her doctrine almost surpass belief! Popery is as much the masterpiece of Satan as the Gospel is the masterpiece of God! There can scarcely be imagined anything of devilish craftiness or Satanic wickedness which could be compared with her—she is unparalleled as the queen of iniquity.

Behold upon her forehead the name, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. The Church of Rome and her teachings are a vast mountain of rubbish covering the Truth of God! For weary years good men could not get at the Foundation because of this very much rubbish.”

“It is the bounden duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it be not the popery in the Church of Rome there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up this church on suspicion, and it would certainly not be let loose again, for it so exactly answers the description.”

“Popery is contrary to Christ’s Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and for Christ, because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Saviour, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Ghost, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors: we shall love their souls though we loath and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray.” (Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome)

In a sermon titled “War, War, War”, Spurgeon said;

“I am ashamed that sons of the Reformers should bow themselves before the beast, and give so much as a single farthing to the shrine of the devil’s firstborn son. Take heed to yourselves, ye Protestants, lest ye be partakers of her plagues; touch her not, lest ye be defiled. Give a drachma to her, or a grain of incense to her censors, ye shall be partakers of her adulteries and partakers of her plagues. Every time you pass the house of Popery let a curse light upon her head: Thus saith the Lord:—‘Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.”

“These are battles with sin, and battles with false doctrines, and battles with war. Fight these battles Christian and you will have enough to do. We must have no truce, no treaty with Rome. War! War! War! with her! There cannot be peace. She cannot have peace with us – we cannot have peace with her. She hates the true Church, and we can only say that the hatred is reciprocated. We would not lay a hand on her priests; we would not touch a hair of their heads. Let them be free; but we will attempt to destroy their doctrine from the face of the earth because it is the doctrine of demons. O God, let the Roman Catholic Church perish, let it be consumed in the smoke“

Since then, the Protestant Church hasn’t done much protesting against the antichrist Catholic Church.

Maybe that’s why our Lord calls the Laodecian Church era lukewarm, wretched, miserable, naked, poor and blind.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The terms were coined by Petrarch, and then continued to the present day. See how many people in this thread believe in them? Why?

Lack of historical education and the human tendency to believe what they prefer.

Wrong answer. You need to realize how long the period was. Outremer was during the middle of it. The Church was always against slavery. Always. That members of the Church didn't heed the Church is nothing new, really.

I know how long the Mediaeval period was and the fact is that slavery was practiced throughout it. The Church is not the be all and end all of the period, so to say it was extinguished is disengenuous.

Fact is, we cannot get rid of it. We can cure it, now, once it's contracted, but considering where it comes from, eradicating it is impossible. Also, the plagues of the Middle Ages took nigh on 30% of the population. The Roman Galenic or Antonine, which was probably measles, 10%. By the way, the idea that the Roman Empire had more population than Middle Ages Europe is wrong. The population of the Roman Empire from 150 to 400 fell 30% to about 50 mil. There was not much population growth in the Early Middle Ages, by 1000 there were 56 million, which grew to 78 million by 1400.

Not being able to eradicate it is quite different from not being able to cure it. By that logic, the only curable disease is Smallpox.
Yes the Roman population began to decline from about 200 AD along with the Roman decline that set in, but it fell precipitously at the fall of the Western Empire. The population differences were quite palpable between the High Middle-Ages and the Principate and based on human fertility, they should have been comparable if all other factors were equal.
The reasons that the Roman plagues didn't kill as many as the Black Death was due to effective quarantining and public health measures which weren't adequately applied in the Middle Ages. These plagues were also first exposure events to pathogens so could have been equivalently deadly if not for effective Roman countermeasures and baseline health of their population.

All of this appears to have continued well into the Renaissance and the age of "Enlightenment".

Not really, they often didn't even continue into late Roman times. Londinium had a sewer system for instance and London only got one in the 19th century. Some survival of Roman works were present in Italy, but in most of Europe these disappeared.

What I wonder is "What was wrong with scholasticism, as a method of teaching and learning?"

Not as much as the Renaissance scholars made out. They threw the baby out with the bathwater somewhat. But it wasn't perfect, based on rigid definitions of mostly Aristotle.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The Greek systems were proven wrong in the Middle Ages, as was Ptolemy's. The fact is that there was no real astronomy until the Middle Ages. Astronomy grew out of astrology.
Capella wrote the Satiricon, but it was an allegory. While important in its way, it did not propose heliocentrism. The Satiricon describes a modified geocentric astronomical model, in which the Earth is at rest in the center of the universe and circled by the moon, the sun, three planets and the stars, while Mercury and Venus circle the Sun. Copernicus did, indeed mention it, and gave credit to it, but it wasn't heliocentrism.

No serious historian considers such black and white assertions valid.

Yes the Satyricon or de Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii was a long allegory on teaching which established the seven mediaeval liberal arts.
Its eighth book teaches a modified geo-heliocentric worldview as you described, which Copernicus singled out as important for strongly suggesting that the other planets revolve around the sun as well. I was being a bit disengenuous there, I apologise.
However it still supports my point that Copernicus's theory is as much a product of the Renaissance as the Middle Ages.
As to Astronomy, it remained closely wedded to Astrology right up to the 17th century, so the Mediaeval practice thereof is not markedly different from the Ancients'. It did advance somewhat though in certain fields, it is true, but not in others. The Greeks for instance had a closer approximation of the Earth's circumference than the Mediaeval one, which was significantly too small (Which incidentally explains why Columbus thought he had reached India as by his reckoning, he should have been there as there was no space for America)

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

So, serfs were free in every way except for their labor. That's like saying I'm free in every way except when I am at work.
Regarding slavery in Europe, the Church, which held moral authority, declared that those who held slaves were excommunicate. It is true that people ignored this, but so what? The Renaissance and Enlightenment crowd thinks they did away with slavery, when it was long previously morally frowned upon.

No, Serfdom was often cruel.
Its not the same as your free except when at work, for anything you make or do with your own hands, even in your off time, belonged to your Lord as you did not own your own labour. You couldn't move and you couldn't quit either and your Lord could force you to work whenever he pleases except for the Sabbath and high Holy days.
Also as I pointed out, you were obligated to use your Lord's services such as mills, an effective monopoly.

The Abolition of Slavery occured after both the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Being Morally frowned upon is not the same as ending it. So Prostitution was also absent in the Middle Ages then for instance? That argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Why is it a decline? Why isn't use of Latin progress? Having Latin as the common language allowed free thinking across the continent, with professors traveling freely between universities and able to teach their students?

Latin was not a decline. The Loss of Greek was. This is especcially egregious as most of the important texts were written therein, including the New Testament.
Its the same as the decline of Latin in our School systems since the world wars is a decline of our civilisation, in my opinion.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

I thought this was because of the accidental burning of a great library. And because of the bad economy of Rome. Some writers try to trick people into thinking Christianity did harm.
Look at China and Arabia, India... they were not under the pope.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why is it common knowledge that the Dark Ages was all that dark?

It has long been received wisdom that following the collapse of Rome, Europe slumbered through a millennium of ignorance that came to be known as the Dark Ages. Historian JB Bury noted that when Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity, this "inaugurated a millenium in which reason was enchained, thought was enslaved, and knowledge made no progress "
William Manchester described it as an "era of incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and almost impenetrable mindlessness...The Dark Ages were stark in every dimension."

We know these things to be so far from the truth as to be classified as myth. Is it just anti-Catholic rhetoric, or is something else behind it?

From a practical, historical viewpoint, I think the main reason a "slow-down" in progress can be cited as having been endemic of the so-called Dark Ages, despite all of the blaming of Christianity that Skeptics like to attribute for the stall, really stems from the fact that Roman math (with its limited, abacus style calculations and its clunky numerals) was long held onto in Europe and did not begin to be let go of and replaced by more complex Arabic-Hindi style math until well into the 2nd Millennium A.D.

...Skeptics probably also like using Christianity as the scapegoat for a lack of progress in the West because it's just easier to blame Christianity for all of the short-comings that seem to be present in the world. It's not reasonable, it's just easier.

2PhiloVoid

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Civilizations, like all organic entities, are born, grow, mature and die. The Early Middle Ages was merely an intermediate period between the fall of one civilization and the rise of another. Decline is just as much an integral feature of history as progress is, just as death is as much an integral feature of biology as birth.

 

[Lepanto]

My replies are in blue...

• why would it survive for 2000 years ? (nothing evil could last that long) Satan is the power behind this entity and he has been perpetrating evil for 6000 years now.
• why Hollywood movies only attack the Catholic Church, not Protestantism ? Maybe the Jews of Hollywood have an axe to grind with the RCC... she has, after all hung them out to dry on more than a couple of occasions.
• why the beast (what you call the Papacy) would inspire people to do works of love ? (Mother Teresa, St Vincent de Paul, Jeanne Jugan, etc) "Many will say to me on the day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not do all these wonderful things in your name?' and I will say unto them, depart ye workers of iniquity..."

Dear EastCoastRemnant, when you said the Pope is the beast, that's only based on YOUR OWN interpretation of the Bible. Are you sure you are right???
____________________________________________________________________________________________

You said: Satan is the power behind this entity and he has been perpetrating evil for 6000 years now.
You mean God did allow a heretical church to mislead people for that long (2000 years), while the true Church remained obscured for so long??? You are insulting God.

You said: Maybe the Jews of Hollywood have an axe to grind with the RCC...
Every Christian with some good sense knows that the Hollywood belongs to the Devil. Now would the Devil spend so much money each year just to attack his own subordinates ??? Why would not he rather spend that large amount of money to attack God's Church ???

You said: "Many will say to me on the day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not do all these wonderful things in your name?' and I will say unto them, depart ye workers of iniquity..."
Mother Teresa, Saint Vincent de Paul, Jeanne Jugan, Saint Mary Mackillop, etc have benefited so many people and brought so many to Christ.
They are all workers of iniquity? What right do you have to say so ???

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

My replies, again, in blue...

Dear EastCoastRemnant, when you said the Pope is the beast, that's only based on YOUR OWN interpretation of the Bible. Are you sure you are right???
Not just my interpretation... ever heard of Isaac Newton? Abraham Lincoln? All the protestant reformers? I can provide a comprehensive list for you when I'm home on my own computer
____________________________________________________________________________________________

You said: Satan is the power behind this entity and he has been perpetrating evil for 6000 years now.
You mean God did allow a heretical church to confuse people for that long (2000 years), while the true Church remained obscured for so long??? You are insulting God.
According to the Bible, God's people were to be persecuted for 1260 years... the Papacy came to power in 538 and was deposed by Napoleans general in 1798, exactly 1260 years. The Church has admitted it's "sins" and apologized for them, athough they deftly denied the severity at the same time. Foxe's Book of Martyrs records 10's of millions killed by the Papal power.

You said: Maybe the Jews of Hollywood have an axe to grind with the RCC...
Every Christian with some good sense knows that the Hollywood belongs to the Devil. Now would the Devil spend so much money each year just to attack his own subordinates ??? Why would not he rather spend that large amount of money to attack God's Church ???
He doesn't need to... he has already infiltrated and subverted the church's along time ago. Look at the current state of Christianity today and tell me it mimics Christ's example.

You said: "Many will say to me on the day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not do all these wonderful things in your name?' and I will say unto them, depart ye workers of iniquity..."
Mother Teresa, Saint Vincent de Paul, Jeanne Jugan, Saint Mary Mackillop, etc have benefited so many people and brought so many to Christ.
They are all workers of iniquity? What right do you have to say so ???
I didn't say anyone in particular will be in that group but there will be many, otherwise Christ wouldn't have said it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Lack of historical education and the human tendency to believe what they prefer.

I know how long the Mediaeval period was and the fact is that slavery was practiced throughout it. The Church is not the be all and end all of the period, so to say it was extinguished is disengenuous.

The fact is the Church did everything she could to stop it. That some didn't listen or ignored her is a big "duh".

Not being able to eradicate it is quite different from not being able to cure it. By that logic, the only curable disease is Smallpox.
Yes the Roman population began to decline from about 200 AD along with the Roman decline that set in, but it fell precipitously at the fall of the Western Empire. The population differences were quite palpable between the High Middle-Ages and the Principate and based on human fertility, they should have been comparable if all other factors were equal.
The reasons that the Roman plagues didn't kill as many as the Black Death was due to effective quarantining and public health measures which weren't adequately applied in the Middle Ages. These plagues were also first exposure events to pathogens so could have been equivalently deadly if not for effective Roman countermeasures and baseline health of their population.
Not really, they often didn't even continue into late Roman times. Londinium had a sewer system for instance and London only got one in the 19th century. Some survival of Roman works were present in Italy, but in most of Europe these disappeared.

So the Renaissance wasn't really a renaissance, and the Dark Ages weren't dark. That's why I said they're a myth. Yet many today still believe them, maybe because they were taught in school?

Not as much as the Renaissance scholars made out. They threw the baby out with the bathwater somewhat. But it wasn't perfect, based on rigid definitions of mostly Aristotle.

Exactly my point. But, is there a system that's perfect?

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, Serfdom was often cruel.

So are many professions today.

Its not the same as your free except when at work, for anything you make or do with your own hands, even in your off time, belonged to your Lord as you did not own your own labour. You couldn't move and you couldn't quit either and your Lord could force you to work whenever he pleases except for the Sabbath and high Holy days.
Also as I pointed out, you were obligated to use your Lord's services such as mills, an effective monopoly.

For what it's worth, a Lord was responsible for the protection and well-being of the serfs, whereas a slave-owner could kill or maim or sell a slave. I'm not suggesting that serfs had it all that good, but it is very different from being owned.

The Abolition of Slavery occured after both the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Being Morally frowned upon is not the same as ending it. So Prostitution was also absent in the Middle Ages then for instance? That argument doesn't hold water.

The point is that all previous civilizations allowed slavery, into the Middle Ages. It was customary to use slaves. There was also the idea of indentured people, too. In the Middle Ages, the Church declared that slaves could be baptized as Christians, and were, therefore allowed dignity. If a person was a Christian, how could the owners keep them? Slavery practically disappeared in the Middle Ages because of the Church, but it reappeared later, especially in the New World. Even then, the Church opposed it, many papal bulls declared slave-owners to be excommunicated. But being so far away, it's hard to make demands. This is one of the reasons the Church sent missionaries to the NewWorld-to try to keep the Spanish, Portuguese, and French honest, and to protect those they subjugated. But that's speaking of more modern slavery. It's pretty telling that British Colonies totally subjugated slaves here, while the Catholic areas (Louisiana and the Gulf Coast, the Carribean, and the Southwest) had many more free blacks and natives.

 

[Root of Jesse]

From a practical, historical viewpoint, I think the main reason a "slow-down" in progress can be cited as having been endemic of the so-called Dark Ages, despite all of the blaming of Christianity that Skeptics like to attribute for the stall, really stems from the fact that Roman math (with its limited, abacus style calculations and its clunky numerals) was long held onto in Europe and did not begin to be let go of and replaced by more complex Arabic-Hindi style math until well into the 2nd Millennium A.D.

...Skeptics probably also like using Christianity as the scapegoat for a lack of progress in the West because it's just easier to blame Christianity for all of the short-comings that seem to be present in the world. It's not reasonable, it's just easier.

2PhiloVoid

But Christianity of that time was almost completely Catholic with a few heretic sects thrown in. Also wonder why it's taught in school to this day. Personally, I believe there's an anti-Catholic bias.

 

[mikpat]

Christ founded the Church (Catholic) in order to continue His work of redemption for all time. Christ wished to delegate to the Church the same office and the same mandate which He had Himself received from the Father in order to continue them,, thru the three -fold office delegated, to the Church by Christ —- the teaching office, the pastoral office, and the sacerdotal office.
Thus the Catholic Church is Christ continuing and perpetually working on earth. "And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world," (Mat 28, 19)
He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me." Luke 10, 16.

With over thousands of heretical teachings, hundreds of schismatics, I'm sure the protesting reformers had all sorts of name -calling, expletives, etc……to hurl at Christ's Church……..