Would you delete a copy of the Koran?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

at least the split with the catholic church got the pope out of the equation for you

That's true, although one slightly amusing fact is that the British Monarch still bears the title "Defender of the Faith" (that's what the "F.D." on British coins stands for). This was a title given to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in recognition of his having written a book called "Assertio Septem Sacramentorum" ("Defence of the Seven Sacraments") which defended the institution of marriage and the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. Slightly ironic in view of Henry's later split with the Pope over those very issues!

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

kings ruled by "divine right", the popes gave, or endorsed divine right. they approved or dissapproved marriages, threatened monarchs with ex-communication if they would not come to heel with the wishes of the church. the church was THE authority in western Europe.

OK, yes, you're right about that. Except that it's true in the context of medieval society, which was a very complex system of powers and counter-powers, based on a network of personal loyalties.

The church was certainly one of the main players in that field, but the authority of the Pope, in practice, was just as limited as the authority of the king, who relied mostly on the good will of his vassals, who themselves relied on their own network.

The king of France was one of the most powerful monarchs of the time, and the king of France, by our standards, was pretty much penniless and powerless.

If I go back to your initial post:

prior to the reformation the catholic church for all intents and purposes ran the western world. all authority came from god then to the church who would then give the authority to the king to rule.

This gives the impression of the church running Europe like Obama runs the U.S. or Sarkozy France, which is completely anachronistic.

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

start with "Dungeon Fire and Sword" by John J. Robinson. it gives a good overview of the crusades, the church invovlement in it, your own country, their involvement and how they were completely manipulated by the pope.

I'll make a note of that book, thank you. But of course I have no doubt that the pope at times manipulated the king of France. And at other times, the opposite was true. The balance of power fluctuated, and there was never a complete control of one party over the other.

[terrazoids]

Well back to the original post of this thread I have an interesting take on it. I think that in the eyes of Muslims deleting a copy of the Koran is possibly equivalent to burning it. However its not a bad thing to read what that ol' books got to say. There sure are some interesting stories there.

But At this point in time we should burn a few Korans and delete a few maybe publicly, because it'll teach those guys over there that there book,... aint the word of God. Its a book.... just like any other with one exception of course. So the burning of it helps those guys to see that they're wrong on that one point about the Koran being the actual Word.

Yep, we could rig up a computer and invite a bunch of journalists, hell... even al jazeera!! And then we just press that delete key... beep. Op... its gone. Guess it wasn't the word of God huh...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

But At this point in time we should burn a few Korans and delete a few maybe publicly, because it'll teach those guys over there that there book,... aint the word of God. Its a book.... just like any other with one exception of course. So the burning of it helps those guys to see that they're wrong on that one point about the Koran being the actual Word.

Which one is the exception, tz? You said here that you don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, so what book are you referring to?

[terrazoids]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Which one is the exception, tz? You said here that you don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, so what book are you referring to?

Well what do you think? I did state that it wasn't written by God. But this book is obviously incomparable. Its in another category. Its self evident that on the one hand hand you've got all these other books... and on the other the One. Hey.. just like the Word of God!

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They still do, at least in these parts. It says so on every British coin:

ELIZABETH II D.G. REG

which is short for "DEI GRATIA REGINA" - "Queen, by the grace of God".

I remember hearing that when she was crowned (1953), a majority of the British people genuinely believed she had a divine right to rule, bestowed upon her by the Christian god.
Things have changed a lot since then!

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's true, although one slightly amusing fact is that the British Monarch still bears the title "Defender of the Faith" (that's what the "F.D." on British coins stands for). This was a title given to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X in recognition of his having written a book called "Assertio Septem Sacramentorum" ("Defence of the Seven Sacraments") which defended the institution of marriage and the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. Slightly ironic in view of Henry's later split with the Pope over those very issues!

that was the whole deal though with Harry right? that he broke off with Rome, began the church of england, placing himself (and all other future monarchs) as the head of the church, therefore putting himself in the place of the pope and giving himself the religious power and right to rule. sort of an endless logic loop.

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

OK, yes, you're right about that. Except that it's true in the context of medieval society, which was a very complex system of powers and counter-powers, based on a network of personal loyalties.

The church was certainly one of the main players in that field, but the authority of the Pope, in practice, was just as limited as the authority of the king, who relied mostly on the good will of his vassals, who themselves relied on their own network.

The king of France was one of the most powerful monarchs of the time, and the king of France, by our standards, was pretty much penniless and powerless.

If I go back to your initial post:



This gives the impression of the church running Europe like Obama runs the U.S. or Sarkozy France, which is completely anachronistic.



I'll make a note of that book, thank you. But of course I have no doubt that the pope at times manipulated the king of France. And at other times, the opposite was true. The balance of power fluctuated, and there was never a complete control of one party over the other.

I don't know what to tell you Florence, like I said before, any college level 101 entry to European Studies textbook starts with discussing the church (papacy) in Europe. that book I mentioned will give a good look at the Crusades, the power of the church, the monarchs of several nations and the Templars which were a major player during the time. otherwise, just enter the google phrase I gave you and start reading.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sure that you would accept, though, that this is a view that is at odds with the mainstream of scholastic view. There are more early copies of various parts of the NT existing than of any other ancient text (literally dozens of fragments from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as well as the more complete texts such as the "Codex Vaticanus" and "Codex Sinaiticus") and this story appears in NONE of them.

Good info on the Pauline Epistles. And these are great citations too!

And, absolutely I would accept that's at odds with the mainstream view. I was citing that as a "we don't know for sure" rather than a "he's right about this!"

-Pie

[terrazoids]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I remember hearing that when she was crowned (1953), a majority of the British people genuinely believed she had a divine right to rule, bestowed upon her by the Christian god.
Things have changed a lot since then!

She does have the divine right to rule. God did grant this.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

that was the whole deal though with Harry right? that he broke off with Rome, began the church of england, placing himself (and all other future monarchs) as the head of the church, therefore putting himself in the place of the pope and giving himself the religious power and right to rule. sort of an endless logic loop.

Pretty much, yes. Hilary Mantel's novel "Wolf Hall" is an excellent (fictional) account of those turbulent times for anyone interested to know more.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Pretty much, yes. Hilary Mantel's novel "Wolf Hall" is an excellent (fictional) account of those turbulent times for anyone interested to know more.

I'm not familiar with that one, but Lady ANtonia Fraser does a good job with just about everything she sets her hand to covering that period

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I don't know what to tell you Florence, like I said before, any college level 101 entry to European Studies textbook starts with discussing the church (papacy) in Europe. that book I mentioned will give a good look at the Crusades, the power of the church, the monarchs of several nations and the Templars which were a major player during the time. otherwise, just enter the google phrase I gave you and start reading.

I have already done some reading on the middle ages, especially in France. My main source is Georges Duby, who is well-known here for his in-depth studies of this period. There are many myths about the middle ages as being sort of a blank in history between the Roman empire and the renaissance. It is true that the Renaissance is when many of the roots of our modern way of thinking appeared, but they didn't appear out of nowhere. The middle ages were a much more complex and rich period than is generally represented. Maybe Duby's writings focus more on the things that are not generally known and accepted, such as the ones you can find in the 101 books you are referring to, and as a result that is mostly what I remembered. I'm not saying that these books are completely wrong, but that a lot of the things that they say should be taken with a grain of salt, and taken in context, which was very different from ours.

The religious institutions certainly had a lot of power, but what did that mean then? The church was very different from what we know today, which is an international institution with a strict discipline and hierarchy. Monasteries had a lot of influence locally, but Rome was very far away and the local lord was much closer, and their wealth came from the land they owned. I remain convinced that no single institution can be said to have ruled the western world, not in the way we are accustomed to think.

Also, reducing the transition from the middle ages to the modern age to just the reformation is missing so much of the great and fascinating changes that took place over that period of time.

Edit: not sure I'm making my meaning very clear here, but it's late and I have to go to bed now

[terrazoids]

What is this... Book club? I thought we were talking about burning the Koran?!

[ardeegee]

Open letter to the mods: freakazoid already destroyed one thread-- and the above looks like he might intend to do the same thing with this one. Could you possibly conciser doing something about that?

[terrazoids]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Open letter to the mods: freakazoid already destroyed one thread-- and the above looks like he might intend to do the same thing with this one. Could you possibly conciser doing something about that?

I certainly didn't destroy that thread. I think you're the culprit who brought the tone of the conversation down by quite a bit!