Originally posted by Goober5000
I'd be interested to know where you're getting your information, because you're grossly misinformed.
Yes, there are many strikes against Christianity throughout history: the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. But these are all on account of church leaders abusing their positions. Lots of people in leadership or governing positions become corrupt; the church is no exception to this.
Rank-and-file Christians brought many accomplishments to Europe. Look how many universities and hospitals had Christian charters. Look at the great artists of the Rennaissance. And slavery was universally accepted until one Christian, William Wilberforce, drove the movement to outlaw it.
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Oh wait... you're serious?
Let's see: universities were designed with the sole purpose of creating lawyers and priests. Lawyers who were using Roman law that was only codified by a non-christian in the Byzantine Empire.
When independently wealthy intellectuals presented ideas such as Mirandola's 'Oration on the Dignity of Man' they were persecuted.
Advances only came when clergy trained persons ventured into heretical thought. Petrarch rejected the normal notions of looking at history as a holistic process from creation to modernity, with all events being part of god's will to create the church. He hoped for history to teach moral lessons. Of course towards the end of his life he began to stop most of his historic analysis, almost denouncing it as being worldly. But his work was continued by further humanists and neo-platonists.
As for advances in artwork, it was plagiarism of the ancients. Fresco, analysis of anatomy, by all of the 'great' renaissance painters and sculptors was emulation. (just like the humanist rhetoricians, not innovating but emulating) Actual innovation we see happening closer to the classical period with secular subjects.
On the subject of hospitals... you have to still be ****ing kidding me. Medicine in even the renaissance consisted of drilling crosses into people's skulls and sawing limbs off. Nearly all knowledge of the earlier Roman and Egyptian traditions had been lost. A prime example would be from the retaking of Jerusalem where a muslim doctor was treating soldiers who had minor wounds. (arrow puncture) Sanitize the wound (using herbs based on the Greek ideas of balancing humors, the concept was flawed but the substance did work to reduce infection) and apply pressure. The christian cure when the new doctor arrived to save the patients from a heathen? Give a prayer, paint a cross with ash on his forehead, and chop off the limb. (fortunately they did cauterize it to prevent bleeding...) Needless to say the person died. Not too surprising since doctors were barbers in the west...
Hospitales in Europe were also places of charity. Orphanages. Modern institutions of healing arrived around the mid 15th century and were based on Byzantine and Arabic designs. (modeled after the Greeks) Even these faced resistance and appeared in the more secular communities due to the use of cadavers and/or criminals for dissection. Oddly enough though the methods of teaching in this field was similar to seminary, leading to most chief surgeons never performing actual operations and not having empirical evidence to revise anatomy from the models passed down by the Greeks which were recovered by the Arabs. (these reforms happened with the enlightenment)
...and as for Byzantine innovations even they were relatively stagnant. (mainly due to becoming insular due to being surrounded by hostile groups like the Sassanids and later the Caliphates) The Byzantines did have nice advances in the arts continuing the Roman tradition but a little thing called the iconoclast contreversy led to the destruction of all of that. (christianity's attempt to one-up the muslims by destroying all images of humans)
The sad thing is that the Arabs had more of the classical Greek and Roman writings than the west did, practiced more tolerance to other faiths, (such as the Jews, guess where they went after being kicked out of Spain by Isabella in 1492?) etc. than the christian world up until the classical period. Of course there are black marks such as the support of slavery of non-muslims (though in the case of many like the jannisaries they could have high ranks in society), and the Shiite-Sunni schism. But overall they served as the "battery" for Greco-Roman culture until neo-platonism and other concepts that do not and can not stem from Augustinian (or later Calvinist, which is a reaction to the renaissance and seems to be what modern fundies believe) theology allowed for the enlightenment.
Of course it makes the current intolerance and hatred by extremists in the middle east even more terrible and pathetic.
If you want an example of christian advances, look at the enlightenment. But even there, enlightenment thinkers aren't Augustinian or Calvinist. Most share the same deist or nebulous humanist beliefs held by modern scientists/philosophers. More 'culturally christian' than 'true believers.'
As for why religious paintings were the main subject in the period: an artist needs a patron. The church was one hell of a patron. Even in the Vatican tons of the subjects of art were secular, based on pagan philosophies. Michelangelo even considered doing work for the Caliphates when he was frustrated with the Papacy. More and more secular subjects appear as we see more wealthy urban patrons. Sure artists would do crucifixes or madonna and child paintings for churches and debate which one was more christlike, but that was more artistic in nature than theological. Also, if you look at who was emulating the Romans better you'll notice that artists with more ties to the church were stuck in the traditional medieval mode more. (lack of archetectural style, distorted figures, etc.) As I said before though, real innovation beyond trying to recover what was lost only begins in the classical period.
Yes, I am grossly oversimplifying things but if religion was the driving force behind the renaissance it was only because it was a rebound from a thousand years of darkness. I get quite disgusted when people attempt to downplay the mass murder and genocide that occured due to christian doctrines "oh the catholics were evil, not the rest of us" things like killing monophysites because they thought that christ shed his mortal body when transcending? (catholics, eastern orthodox, and just plain regular non-aligned christians did this one) Calvin killing Michael Servetus for disagreeing with the direction he was turning the faith structure to? (i.e. the wealth you have is a sign if you're chosen/blessed)
Bah. History merely repeats itself, and the fool shrouded in their vestments of tradition sees the path of peace as the path of the wicked.
