Thread: Renaissance

I haven't ever heard a theist reference the Renaissance as a positive thing for them.

Originally Posted by ClassyElf

I haven't ever heard a theist reference the Renaissance as a positive thing for them.

True this.

In fact today the priest who I do biblical studies with was all like "the so called 'renaissance'"

Which to my ears implied a kind of spite.

It marked the transition between man's destiny being controlled by God and intepreted by the Church to man controlling his own destiny or at least interpreting God's way for himself. It was a very positive thing for religion, because religious institutions were trying to cling to power and were inhibiting the development of mankind both in practical terms and spiritual terms. People got to forge their own connection with God, and define God as they chose to, whether real or imaginary.

You have to see history as an evolution in perception in order to see how the world has been developing.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

It marked the transition between man's destiny being controlled by God and intepreted by the Church to man controlling his own destiny or at least interpreting God's way for himself. It was a very positive thing for religion, because religious institutions were trying to cling to power and were inhibiting the development of mankind both in practical terms and spiritual terms. People got to forge their own connection with God, and define God as they chose to, whether real or imaginary.

You have to see history as an evolution in perception in order to see how the world has been developing.

This is the common thing I hear in response - it allowed a more personal connection to God.

However, the form of worship and discipline is still identical. The form of authority is still there. It's just added as a footnote that, "Oh yeah, and Jesus loves you. But do what he says or you're fucked!"

Regardless, it is still the most significant defiant act against the Church. I just find these responses amazing. Even in the most detrimental act towards the church, theists can still find a way to salvage it somehow. Reminds me of a dog continuing to hunt after having one of it's legs savaged.

~

I'm not a theist.

I'm not saying the rennaisance is a victory for religion, I'm saying it was a positive transition for mankind.

I think your problem is you're seeing history as a collection of events from your perception, rather than seeing history as an evolving perception of reality. People before the Renaissance did not see the same universe they did afterwards.

How can I put this... before the renaissance mankind lived in a very different world, a very mystical world where secular, physical reality did not even exist yet. Everything was at the fault of God, if your crops failed or if you got sick it was his will and all you could do was give yourself up to him. The greatest tool you had was the Church, the mitigators between the Divine plan and Mankind. Mankind was meant to be ignorant of its spiritual destiny, just to play the role that was intended for them and not to ask questions.

Then, through a growing awareness of corruption and all sorts of new discoveries that defied the old version of reality, the church fell apart and the Lutheran movement came about as people decided to form their own connection to God. Even more, many people gave up on scripture altogether and decided to find out what the purpose in existence was through their own means. The Scientific Method developed as Mankind's way to understand the world without unnecessary assumptions, where nothing is true by default. They lost their security in knowing their destiny was taken care of, and had to discover it on their own. Truth was no longer something stagnant, but rather something that developed over time.

At first, when people learned the purpose of the universe was not immediatly self evident, they just put it off. Society as a whole focused on material endeavors, on improving life by learning how to utilize it to improve our security and comforts. This was very helpful in giving us the technology and understanding necessary to transform the world into something self automated, sustainable and safe, but it still serves to do little more than distract us from all those tough questions we couldn't sufficiently answer before.

I would say religion benefitted as a whole because the church was holding back our spiritual progress, and we had to momentarily give up on it in order to be able to come back to it in a different way later. Now instead of one side denying science, the other side denying spirituality, both sides can meet and see how everything fits together.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I'm not a theist.

lol I gathered...

I think your problem is you're seeing history as a collection of events from your perception, rather than seeing history as an evolving perception of reality. People before the Renaissance did not see the same universe they did afterwards.

That is exactly my point though.

I would say religion benefitted as a whole because the church was holding back our spiritual progress, and we had to momentarily give up on it in order to be able to come back to it in a different way later. Now instead of one side denying science, the other side denying spirituality, both sides can meet and see how everything fits together.

Hm.

I'm mostly not saying anything here because everything you said is really the exact reason why I am saying it is the greatest attack to religion. Keeping in mind that the Church originally had an iron grip on humanity, wanted that, did everything it tried to keep it, and then lost it.

Yay, Luther!

~

Just reading Onus's threads stimulate my mind. I love this guy.

I think protestantism was a huge step forward for everybody, not just Lutherans. It put the practice of religion and the relationship with god in the hands of the people, and not under the authority of the church.

I think the problem might be that you see the goals of the pre-protestant church as the same goals of the post-protestant religious individual, which isn't the case. It is good that we aren't under the thumb of the human religious authorities, no matter what religious path you end up taking. As far as I'm concerned, the pre-protestant church wasn't really about religion at all, but mostly control.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think protestantism was a huge step forward for everybody, not just Lutherans. It put the practice of religion and the relationship with god in the hands of the people, and not under the authority of the church.

I think the problem might be that you see the goals of the pre-protestant church as the same goals of the post-protestant religious individual, which isn't the case. It is good that we aren't under the thumb of the human religious authorities, no matter what religious path you end up taking. As far as I'm concerned, the pre-protestant church wasn't really about religion at all, but mostly control.

Yes. However, no matter what the new religions hold, the point is that the renaissance was the first initial greatest hit towards religion at all. By this I mean the argument used against the authority of God. I do not mean anything further than this.

~

Religion isn't the only way towards knowledge. Especially organized religion... I see the Church as a generally misguided monster anyway..

May the true faithful be in charge of religion some day, instead of nonsensical dogmatic teachings.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes. However, no matter what the new religions hold, the point is that the renaissance was the first initial greatest hit towards religion at all. By this I mean the argument used against the authority of God. I do not mean anything further than this.

~

The truth of god's existence doesn't require that as many people as possible believe it. Thats one of the lies that the pre-protestant church survived on. All that was weakened was the authority of heads of church.

Edit; in many ways, it strengthened the truth of god's existence (for us humans), since it inspired many more people to find their own genuine truth of god, rather than submissively tossing a nod to someone else's opinion on the subject. Religious progress stagnates for a very long time, but when it does progress, it does so by leaps and bounds.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The truth of god's existence doesn't require that as many people as possible believe it. Thats one of the lies that the pre-protestant church survived on. All that was weakened was the authority of heads of church.

That is my point. Please do not employ circular logic to salvage the Renaissance. The Church failed at it, and so will you.

Edit; in many ways, it strengthened the truth of god's existence (for us humans), since it inspired many more people to find their own genuine truth of god, rather than submissively tossing a nod to someone else's opinion on the subject. Religious progress stagnates for a very long time, but when it does progress, it does so by leaps and bounds.

It is funny you say that when Atheism is on the highest growing rise possibly in all of history. Can you really assert what you are saying here with such confidence? How can you ignore the ever-growing strength against the church? The industrial revolution, the nuclear age, the computer, the evolution revolution, etc. all have contributed largely to the detriment of the Church and without the movement of the Renaissance, they would have all been significantly hindered. This is because of the resistance of the Church.

I am really surprised by your comments. Even in the greatest punch to the face, you still manage to make a justification for the Church.

This is precisely the reason why I made the thread.

Let me further explain to you my personal relation;

As an Atheist (or better labeled, Humanist), I am so proud of Luther that I am seriously considering it for my child's name. Even though Luther is obviously far from an Atheist by any means, he is, unknowingly, one of the fathers of science and humanism. His movement grealty propelled humanism and lost the great hold of the Church. That is the part I would like to isolate to you as I personally hold religion to be the greatest detriment to humanity.

With that said, can you see why I treasure the life of Luther? And yet you will continue to say that Luther's movement was, in fact, beneficial to the Church?

Reminds me of when an army loses a great warrior and rationalizes, "Oh don't worry, we didn't need him anyway".

~

Actually, I dont think most theists today LIKE the idea of a church. Many theists support finding God yourself, which would not be possible without that time period.

In short, yes it was a huge blow to the church, but at the same time it allowed religion to evolve, which is all a theist would be concerned about anyway.

From and atheist's perspective, this would be the equivalent of only specific people being able to research text books and become scientists. If there are only an elite few allowed, science will not progress very quickly, but if you open the flood gates and you allow anyone to read the texts and learn and study, then science as a whole will progress much faster. It would be a huge blow to an original "authority" but it would be wonderful for a true scientist. Just as it was wonderful for a true theist.

Originally Posted by O'nus

That is my point. Please do not employ circular logic to salvage the Renaissance. The Church failed at it, and so will you.



It is funny you say that when Atheism is on the highest growing rise possibly in all of history. Can you really assert what you are saying here with such confidence? How can you ignore the ever-growing strength against the church? The industrial revolution, the nuclear age, the computer, the evolution revolution, etc. all have contributed largely to the detriment of the Church and without the movement of the Renaissance, they would have all been significantly hindered. This is because of the resistance of the Church.

I am really surprised by your comments. Even in the greatest punch to the face, you still manage to make a justification for the Church.

This is precisely the reason why I made the thread.

Let me further explain to you my personal relation;

As an Atheist (or better labeled, Humanist), I am so proud of Luther that I am seriously considering it for my child's name. Even though Luther is obviously far from an Atheist by any means, he is, unknowingly, one of the fathers of science and humanism. His movement grealty propelled humanism and lost the great hold of the Church. That is the part I would like to isolate to you as I personally hold religion to be the greatest detriment to humanity.

With that said, can you see why I treasure the life of Luther? And yet you will continue to say that Luther's movement was, in fact, beneficial to the Church?

Reminds me of when an army loses a great warrior and rationalizes, "Oh don't worry, we didn't need him anyway".

~

What church are you even talking about? You are arguing from the position that all religion is the same. It's not. The only church that was hurt by protestantism is the Catholic Church. Atheism is not a threat to Religion, and this is not a popularity contest. The world isn't a war with all theists on one side and all atheists on the other. I disagree with Catholicism on almost as many points as you do, and their ever weakening grasp on society strengthens my position as well as yours.

Tell me, what do you think is more beneficial to religion as a whole, millions of followers who barely understand the authoritarian religion that is dictated to them by a few powerful men, or a relatively small number of individuals seeking out their own understanding of the truth of god?

Atheism strengthens my religion. I couldn't have arrived at my religious beliefs without it. The same goes for scientific discovery and philosophical progress.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Actually, I dont think most theists today LIKE the idea of a church. Many theists support finding God yourself, which would not be possible without that time period.

In short, yes it was a huge blow to the church, but at the same time it allowed religion to evolve, which is all a theist would be concerned about anyway.

From and atheist's perspective, this would be the equivalent of only specific people being able to research text books and become scientists. If there are only an elite few allowed, science will not progress very quickly, but if you open the flood gates and you allow anyone to read the texts and learn and study, then science as a whole will progress much faster. It would be a huge blow to an original "authority" but it would be wonderful for a true scientist. Just as it was wonderful for a true theist.

This is my position as well.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What church are you even talking about? You are arguing from the position that all religion is the same. It's not. The only church that was hurt by protestantism is the Catholic Church. Atheism is not a threat to Religion, and this is not a popularity contest. The world isn't a war with all theists on one side and all atheists on the other. I disagree with Catholicism on almost as many points as you do, and their ever weakening grasp on society strengthens my position as well as yours.

Tell me, what do you think is more beneficial to religion as a whole, millions of followers who barely understand the authoritarian religion that is dictated to them by a few powerful men, or a relatively small number of individuals seeking out their own understanding of the truth of god?

Atheism strengthens my religion. I couldn't have arrived at my religious beliefs without it. The same goes for scientific discovery and philosophical progress.

Hm. I can see your point as a sort of solidarity. That is interesting.. I think you are right that I am generalizing the Church. That is something I had not considered till you said so. Although, what the Renaissance was still has a powerful meaning towards any form of Theism really. By this I simply mean the authority of God and Church (but more importantly God, now-a-days).

I think you understand my thoughts. Thank you, Xaqaria.

~

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Atheism strengthens my religion. I couldn't have arrived at my religious beliefs without it. The same goes for scientific discovery and philosophical progress.

I like that statement! thanks :-)

I hear renaissance and I think art and a lot of names I didn't care to remember

I've honestly have never heard the claim for the renaissance being good or bad for religion

the story is complicated

Early christian art was very symbolic. Symbolic for two reasons, they didn't want to create a false idol of God, and people were illiterate. So images had to convey an entire story, and not just a moment in time.

Things changed. And in the renaissance artists were commissioned to create life like paintings that make you feel you are experiencing these biblical scenes! They painted Jesus and other figures realistically, even if no one really knew what Jesus looked like, they didn't care about the false idol risk. Pros and cons to this.

the cons....when they stopped caring about creating false images, they created false images that still today are a thorn in the side of christianity. Michelangelo painted God as an old bearded man in the sky, fashioned after the current day pope. Denying a more mystical understanding of God. They also painted angels as humans with wings stapled to their backs, and image that has still stuck in ignorant minds who think this is what an angel must look like....A human with bird wings.

the Pros are the more they wanted to represent the bible with realistic paintings, the more they wanted the viewer to feel they can identify with Jesus and others. So Jesus and Mary slowly adorn contemporary day clothes. Painted in contemporary places. Bringing them both down to earth to a more human level.

And hey, if you can have a personal relationship with God......why do you need a priest to stand between you? Science wasn't the only thing that weakened the strength of the church.

The renaissance was about reviving ancient knowledge. And with pandoras box open, the church couldn't put a lid on it. Western mysticism and esoteric ideas were reborn during this time period. Where mysticism goes, the hold of the church weakens.

Originally Posted by juroara

The renaissance was about reviving ancient knowledge. And with pandoras box open, the church couldn't put a lid on it. Western mysticism and esoteric ideas were reborn during this time period. Where mysticism goes, the hold of the church weakens.

Where did you get these ideas?

It was the start of scientific beliefs and curiousity.
First time they analyzed the anatomy of the human
body for example. Not ancient knowledge, but
modern and experimental enlightenment.

Something new, not reviving something ancient.

Onus your problem is your perceiving religion as a matter-of-fact evil and science as a matter-of-fact good. It's about development, the Church was vital in the development of society.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Onus your problem is your perceiving religion as a matter-of-fact evil and science as a matter-of-fact good. It's about development, the Church was vital in the development of society.

Yes, I acknowledge this. My point is when Catholics mention it as though it was a good thing. It is like Jews saying Hitler was good for their history.

~

Certain aspects of religion were unhealthy for society and the renaissance removed these aspects. Truth returned from something the church new and itnerpreted to something humans had to discover from themselves.

Study society before Christianity in the Middle East and Mediterrainian, there were evolving concepts of spirituality within secret societies known as Mysteries. People were thinking, and coming up with immature versions of the Easts' definitions on life. When the church came around, these thoiught patterns were stopped and it took over 1000 years for truth to return to something that could be evolved. People were able to literally explore a brand new world known as the material plane, where life was a random mechanism. It's like, first they decided life was like machinery and god was the machinist, then they took out the machinist because he was unnecessary now that there was a working machine. They allowed Descartes to change everything about their perception of reality, then discredited him later. Same thing with Jesus, you can be saved by him but not follow in his foot steps. He became a god when he was meant to be a teacher.

The renaissance didn't totally kill the ability for a higher power. Certain churchs may have suffered, oh well.

Where did you get these ideas?

It was the start of scientific beliefs and curiousity.
First time they analyzed the anatomy of the human
body for example. Not ancient knowledge, but
modern and experimental enlightenment.

Something new, not reviving something ancient.

Yes the renaissance did bring science and curiosity to the forefront..
But if you are unaware, the renaissance means rebirth or revival..

Revival of ancient knowledge and technology along with the usual revival of classical art and architecture, such as what the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians had accomplished.
The revival of Platonism, Hermeticism, Kaballism. To name a few, quite popular and well practiced during the Renaissance. Do some quick research and you'll see much mysticism and esoteric things were discussed and understood back then, quite different than what the Roman Catholic Church had.

Well, in what respect are the theists mentioning the renaissance? I mean, do they say specifically that it was "a good thing for religion", or do they just hold the time period in general in high regards? I ask because I've never heard anyone mention that it was a positive event for religion, but perhaps you have. I can, on the other hand, imagine a theist just saying it was a positive event for history because of what it did for people with the spread of knowledge. They can see that the pros heavily outweighed the cons.

I wouldn't exactly relate it to the Jewish holocaust though. In the long run, the renaissance still managed to educate the other receptive theists, regardless of whether or not they remained theist through to the end. The holocaust, on the other had, had nothing positive in store for the Jewish population.

What do you think?