Mass information helped Christianity

[Quiddity]

Do you feel that something like the printing press (or something equivalent) helped Christianity or hurt it? Granted the one's that eventually cause harm is people themselves, but what good does mass information serve in a world people dissent and misinterpret?

 

[Fluffy]

In the short term, the printing press helped cause the Reformation, spliting the Catholic Church. From a Protestant point of view it helped Christianity whereas from a Catholic point of view, it divided it.

 

[Quiddity]

In the short term, the printing press helped cause the Reformation, spliting the Catholic Church. From a Protestant point of view it helped Christianity whereas from a Catholic point of view, it divided it.

And from your point of view?

 

[Fluffy]

And from your point of view?

Before the printing press, Christianity had a strangle hold on information. As the trend of freedom of information as grown, less and less people have stayed Christian. The printing press clearly damaged Christianity in that it took away a large portion of power that the Catholic church wielded at that time whilst starting a path that led to less Christians.

However, I also see it as being pivotal in reforming Christianity, especially Catholicism and I see the internet playing an identical role in causing a second (but slower) reformation. I would desperately like to see the Catholic Church (and Christian as a whole) become modernised and lose what I view as unnecessary dogma and outdated morals (largely attitudes towards sex).

Therefore, it is a good thing because by hurting Christianity, it forced the religion to change for the better.

 

[Quiddity]

Before the printing press, Christianity had a strangle hold on information.

The printing press came long before the reformation. The "strangle hold" was no more then a monetary concern. The Church did all it can to give information. Just look at the church buildings back then. They literally told stories by just looking at them. You didn't even have to know how to read (iliteracy rates were extremely high back then). This is just one of those lockness monster stories passed down in some Protestant circles really. Very common misunderstanding.

As the trend of freedom of information as grown, less and less people have stayed Christian.

One reason alone: INTERPRETATIONAL ANARCHY
The idea that technology was stumping religion is a similar lockness monster. Many monks were involved in the invention of machines and other areas of science.

The printing press clearly damaged Christianity in that it took away a large portion of power that the Catholic church wielded at that time whilst starting a path that led to less Christians.

No, it just made those who were already given information the ability to interpret the same verse differently. It had a domino affect within a hundred years.

However, I also see it as being pivotal in reforming Christianity, especially Catholicism and I see the internet playing an identical role in causing a second (but slower) reformation. I would desperately like to see the Catholic Church (and Christian as a whole) become modernised and lose what I view as unnecessary dogma and outdated morals (largely attitudes towards sex).

Whilst I disagree, I'll pass for fear of going off topic.

Therefore, it is a good thing because by hurting Christianity, it forced the religion to change for the better.

Or change for the worse. Is that really a far-fetched concept? Why must everything move toward something positive just cause technology did?

 

[Fluffy]

The printing press came long before the reformation. The "strangle hold" was no more then a monetary concern. The Church did all it can to give information. Just look at the church buildings back then. They literally told stories by just looking at them. You didn't even have to know how to read (iliteracy rates were extremely high back then). This is just one of those lockness monster stories passed down in some Protestant circles really. Very common misunderstanding.

Untrue. The banned books lists were extensive and well enforced. Heretical systems such as Lollardy, Islam and Judaism were repressed including their writings were repressed.

The fact that most people were illiterate meant that there sole outlet for religious doctrine was the Church since there were no alternatives to turn to since they had all been repressed.

One reason alone: INTERPRETATIONAL ANARCHY
The idea that technology was stumping religion is a similar lockness monster. Many monks were involved in the invention of machines and other areas of science.

I don't believe that technology has ever stumped religion. However, back then, I believe Christian fellowship was pushed artificially high due to a lack of access to alternative information and repression of other paths. As these paths began to present themselves, the membership dropped.

No, it just made those who were already given information the ability to interpret the same verse differently. It had a domino affect within a hundred years.

It also allowed for the distribution of prominent Islamic philosophical writings which had previously been censored. They remained censored of course but it was now harder to enforce the censor.

Or change for the worse. Is that really a far-fetched concept? Why must everything move toward something positive just cause technology did?

It could have changed for the worse of course. I don't think that the advance of technology mandates a positive advance in religion, I just feel that in this scenario, it did.

I don't consider the Catholic Church of today to be like that of Medival Europe. Under the Catholic Church in Medival Europe, thousands were tortured and murdered. This no longer happens. I view this as an extreme example of the modernisation and positive direction that I refer to. Similarly, I feel that the acceptance and respect of Judaism and Islam, which, back then was even worse than the treatment of Christians and Jews in Islamic countries, is another positive step forward.

However, I feel that this trend needs to continue further. Freedom of information has encouraged this effect because it means that people can constantly evaluate and revaluate all of the ideas contained in the religion. This constant refinement will inevitably lead to improvement.

 

[jonny]

Do you feel that something like the printing press (or something equivalent) helped Christianity or hurt it? Granted the one's that eventually cause harm is people themselves, but what good does mass information serve in a world people dissent and misinterpret?

I think it's done both. Depends on who is using it and for what reasons.

 

[Quiddity]

Untrue. The banned books lists were extensive and well enforced. Heretical systems such as Lollardy, Islam and Judaism were repressed including their writings were repressed.

Was the Bible in that list? Your argument doesn't follow.
The books banned was started toward the second phase of the medieval times. Somewhere toward the mid 1500's. The printing press came in the 1450's. Not only that, but the Catholic Church had a hand in helping distribute the printed bibles. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum was intended to direct catholics on what is or isn't in line with Catholic dogma. It was not intended to stop information or technology. I hope you see the difference.

The fact that most people were illiterate meant that there sole outlet for religious doctrine was the Church since there were no alternatives to turn to since they had all been repressed.

You really buy this idea that all bishops and priests were these theocratic, power hungry group of men? No doubt there was men like that in the catholic church (we still do). But this idea runs amok with folklore and the medival mess.

I don't believe that technology has ever stumped religion. However, back then, I believe Christian fellowship was pushed artificially high due to a lack of access to alternative information and repression of other paths. As these paths began to present themselves, the membership dropped.

I disagree. I think that is true of NOW, but Martin Luther, Calvin, and many others didn't leave because they lacked access and were repressed. Once they left the Catholic Church they were free to lurk where they wished. Their main motive for leaving was interpretational issues. Saying otherwise is being dishonest.

It also allowed for the distribution of prominent Islamic philosophical writings which had previously been censored. They remained censored of course but it was now harder to enforce the censor.


It could have changed for the worse of course. I don't think that the advance of technology mandates a positive advance in religion, I just feel that in this scenario, it did.

Ah ok...

I don't consider the Catholic Church of today to be like that of Medival Europe. Under the Catholic Church in Medival Europe, thousands were tortured and murdered. This no longer happens. I view this as an extreme example of the modernisation and positive direction that I refer to. Similarly, I feel that the acceptance and respect of Judaism and Islam, which, back then was even worse than the treatment of Christians and Jews in Islamic countries, is another positive step forward.

This was hardly isolated to the Catholic Church. I never see a need to defend the sins of the Church. I simply say guilty as charged. It does nothing to invalidate it for me.

However, I feel that this trend needs to continue further. Freedom of information has encouraged this effect because it means that people can constantly evaluate and revaluate all of the ideas contained in the religion. This constant refinement will inevitably lead to improvement.

Or destruction. But I'm willing to concede both, are you?

 

[Fluffy]

Was the Bible in that list? Your argument doesn't follow.
The books banned was started toward the second phase of the medieval times. Somewhere toward the mid 1500's. The printing press came in the 1450's. Not only that, but the Catholic Church had a hand in helping distribute the printed bibles. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum was intended to direct catholics on what is or isn't in line with Catholic dogma. It was not intended to stop information or technology. I hope you see the difference.

My argument is that before the printing press, the average person's only access (in the West) to religious, philosophical, political or scientific information came from the Church. I am not arguing that this was because the Church was power hungry but that this was a completely natural development due to the extent with which Catholicism was entrenched in Europe and the general illiteracy (and therefore reliance on oral tradition ie church services) of the majority of the population.

Books were hand copied by monks and so the only books that got replicated (generally) were those that were considered okay by the Catholic Church. Again, I am not accusing the Church of any underhand manner. I could hardly expect them to print "The Big Book Of Why Islam Is Better Than Christianity". However, the fact that this was the only way in which books were getting printed and the fact that the Church was predisposed against books that had a non-Christian viewpoint created a monopoly on information.

With the printing press, replication and distribution of information was taken out of the hands of the Church. Decades latter, this lead to a vast increase in non-Catholic literature, a lot of which the Church was not happy about. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum was indeed directed to inform Catholics on what to read. However, the way this was enforced was to effectively outlaw the printing of the books on these lists. If you were found in possession of one then you were prosecuted. If you tried to take one into a country such as Spain, it was confiscated.

You really buy this idea that all bishops and priests were these theocratic, power hungry group of men? No doubt there was men like that in the catholic church (we still do). But this idea runs amok with folklore and the medival mess.

I don't know. I am not saying they are power hungry. They were certainly theocractic since all European states at that time were theocratic. I consider the enforced conversion and expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Spain to have the byproduct of creating a monopoly of information. This is because if you outlaw the ideas contained in this religions, expel the religions followers and ban their books, you are preventing people from accessing this pool of information.

I disagree. I think that is true of NOW, but Martin Luther, Calvin, and many others didn't leave because they lacked access and were repressed. Once they left the Catholic Church they were free to lurk where they wished. Their main motive for leaving was interpretational issues. Saying otherwise is being dishonest.

It was a very close thing actually. Plenty of other heretics (see Lollardy) had been murdered previously, Martin Luther was the exception not the rule. His life came under threat from the Church (for example his protector faked his kidnapping so as to make Luther disappear to throw off any would be assassins).

This was hardly isolated to the Catholic Church. I never see a need to defend the sins of the Church. I simply say guilty as charged. It does nothing to invalidate it for me.

I certainly don't mean to say that these failings were restrained to the Catholic Church, far from it. Nor am I trying to attack the Catholic Church, merely stating facts. My point was not how bad the Catholic Church was, but that it should be evident that Christianity of today is an improvement on what it was back then since these kinds of practices no longer happen.

That is to say, I feel that the stance that Christianity has deteriorated is effectively suggesting that things were better when Christianity partook in all of these terrible acts. For me, the fact that Christianity has grow past these failings shows positive progress.

Or distruction. But I'm willing to concede both, are you?

Yes I will. But I view destruction of Christianity as a good thing if the only alternative is a return to Medival Christianity.

I much prefer the Christianity we have today and would rather we kept it all things considered. But no Christianity (today) is better than Medival Christianity (today) in my mind.

 

[James the Persian]

In my opinion, all the printing press did was speed things up. There were always heresies that were invented by those who chose to go off and interpret Scripture on their own, printing just made the Bible available to more people.

I'd say that a related, but different issue, was more responsible for the rapid fragmentation of the western Church. The first would be the doctrine of sola scriptura that Luther came up with. Had he not invented that then, even with many copies of the Bible in circulation the fragmentation would not have happened. I also don't believe that the previous insistance on Latin alone by the RCC was helpful because it did make it look as though the church was trying to control information even if that was not the intention.

The printing press alone could not have produced the mess of the post-Reformation west. Its arrival in the east had no discernible effect on the Church - we had no equivalent to the Reformation. We thus had no group accepting sola scriptura and so no group that ran off and tried to interpret the Bible on their own. We had also, however, always had Scripture and the Liturgy translated into the vernacular, so maybe there simply wasn't the perception in the east that the Church was deceiving believers or hiding information.

James

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Clearly the printing press doesn't necessarily have a positive OR negative effect on religion in itself; it's all in how (and more, whether) it's used!

It should be noted that the printing press was invented in China, but had very little lasting effect on Buddhism!

Once it came to Europe, it clearly had more of an effect, especially when dissident groups like the Protestants used it to enable mass distribution of Bibles and other literature previously unavailable to the average person!

So perhaps the real key is the overall social outlook in which the press appears. . . .

Cheers,

Bruce

 

[James the Persian]

Greetings!

Clearly the printing press doesn't necessarily have a positive OR negative effect on religion in itself; it's all in how (and more, whether) it's used!

It should be noted that the printing press was invented in China, but had very little lasting effect on Buddhism!

Once it came to Europe, it clearly had more of an effect, especially when dissident groups like the Protestants used it to enable mass distribution of Bibles and other literature previously unavailable to the average person!

So perhaps the real key is the overall social outlook in which the press appears. . . .

Cheers,

Bruce

That was pretty much my point also. Witness the radically different effects (or lack of them) when the printing press was introduced into Europe. In the Roman Catholic west it appears to have been a catalyst for the Reformation whilst in the Orthodox east it seems to have had no notable effect at all.

James

 

[Quiddity]

My argument is that before the printing press, the average person's only access (in the West) to religious, philosophical, political or scientific information came from the Church. I am not arguing that this was because the Church was power hungry but that this was a completely natural development due to the extent with which Catholicism was entrenched in Europe and the general illiteracy (and therefore reliance on oral tradition ie church services) of the majority of the population.

Ok, just understand that "oral traditions" doesn't necessarily equate "church services".

Books were hand copied by monks and so the only books that got replicated (generally) were those that were considered okay by the Catholic Church. Again, I am not accusing the Church of any underhand manner. I could hardly expect them to print "The Big Book Of Why Islam Is Better Than Christianity". However, the fact that this was the only way in which books were getting printed and the fact that the Church was predisposed against books that had a non-Christian viewpoint created a monopoly on information.

With the printing press, replication and distribution of information was taken out of the hands of the Church. Decades latter, this lead to a vast increase in non-Catholic literature, a lot of which the Church was not happy about. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum was indeed directed to inform Catholics on what to read. However, the way this was enforced was to effectively outlaw the printing of the books on these lists. If you were found in possession of one then you were prosecuted. If you tried to take one into a country such as Spain, it was confiscated.

Something I would object to if I was around at the time. Any theocratic or forceful civil activity by the Church is something I am wary of and would be right there with you trying to stop it.

I don't know. I am not saying they are power hungry. They were certainly theocractic since all European states at that time were theocratic. I consider the enforced conversion and expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Spain to have the byproduct of creating a monopoly of information. This is because if you outlaw the ideas contained in this religions, expel the religions followers and ban their books, you are preventing people from accessing this pool of information.

If the books were outlawed through civil means then I would agree with you. Are you saying that the Catholic Church integrated into law the Index Librorum Prohibitorum?

It was a very close thing actually. Plenty of other heretics (see Lollardy) had been murdered previously, Martin Luther was the exception not the rule. His life came under threat from the Church (for example his protector faked his kidnapping so as to make Luther disappear to throw off any would be assassins).

I doubt he was the exception. But either way I would codemn any of that behaivor from anyone. Whether it's the Church or not.

I certainly don't mean to say that these failings were restrained to the Catholic Church, far from it. Nor am I trying to attack the Catholic Church, merely stating facts. My point was not how bad the Catholic Church was, but that it should be evident that Christianity of today is an improvement on what it was back then since these kinds of practices no longer happen.

You could say that of many societies, communities, religions, etc. Nonetheless I agree.

That is to say, I feel that the stance that Christianity has deteriorated is effectively suggesting that things were better when Christianity partook in all of these terrible acts. For me, the fact that Christianity has grow past these failings shows positive progress.

Ok...

Yes I will. But I view destruction of Christianity as a good thing if the only alternative is a return to Medival Christianity.

Not me, I'd rather fix things from within. No matter what state it's in. As I believe it's divinely guided kinda gives me hope.

I much prefer the Christianity we have today and would rather we kept it all things considered. But no Christianity (today) is better than Medival Christianity (today) in my mind.

No doubt.

 

[Quiddity]

In my opinion, all the printing press did was speed things up. There were always heresies that were invented by those who chose to go off and interpret Scripture on their own, printing just made the Bible available to more people.

I'd say that a related, but different issue, was more responsible for the rapid fragmentation of the western Church. The first would be the doctrine of sola scriptura that Luther came up with. Had he not invented that then, even with many copies of the Bible in circulation the fragmentation would not have happened. I also don't believe that the previous insistance on Latin alone by the RCC was helpful because it did make it look as though the church was trying to control information even if that was not the intention.

The printing press alone could not have produced the mess of the post-Reformation west. Its arrival in the east had no discernible effect on the Church - we had no equivalent to the Reformation. We thus had no group accepting sola scriptura and so no group that ran off and tried to interpret the Bible on their own. We had also, however, always had Scripture and the Liturgy translated into the vernacular, so maybe there simply wasn't the perception in the east that the Church was deceiving believers or hiding information.

Well, the east had already had a heard of other (Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophystism, Monotheletism, Iconoclasm, etc.) movements shaking it's cages. And these weren't perceptions either. Nonetheless, I've never been big on discussing the sins of either East, West, or any religion in particular. We all sin. I'm sure you can agree that the actions don't define Church, doctrines/dogma do. That's what I hold on too.

 

[James the Persian]

Well, the east had already had a heard of other (Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophystism, Monotheletism, Iconoclasm, etc.) movements shaking it's cages. And these weren't perceptions either. Nonetheless, I've never been big on discussing the sins of either East, West, or any religion in particular. We all sin. I'm sure you can agree that the actions don't define Church, doctrines/dogma do. That's what I hold on too.

I think you missed my point. I wasn't trying to cast blame on the west, just saying that the printing press merely sped up and exaggerated a tendency that was already there. Unluckily for the west it's introduction coincided with the beginnings of the Reformation. Luckily for the east, there was no such nascent movement. Had it been introduced during one of the heresiarchs' times (say Arius) I'm sure we'd be sitting here now talking about the 1001 churches that sprang up in the east as a result of that heresy. I was also suggesting that the novel doctrine of sola scriptura made the situation even worse. Had that been accepted by any groups in the east, I think things would have been very different.

James

 

[Majikthise]

IMO , free dissemination of ideas (mass education) will always be the enemy of all religions. Dissent and misinterpretation are religions allies. Misinterpretation ,in fact, being the only reason for the exsistance of scriptural scholars and the religious elite.
T**s on a bull.

 

[Quiddity]

I think you missed my point. I wasn't trying to cast blame on the west, just saying that the printing press merely sped up and exaggerated a tendency that was already there. Unluckily for the west it's introduction coincided with the beginnings of the Reformation. Luckily for the east, there was no such nascent movement. Had it been introduced during one of the heresiarchs' times (say Arius) I'm sure we'd be sitting here now talking about the 1001 churches that sprang up in the east as a result of that heresy. I was also suggesting that the novel doctrine of sola scriptura made the situation even worse. Had that been accepted by any groups in the east, I think things would have been very different.

James

Sorry for the misunderstanding.