History of the World in Christian Perspective...

[salex]

Thank you. I researched A Beca books when I learned the daughter of my politician in law 1) became the principal of a christian school using this and the bob jones curriculum and 2) she told some of us that her father viewed his political career as a calling from god.

I was not amused, and so am always thirsty for more info on this, since many in my state want to have vouchers to pay for religious schools and homeschooling... I am always happy to learn more about it, so I can have good information

[klavierspieler]

Once you hit the high school levels, the A Beka history books are all pretty much regurgitation of one another. Also, the 10th grade book is the textbook for HIST 101 and 102 at PCC. (Actually, all of the core classes at PCC, and several of the major specific ones depending on the major, are straight from the A Beka high school curriculum.)

[DifferentGurl]

Alright...I'm going to be doing the sixth chapter because gasp! There isn't that much propaganda in it! It's mostly educational! Hurray!

That's not to say that there isn't any propaganda. Unfortunately, there still is.

For example, at the beginning section, after mentioning that the Greeks excelled in poetry, politics, philosophy, and the arts, they say this:

Some great minds saw through myths and broke free from the kind of man-made gods that had dominated Middle Eastern peoples for centuries. Having recognized such deities as only glorified human beings, "an image made like to corruptible man"(Rom.1:23), the Greeks might have turned to the one true God. Instead they began to think of themselves as gods. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Rom.1:22), and repeated the mistake of worshiping man, the creature, rather than God, the creator.

Also I can say is this....

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Other than that, we go for the longest time so far in the book without any propaganda. We get information origins of the Greeks, Minoan civilization, the Mycenaeans, a dark age for the Greeks, Homer and the Olympians, the rise of the Greek cities, and the culture of the Greeks after the rise of the city states. This information on this culture include the Olympic games, their temples, their beliefs, their art, and their war and politics. We then follow this up on the history of the Greco-Persian war from the Greek expansion to the final defeat around 479 B.C. and how the Spartans and Athenians didn't stay united for long.

After the history of the Greco-Persian war, we delve deeper into the politics of Ancient Greece. This included stuff like the importance of family background, monarchies, aristocracy, oligarchy, the poor vs. the rich, tyranny, democracy, and then finally a vicious cycle of democracy, tyranny, and oligarchy. Also, we get treated to information on the Spartans and stuff that only concerned Athens like Solon and Pericles. Then we get to the Peloponnesian war. Despite Pericles' defeat, Athens was defeated. But then in 371 B.C., Thebes defeated Sparta and the cities of Greece were free.

The next section is about Greek Philosophy. The book is quick to point out these philosophers were different because they questioned the idea of the Greeks' "false" gods. We get information on Socrates, followed by Plato and Aristotle. Plato and Aristotle were great because they were moving towards the truth of a one true God.

Finally, we get to the Macedonians and the rise of Alexander the Great. We read about Phillip II, his murder, then finally Alexander. We read about his conquests before getting this line.

Alexander did not realize that the power of God had permitted his conquests.

Or maybe he was just that great of a strategist. Just saying.

The book talks about how people started comparing him to Achilles and that he was also the student of one of the greatest philosophers of all time, Aristotle. Then we read how Alexander let his conquered people still keep their religions, but at the same time introduced Greek culture. Then we finally get to Alexander's tragic end and the break up of his kingdom. Despite this split, Greek culture continued to spread. But the book then says this:

Old ways of life and basic beliefs weakened under the ceaseless, questioning Greek curiosity Pride had caused the Greeks to turn toward a new extreme of humanism. The old gods of human imagination were "dead, but philosophers like Plato and Aristotle and great men of politics and war like Alexander had begun thinking of themselves as gods. The characteristic curiosity of the Greeks, however, would not permit such beliefs to be held without doubts. Greek culture was better at destroying old beliefs than providing new ones.

:headdesk:

Because the people didn't have their gods, they felt lost because their very foundation of the world were these gods.

The chapter ends on this line:

As hearts broke open, the world became increasingly ready for Jesus Christ.

There's also this boxed area at the end of the chapter about the Greek legacy. It just mentions their contributions in the creation of democracy, their literature, and their art and architecture. But the most important thing the Greek had to offer, at least according to the book, was their language because by it the gospel of Jesus Christ spread throughout the Roman world during the first century A.D.

Man, this chapter was way better than the others. So much tolerable. Except for a few bits and pieces, this chapter was educational. I wonder how many chapters in this book are like this...better be a lot...

[nelliebelle1197]

Is this from A Beka?? I taught from the tenth grade edition published in 1982. It had a section on the hierarchy of the races (which I'm pretty sure were defined as "red, yellow, black and white").

And I so wish I had made that up.

I remember that from maybe my fifth grade A Beka or BJU curriculum!

[Nobodysdoormat]

ABeka used to be the go to curriculum for homeschoolers but there are so many more options nowadays. Almost all the the homeschoolers I know go through a charter school, do testing, and use many public school texts. ABeka 's reputation among mainstream hsers is very poor, especially in the upper grades. Secularism is creeping into the movement. There is a definite push back against the Ken Hams of the world. People are insisting homeschool conferences be about more than lifestyle issues. Even Sonlight, a Christian curriculum has created a secular sister company called BookShark. Very exciting for us, non-religious homeschoolers.

That said, a dear friend of mine was homeschooled with ABeka and is happily in the de-brainwashing process!

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

ABeka used to be the go to curriculum for homeschoolers but there are so many more options nowadays. Almost all the the homeschoolers I know go through a charter school, do testing, and use many public school texts. ABeka 's reputation among mainstream hsers is very poor, especially in the upper grades. Secularism is creeping into the movement. There is a definite push back against the Ken Hams of the world. People are insisting homeschool conferences be about more than lifestyle issues. Even Sonlight, a Christian curriculum has created a secular sister company called BookShark. Very exciting for us, non-religious homeschoolers.

That said, a dear friend of mine was homeschooled with ABeka and is happily in the de-brainwashing process!

None of the homeschoolers I know (most of whom are fundies) use or like Abeka. Historical data is "off", and it falls under the horrible, boring, may-as-well-be-using-a-computer-program workbook category. Their elementary math used to be (and still is by a handful of people) regarded as advanced, but has mostly been replaced by Saxon, MathUSee, and Teaching Textbooks.

[DifferentGurl]

Alright everyone. I'm back with another chapter, this time about Rome before Christ and wait....it's...it's...it's another mostly educational chapter! Not that much propaganda! Yay! My wish came true! Huzza!

*Takes a deep breath* Ok, now that I got that out of my system, let's begin.

Like I said, this is mostly educational. We first get information on the land mass of Italy and its rivers and mountains, the early inhabitants of Italy, the founding of Rome ( including the legend of Romulus and Remus ), Rome's religious foundation, and some of the history of the Roman Republic.

Then we're onto a section called "The Early Roman Wars of Foreign Conquest", which includes history on Rome conquering the whole of Italy, defeating the Greeks, the Punic Wars, war with Macedonia, war with Syria, and war with this ancient Asian kingdom called Pergamum. This section ends with how the Republic started crumbling before the rise of Julius Caesar.

The next section is about the rise and fall of Julius Caesar, starting with his conflict with this man called Pompey, Caesar's conquests of Gaul and Rome, the rule of Caesar, and then finally Caesar's assassination. After Caesar's death, the chances of the Roman Republic being restored were gone. Onto the early Roman Empire! We get a look at the conflict between Mark Anthony and Octavian, a conflict which would result in Anthony and his lover Cleopatra committing suicide. Octavian declares himself to be the emperor and renamed himself Caesar Augustus. We read about Augustus's accomplishment and how he began what would be known as the Pax Romana.

During the section about the accomplishments of Augustus that the propaganda finally comes back. No please! Go away propaganda! We were enjoying the educational stuff! Please leave!

The section says that as people started seeing Rome as their savior, Augustus saw that he should make himself and Rome more than just a merely human being and a merely human city so people would respect them more.

If the old gods were for all practical purposes "dead", why not let Rome and the Roman emperor be gods? It was such a simple and obviously false belief that it is surprising that anyone took it seriously. But they did.

By the time of the birth of Jesus Christ, Rome had become the world's alternative to God.

The book has no idea how psychology works. To an outsider, this may have seemed stupid, but to someone on the inside it wasn't. It's similar to how cults form.

The final section is about the preparation of Jesus Christ. Because of the Roman Empire, news traveled faster, the language was pretty much the same, and good news was welcomed. Isn't good news welcomed in any society? Rome wasn't special in the fact that it welcomed good news.

We get information of how the Jews were by the time the Roman Empire was around before the chapter ends on this quote:

The thread we have been following through history has at last led us to Jesus Christ and the turning point in history.

One more thing I should mention. There were two boxed areas in this chapter. One was Drama and the other was about measuring time.

I'm so happy that I got another mostly education chapter. Such a relief. Maybe this book is getting better...

[ViolaSebastian]

Just wanted to say thank you, DifferentGurl, for reading this so I don't have to. Now I'm beginning to understand why many Americans aren't interested in or knowledgeable about history--it's books like these!

One of the reasons I always loved history (got one my degree in it) is because it was a way that I could read about utterly defrauding topics and still call it 'research' and 'educational'.

I had no idea history was so filthy! -- Marge Simpson

[Arete]

Call me a cynic, but I suspect they are being fairly lenient with Greece and Rome because they are the foundation cultures of modern western civilization. Christian fundies think everyone should partake of western civilization.

[DifferentGurl]

I think I can put in one more chapter. Unfortunately, this is going to have more propaganda than the last two chapters. *Groans*

Ok...the chapter starts with the story of Jesus Christ. The first few lines are this:

The facts of His life are among the best-recorded events of all time. God inspired Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to record these events in a way that no writer working with merely human resources could ever do. The four gospels are the most important texts for the student of history to read and understand, for no single life has had as much influence on world history as the life of Jesus. It is doubtful we could have found our way through the study of world history so far without following the thread that has led us to Christ.

First of all, I can think of several events in world history that were better recorded than the life of Jesus. Secondly, the fact that the four gospels are the most important historical texts that a student needs to read can be debated. Third, I know history can be complicated, but I'm sure people could have made it through world history without focusing on how it all had to do with Jesus and the Bible.

Anyways, we go through the life of Jesus up until he descends up into heaven. Then we get to the Claudian emperors like Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. We get brief information on each of these emperors. The book is also quick to talk about how they persecuted the early Christians.

Oh boy, do the descriptions of the persecution get graphic. The section about the Claudian emperors isn't as bad as the rest, but it still is kinda graphic.

Christian suffered unbelievable tortures. Some were crucified, as Jesus had been, or torn apart by wild dogs. Others were covered with pitch and used as torches to light Nero's garden. According to tradition, Paul was beheaded by Nero in Rome.

Also, we get this quote in the section about the Claudian emperors:

Christianity would eventually be recognized as a foundation for good citizenship.

Just because you're Christian, doesn't mean you're going to be a good citizen!

The next section is about the Flavian Emperors. We get brief information on the emperors, but this section is dominated by how the Christians were persecuted. During this time, the Romans burnt down the Temple in Jerusalem, Mount Vesuvius erupts, and John the Apostle is exiled to the island of Patmos. The section ends with saying that while the Roman tolerated other religions, it was required that the people worshipped the emperor as a god. Obviously, the Christians didn't worship the Emperor.

The next section is called "Two Centuries and More of Persecution". It begins with a little info on the Christians of the Empire before getting to the "Five Good Emperors". Note, the book actually puts quotation marks around Five Good Emperors. They put quotation marks around it because three of the emperors persecuted Christians. And boy, do the descriptions of the persecution get graphic.

Some families died together. A widow who refused to sacrifice to false gods was whipped, hung by the hair of her head, and finally, with a large stone fastened about her neck, was thrown into a river to drown. Six of her sons were stabbed to death; her youngest son was sawn into pieces.

Also this:

Cruelties made spectators shudder with horror. Some martyrs walked over nails, thorns, or sharp shells; others were beaten until their muscles and veins lay bare. After such torture, they were put to death by fire.

We don't get much information on what these emperors did besides their persecution of Christians. It mentions how Commodus was mad and how Septimius Serverus and his descendants pretty much ignored the Senate, made the army bigger, and then were finally murdered. There is a brief period under Maximus Thrax when the Christians weren't persecuted before being persecuted again under Valerian and Diocletian. We get actual history besides the Christian persecution in this section like how by the end of the Third Century, the taxes got higher, the Empire was being attacked by outside forces, and how Diocletian split the kingdom into east and west. The section ends with a paragraph about the Christian persecution under Diocletian, including this little quote:

Many were hunted down like animals and burned or thrown to wild beasts.

You know, for kids! Jeez, I knew that most of the kids were 12 to 13 year olds, but seriously!

Anyways, the section finally ends saying that the Empire was no match for the gospel.

The next section is about Constantine. He was special because he was the first Christian emperor. Under him, Christians were finally at peace. But those that weren't Christians were not so safe.

Constantine did not completely understand true Christianity, however. He did not understand that God, Who freely gave His love to man, wants that love returned in a voluntary way, not by force. Slowly but surely, Constantine began to shift official Roman policy from toleration back to persecution. The new persecution would be in the name of Christianity, but it would be persecution nevertheless.

Am I the only one surprised that they said this?

We get more information on Constantine's rule before this is said:

But government cannot force men to become Christians; it can only force them to say they are Christians. Government should never discourage Christianity. Neither should it "encourage" Christianity to the point of persecuting nonbelievers.

Then why are you saying that all the other religions are bad to the point of insulting them and saying that Christianity is better!?!?! :angry-cussing: :angry-cussingblack: :angry-fire: :angry-screaming: :angry-steamingears: :angry-steamingears: :angry-banghead:

*Takes a deep breath*

Moving on...

The Constantine section ends with information on him moving to the east to Constantinople.

The next and, thankfully, final section is about the fall of the Roman Empire. Also, this section is mostly educational and less propaganda. We get information on the division on the Roman Empire, the Germans, the German invasion, and German rule. The chapter then wonders why the Western Roman Empire fell. Finally, it ends on this:

Yet it was during the time of Rome that the one truly momentous event in world history occurred. The world has never been the same since Jesus Christ. The new age after Rome was a time in which the world had to say yes or no to Jesus Christ. Many major events of world history have, in one way or another, been a response to Jesus Christ.

Man, was this chapter horrible! It might as well have been "Christianity in the Roman Empire"! Most of it was about how they were persecuted and then treated well in the empire! We rarely read about the accomplishments of the emperors! Just how oh so horrible they were ( or not) to the Christians!

The next chapter is about early Church history. Oh good lord...

[DifferentGurl]

Ok, time for chapter 9! Before I begin, I'm going to go over the Unit 2 Summary that I didn't cover in my last post because...well my mind was too burnt over after going through chapter 8.

Besides, the summary is just....well, a summary of the last four chapters. First there's saying that the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires were just tools used by God ( and that Persia didn't contribute anything new to world history...um, that could be debated ). These and other empires like the Greeks and Romans were used for the preparation of Christ. We finally get to Jesus's story, the Christian persecution ( luckily, there are no graphic descriptions in the summary ), Constantine, and then finally the end of the Roman Empire.

Onto the next unit called "The Middle Ages and the Distortion of Christianity". Yea, because the distortion of Christianity mainly happened in the Middle Ages! *sarcasm*

Chapter 9 is called "Early Church History" and I just know from reading the title that this is going to be a hard one.

We start with the history of the first Christians and the writing of the New Testament. They say that the writers had unique power from the Holy Spirit to write the book. There is one neat educational tidbit in this section and that is how the New Testament was written in koine, the most common form of the Greek language ( at least during the time the New Testament was written. I doubt koine is the most common form of the Greek Language now ).

Then we get more information on the early church such as the first church, the discussion the Apostles and other people had about how much if any of the Jewish traditions the new Christians should follow, how no one church ruled over other, Church leaders, and the simple worship practices of the early Christians. Then we get to the church of Rome and how this guy named Irenaeus declared that every church had to agree with the Church of Rome. This was the beginnings of the Catholic church.

Then we get to how the bishops of these new churches started coming to the forefront. Irenaeus tried to justify the bishops' new power through "Apostolic succession" followed by the Petrine theory, which stated that Christ made Peter the head of the catholic church and that he passed this power onto the bishops. Eventually, the bishop of the Church of Rome became what is now known as the Pope.

As in other human organizations, the quest for extreme unity in the church easily led to one-man rule - to kings - for the greatest degree of unity. Reminiscent of the old Israelite demand for a human king rather than God, many who called themselves Christians sought a human king rather than Christ. Peter's great worry that the shepherds of Christian flocks would act as "lords over God's heritage rather than "examples to the flock" came true ( 1 Pet. 5:3).

I don't think wanting a king meant that they didn't want Christ. They just wanted a more visible form of government. I think...

Then we're onto Constantine again and how he became the church ruler. There's a bit of information on Arianism followed by how Constantine's only issue with Arianism was that it would cause division among the Christians. This demonstrated that Constantine had an insufficient grasp of Christianity. In 325 A.D., Constantine and the Council of Nicaea came up with the Nicene Creed, placing the Arians under "a curse". The Roman emperors started declaring themselves as God's representative on Earth in all matters. We then hear how Constantine failed to unify the empire through Christianity.

In 445, Leo I became Pope. He persuaded the Huns not to attack Rome and that those who disagreed with the Roman Church to be put to death. Next in 494, the new pope Gelasius made the pope supreme over all bishops. By the time the Roman Empire fell, the Catholic church was more powerful than ever.

The Word of God is a permanent record of the gospel, providing the true basis for Christianity and for Christian churches. But when men, not the Scripture, became the foundation for a distorted Christianity that tried to rule the world in the name of Jesus Christ, humanism reappeared in a new form. Some men made themselves into gods by blocking the direct access of others to the Father through Jesus the Son. Men who said they were successors of the Apostles claimed, as no Apostle ever had, to e necessary for salvation.

We finally end on how the Catholic church complicated worship and how men now hoped that Christendom would soon cover the entire planet. These men made it their responsibility to rule the world for God.

One more thing I should mention was that there was this boxed section on Philosophy, but all it really was about was on Marsilius and his fight against the early Roman Church doctrines. Also, the section says this:

Marsilius knew that all beliefs must be measured against the absolute truth of God's Word, the one true authority for the Christian and lover of truth.

A person can still be a lover of truth without turning to the Bible. Just saying.

Surprisingly, this wasn't as Propogantasic as I thought it would be. Just history on the early Christians and the beginnings of the Roman Catholic Church. I can sense a future pattern of dissing the Catholic church in the book, though. I can also sense that in the next chapter called "Islam versus Christendom" that there will be a lot of Islam bashing...

[DifferentGurl]

Alright, time for the next chapter. This one is about the Crusades. This chapter also has information on Islam. Let's go see how the book insults this religion...

The chapter starts with information on the area of the world called Arabia, how many of the Arabs were descendants of Ishmael, how the Arabs conquered a land area that reach from the southwestern part of Europe to the eastern border of India, and how the Christians finally got into a war with the Arabs.

The book does a brief summary on the beginnings of the Prophet Mohammed's life as well as some information on Mecca. Then around age 40, Mohammed began to claim that he was receiving revelations from the angel Gabriel that he was a specially appointed prophet of Allah, that Allah is the same god as the Jewish and Christian gods, and that he was the last in a series of prophets that included Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.

Whereas over 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus Christ, no one witnessed Mohammed's supposed encounters with the angel. Only Mohammed saw the visions and heard the voices. People had to accept or reject his claim solely on the basis of his forceful personality or the appeal of his teaching.

What about back in the Old Testament with Moses and the judges that were the only ones to be in contact with the ark of Covenant? The ordinary people didn't see God. They had to believe that the judges had to say. What about the 500 people that saw Jesus resurrected? I'm sure their family members had to take their word for it since they didn't see Jesus themselves.

By the time 622 came around, the businessmen of Mecca felt threatened by Mohammed and his new religion. He and his followers were then forced to leave the city for their own safety. They arrived in Yathrib, which later became known as Medina. Mohammed soon became the political and religious leader of the city.

People who believed Mohammed's claims simply assumed that Mohammed should completely control them and all aspects of their lives. Mohammed did nothing to discourage such tendencies as he combined religion and politics.

So wait, it's ok for Christians to combine politics and religion, but it wasn't ok for Mohammed because he was a Muslim? Also, I'm sure the people didn't tell them to control all aspects of their lives....I think...I don't know that much about the beginnings of the religion.

Anyways, the Jews weren't so happy with Mohammed, not believing his teachings and his claim that the Old Testament wasn't the Word of God. When it was revealed the Jews were going to help the Meccan enemies that were attacking Medina, Mohamed beheaded all the Jewish men and enslaved the women and children. Didn't the people of the Old Testament did the same things to the people of Cannan or at least something similar? After his time in Medina, Mohammed decided to on a jihad.

Mohammed preached that Allah wanted everyone in the world to be Muslim or at least to be ruled by Muslims.

Just like how the authors of the book believe that God wants everyone to be Christians or at least be ruled by Christians! Mohammed was wrong in his thinking, though, because he wanted everyone to be Muslims and not Christians!

Mohammed eventually conquered Mecca. During the last two years of his life, Mohammed conquered tribe after tribe of Arabs. The new religion of Mohammed's became known as Islam and the followers of the religion were called Muslims.

The section called Koran begins like this:

Mohammed claimed to have received revelations from Allah continually since the time of his first visions in the mountains near Mecca. Those around him wrote down or memorized what they heard Mohammed recite.

Just like some of the writers of the Bible. Like I said, unless they saw God for themselves, the followers of some of the major players in the Bible had to take the players' word for mouth.

The Koran says that the Muslims, Jews, and Christians all have the same god but the Jews and Christians misunderstood this one god. Just like what the Christians and Jews say about the Muslims and their god! The Koran rejects both the Old and New Testament of the Bible because it distorts the original revelations of the prophets. The holy book also says that Allah revealed his will to Mohammed, that Mohammed is his last prophet, and that the Koran has preserved his words perfectly. Just like what the Bible and the Christians says....well...except for the part about someone being the last prophet. Submission to Allah's will is what Mohammed says is Allah's will. Just like what the Christians say about other prophets of the Bible.

Then we get onto the part about the differences between Christianity and Islam. Oh boy...

The issue between Christianity and Islam could not be more clear-cut. Mohammed preached much about the power and mercy of the one god Allah, opposing the polytheism and idolatry prevalent in Arabia. But because he rejected Jesus Christ as the son of God, Mohammed could not avoid the trap of humanism. Through he never claimed to be a god or demanded worship, Mohammed elevated himself to the status of the "last prophet." In effect, Mohammed became the only "prophet," for he rejected the Bible record of earlier prophets as false. Thus Mohammed stood as one man between all other men and the supposed one true god, teaching that men could achieve salvation by what they did and not by Jesus Christ's finished work on the cross.

First of all, the issue between Christianity and Islam is not as clear-cut as you claim. Sure, Muslims don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and they worship in a different way, but really they have more in common with Christianity than not. The writers of the book just didn't want to admit it. And yes, Mohammed wasn't a perfect man, but neither were any of the men in the Bible. The Israelites committed their own share of slaughtering and genocide. The only reason the Israelites were given a free pass ( though the book never mentioned the mass slaughtering ) because they were following God. Finally, what the book says about the Koran rejecting what the Bible says can be said for the Bible. The Bible rejects what the Koran says and the reason that it's ok in this textbook is because the Bible is the Christian holy book.

Like I said, if you look closer, you'd see that Christianity and Islam share many of the same beliefs and many of the same moral values. The book just doesn't want to admit it. It just sees any other religion or any form of Christianity that isn't what they interpret as the "right" form of Christianity as "wrong".

Luckily for all of us, the rest of the chapter is mostly educational. We get brief information on the conquests of Islam after Mohammed's death. The Muslims did well in the battlefield, but Christianity managed to survive in Europe.

Whereas Islam had only the Koran, Christendom at least possessed the Word of God in the Bible. European Christianity, although seriously distorted because of its treatment of the Bible, at least had the possibility of someday turning to its original, true basis in the Bible.

First, the Koran isn't worthless because it isn't the Bible. Second, I don't think we will ever be able to get to the true, original basis of the Bible. People will always be interpreting it differently.

Finally, we get to the history of the Crusades. There's information on where the word "crusade" came from, followed by how the pilgrims to the Holy Land were getting persecuted by the Muslim Turks. In 1095, the Pope declared the beginning of the Crusade.

It's during this history of the Crusades that we also find out that the Catholic church split into east and west because the church in Constantinople never believed in the pope's supremacy. The eastern group became what is now known as the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the western group became the Roman Catholic church. Because things weren't going so well for the Catholic's, Pope Urban II hope to regain power and prestige through successful crusades.

Then we get information on the First Crusade, which started with the Peasants' Crusade. This tidbit includes this:

Militarily disciplined Turks destroyed this unruly mob of Europeans, leaving bones to bleach in the sun as a warning for future crusaders.

Then there is the official First Crusade and how this was more successful. The Second Crusade wasn't successful, though, and Jerusalem fell to the Muslims. The Third Crusade, which included King Richard the Lion-Hearted of England, also accomplished little to nothing. The Fourth Crusade never even reached the Holy Land, instead robbing the city of Constantinople. Then there's the unsuccessful Children's crusade and the other Crusades. These crusades last around 200 years. In the late 13th Century, the Ottoman Turks rose to power. The group would go on to capture Constantinople in 1453, ending the Easern Roman Empire.

Finally, the chapter ends saying that the Muslims and the followers of the distorted Christianity basically balanced and checked the aspirations of the other. Christendom largely restricted Islam to the Middle East and some parts of Asia and Africa ( as well as the Moors in Spain ). Islam restricted Christendom mainly to Western Europe. If either side had succeeded in the Crusades, mankind would have been imposed by either a false religion or a distorted view of Christianity.

Man, this chapter was hard! I hated how they didn't seem to understand Islam. While I was glad that I got some history of Islam besides "it's bad because it's not Christianity and blah blah blah", it still didn't treat the religion with a lot of respect. Like I said, if the book looked deeper, they would see that both Islam and Christianity have a lot more in common than not. Yes, Islam is not perfect but neither is Christianity. It was definitely a relief that the rest of the chapter after the part about the history of the Mohammed and Islam was mostly educational.

At least I now know how this book is going to treat other religions...thank goodness the next chapter is going to be about the Christians in the Middle Ages and not about the Buddhists or Hindus...

[DifferentGurl]

Sorry I took so long to reply. I have been busy with school. Now that the semester has ended for me, I can continue on with explaining what goes on in my old Christian history textbook.

Luckily for me, this chapter is mostly educational. Long, but mostly educational.

The chapter starts out with explaining how Christendom continued in Europe.

Because so many events of history have, in one way or another, been a response to Chris, we now focus on the relatively small part of the world to which Christianity - in a very distorted form - was for a long time largely confined. The people of western Europe, though few in number compared to the rest of mankind, now became the main actors on the stage of world history.

Christendom, for all its grievous errors, did have the Bible. Though distorted, the simple but powerful truths of the Scriptures might someday be seen clearly again. With God's Word in its possession, Europe had tremendous potential for progress in politics, economics, philosophy, science, and all areas of life. Unfortunately, distorted Christianity held such a grip on western Europe that we can see little cause for optimism as the Middle Ages began around A,D. 500.

First, I doubt that the people of western Europe were the main actors on the stage of world history at the time. There was still other parts of the world. And secondly, just because you have the Bible doesn't mean you are great or have the potential to make great strides in politics, economics, philosophy, science, and all areas of life. Just saying.

Anyways, the book goes on saying that people hoped that through Christendom that they may have something similar to the Roman Empire but with Christian values. This spurred many people into action.

After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church supplied almost the only unity for Europe for quite a while. The book explains the organization of the church followed by saying that while the popes were supposed to rely on spiritual authority to enforce their will, it was not long before they started using more violent means like the military to enforce their will.

We are then told about the Franks, Clovis and how he became a Christian, how the Roman Church benefited from having Clovis on their side, and how after Clovis's death his sons fought over the throne, often committing savage and violent crimes in order to get the coveted position of king.

The name Christian scarcely signified lives that were godly.

Um, I think that has always been the case. Yea, there are some Christians that were godly, but there were also those that weren't. There were always be Christian people that are bad.

We get information on Charles Martel, his alliance with Bishop Boniface, his fights against the Muslims, Martel's son Pepin the Short ( am I the only one that thinks of Pippin from Lord of the Rings whenever they read Pepin the Short? ), Pope Zacharias's approval of Pepin, Pepin's conquests of the Lombards, information on the Papal states, and how Pepin started what is now known as the Carolingian line of Frankish kings.

Then we read up on Charlemagne. He was a king constantly at war, spending 50 years fighting. One time, he even massacred 4,500 rebels after they surrendered. Charlemagne expanded his Empire all in the name of Christianity. He forced people to say that they were Christians, even though some of these people like the Saxons often renounced Christianity after they saying they were Christians. By 800 A.D., Charlemagne ruled the largest area in the West since the Roman Empire. In Christmas Day of 800 A.D., he became the Emperor of the Romans. He later became both the political and spiritual leader of the Empire. After Charlemagne's death, we get more info on the Carolingian rulers like Charlemagne's son Louis, and how Charlemagne's sons signed this treaty called the Treaty of Verdun which divided the Empire into three parts. The Carolingians rulers got weaker until the last one died in the 900s.

After that, we get brief summaries on the Magyars, Moors, and Norseman followed by how Charlemagne's empire soon went into shambles and was divided into many smaller kingdom. Then we get information on stuff on what life was like in the Middle Ages. This includes stuff like feudalism, knights, the feudal system, war and chivalry, castles, medieval sports and pastimes, farmers and serfs, and churches. It is quick to point out that under the church in the Middle Ages that people believed that priests with their sacraments, and not Christ, held the keys to heaven. Also, it didn't help that most people were unable to read and had little access to the Bibles.

The chapter ends on this:

As Europe disintegrated from an empire into feudalism, the light Christ had brought into the world remained dimmed. The truth of the Bible was hidden in darkness, and the people of the Middle Ages understood neither freedom in this life nor salvation in the next.

This chapter wasn't that bad. Believe it or not, this textbook does have its good moments. It sometimes acts like an act textbook. But the parts that are preachy and is used as propaganda ring out the most.

Turn in next time! Now that I'm on break, I can update more often!

[Vivi_music]

Wow! If I had known the A Beka books existed, I would have never wasted 4 years of my life on a history degree, in that godless heathen liberal college (no less!).

In all seriousness, keep this up DifferentGurl. As strange as it seems, I enjoy reading it. It's all fun and snark but it does make me sad to think children actually read these kind of textbooks. :cry:

[Black Aliss]

Once you hit the high school levels, the A Beka history books are all pretty much regurgitation of one another. Also, the 10th grade book is the textbook for HIST 101 and 102 at PCC. (Actually, all of the core classes at PCC, and several of the major specific ones depending on the major, are straight from the A Beka high school curriculum.)

That actually goes quite a long way to explain why fundies think college is unnecessary because they learned everything they need to know in homeschool.

[Evangeline]

That was my textbook in "junior high," as my IFB school insisted on calling it decades after middle schools became the norm. I was always annoyed with the insertion of Bible stories in the history books. As if we hadn't just finished Bible class two seconds earlier, and as if it was necessary to remind us, that yes, this is the very same Egypt where Joseph lived, boys and girls. So infantilizing. I hate A Beka, except for math. Even my eight-year-old self knew it sucked.

[DifferentGurl]

Ok, time for the next chapter. This one is called An Age of Darkness. Hmm...this should be interesting.

During the Middle Ages, mankind fell into darkness. The true Light had come into the world, but the world had responded by distorting Christianity. The consequences of spiritual poverty were felt in every area of life.

We get a summary of how life had declined after the Roman Empire fell. Towns shrank. Life became more rural. Roads and bridges fell into disrepair. Barbarians and pirates ravaged the land.

Then onto a section called "Spiritual Ignorance". Uh oh.

During the Middle Ages, many people had a false notion of how Christians ought to live. The first Christians lived separated lives, but they did not withdraw from the rest of the world.

Yea, because most Christians now don't have a false notion anymore oh how to live. :roll:

We get a brief history on monasticism, hermits, monasteries, and friars. Also, we get this:

The monks thought that their life of self-denial would please God so much that they would earn their salvation.

Kind of reminds me of our favorite fundies for some reason.

Next, we read about the Doctrines of the Roman Church. This includes stuff like baptism, the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary, saints, priests, indulgences, purgatory, penance, and how the Roman Church forbade everyone but the Church leaders from owning a copy of the Bible. Two quotes stand out in this section.

After going through all these motions, the people of the Middle Ages still agonized over Salvation. They never experienced a sense of God's forgiveness in their souls, only guilt and condemnation.

Once again, there is a quote in this chapter that reminds me of our favorite fundies for some reason.

Also, there's this quote:

As a result [of the Roman Church putting the pronouncements of the popes and church councils on a level with the Bible] , the Bible lost its place as the basis for true Christian beliefs.

Yea, true Christian beliefs such as stoning prostitutes and owning slaves! :roll:

Of course, there were people that challenged the Roman Church, as the next section in the chapter shows. We get information on John Wycliffe, John Huss, other groups that fought against the Roman Church, and the Inquisition that resulted from the Roman church being challenged. The book treats the people that fought against the Roman Church as heroes. Alright, I know that the Roman Church was a bit mean at times during the Middle Ages, but am I the only one that thinks that this book may be portraying Catholics in general as "bad Christians"?

Next, we get information on how learning decline during the Middle Ages.

In the first centuries after Christ, while the Roman Empire still stood in western Europe, many intelligent, well-educated men had accepted Christ as Savior. The truths of Christianity stirred new interest in subjects like philosophy which, without guidance from God's revelation, had failed to answer the basic questions of life. The truths of Christianity challenged the human mind as it had never been challenged before.

First, is this passage saying that intelligent men who didn't accept Christ were not as good as those who did? Secondly, philosophy can answer some of life's questions without Christianity being brought into the mix. Just because something doesn't have Christianity mixed into the equation doesn't mean it's bad! :angry-banghead:

We read about Augustine who was "good" because he had accepted Christ and his books "The Confessions" and "The City of God".

Anyways, we get how during the Middle Ages, people didn't have the time or interest to think about things beyond the pressing needs of the present. Education thrived under in Eastern Europe and the Arab world. It was during the rise of commerce and contact with the Arab and Byzantine scholars that interest in education started back up again. They especially liked the works of Aristotle. Under the Roman Church, groups of teachers and pupils were formed. These schools helped make the doctrine of the Roman Church sound more reasonable. By the 1500s, there were around 100 or so schools in Europe. The section ends with bits about the books "The Divine Comedy" and "The Canterbury Tales".

Then we are treated to information on the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted from 962 to 1450 A.D. This is the most educational part of the chapter. We get stuff on Henry the Fowler and how his son Otto became Otto the Great. Otto later became the first emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. This Holy Roman Empire neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire. Most of the emperors were German. The emperor barely controlled his homeland. As for Holy, the popes hoped that allying with Otto would granny them more power, but they ended up being bitter toward each other. In 1059, Pope Nicholas II decreed that all new popes would be chosen only by cardinals. One of the first popes chosen this way was Gregory VII. Gregory hoped that the popes would be more powerful than kings or emperors.

We get information on the Black Plague, mentioning how the Jews didn't fear the Plague because they practiced the standard of cleanliness mentioned in the Bible. They don't mention how the Jews were persecuted greatly during the Black Plague. And yet the book had no problem going into graphic detail with how the Christians were persecuted under the Romans.... :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

Popes became more interested in politics than spiritual matters. There was quarrels between the popes and some councils of some sort. By the 1500s, the Middle Ages were ending.

The next and final section is about The Renaissance. It starts by saying while the Middle Ages hindered progress, there was still some political and economic progress that was made. Several powerful countries like England, France, and Spain were formed. The Crusades helped revive trade with the Orient. Italy especially benefitted from the trade with the Orient. Businessman rose to power. The spirit of free-thinking, liberty, and individualism thrived. The wealth from business allowed men to pursue knowledge and support the arts. Out of this came The Renaissance. From this came an interest in the humanities, which was born from an interest in old Greek and Roman literature.

Then we get to the part about humanism. Oh boy...

At first the word humanism meant only intense interest in the subject of humanities. As long as God is not left out of the picture, the classical books on the humanities should be studied. But if God is left out of such studies, man might be overemphasized to the point of neglecting God or even rebelling against Him. This kind of humanism, as you know, concludes by making man into a god.

You can still study stuff without mixing God into it. Just because you don't put God into the equation doesn't mean you are neglecting God or rebelling against him. Many people that study stuff without God included in their studies go and worship him right after they're done studying. And no, humanism isn't about making men into gods. Just because you value the importance of men doesn't mean you are making men into gods.

Anyways, at first the humanists of the Renaissance were mainly interested in the humanities. But...

But what began as an interest in the humanities soon became an expression of human pride and vanity. Nowhere was this expression more evident than in the art of the Italian Renaissance. Like the ancient Greek sculptors they admired, some Renaissance artists exaggerated the physical beauty of man, worshipping the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:25).

Just because you value the importance of man doesn't mean you are neglecting the importance of God! You are just realizing that men are important too! These artist still worshipped God, they just also admired the beauty of man! :angry-cussing:

We then take a little break from propaganda and get information on the patrons of the arts and information on some of the artists themselves like Leonardo Da Vinci, Raphael, and Michelangelo.

After that we get to Machiavelli and "The Prince". "The Prince", according to the textbook, was the only book of lasting importance produced by the Italian Renaissance. Um, I'm not an expert on the Renaissance but I'm sure there were other important books that were written during the Renaissance. Machiavelli was special because he saw through the distorted Christianity and hypocrisy of the age.

Yet he realized that further political progress would not be possible until men's minds were freed from false religion. Here Machiavelli might have turned to God's Word and found "the truth that sets men free", but instead he turned to himself and man and advised the deliberate use of evil to achieve one's goals. He completely ignored the role of God in world events and exalted man in His place. Such thinking characterized the Italian Renaissance. Fortunately, the Renaissance would follow a different course in Northern Europe.

Except for the art and things like that, this book seem to insult the Italian Renaissance because it "worshipped man". Most of these artists and thinkers were still Christian! They just believed that man had an important role too in the world and that it wasn't all just about God and religion.

Oh, and according to the book, the Renaissance lead to a more important thing than the art and the humanities and stuff. It lead to people studying the original Greek scriptures, opening their eyes to the Scriptural Truths of salvation by grace through faith. This would lead to an event more important than the Renaissance, one which would lead Europe out of the darkness of the Middle Ages and into the light of the Modern Age.

This chapter was a mixed bag of educational and propagandistic. Now that the Protestant Reformation is right around the corner, I have a feeling the next few chapters will be filled with tons of propaganda...oh boy...

[klavierspieler]

Alright, I know that the Roman Church was a bit mean at times during the Middle Ages, but am I the only one that thinks that this book may be portraying Catholics in general as "bad Christians"?

As a matter of fact, Arlin and Beka Horton and PCC (and by extension its publishing arm, which includes A Beka Book) explicitly believe that Catholics are not Christians. Whore of Babylon and all that.

[smittykins]

As a matter of fact, Arlin and Beka Horton and PCC (and by extension its publishing arm, which includes A Beka Book) explicitly believe that Catholics are not Christians. Whore of Babylon and all that.

Not to mention worshiping Mary, praying to statues, yada yada yada...

[DifferentGurl]

Not to mention worshiping Mary, praying to statues, yada yada yada...

Yea, they criticized them worshipping Mary, the Apostles, and saints in the textbook.

[louisa05]

As a matter of fact, Arlin and Beka Horton and PCC (and by extension its publishing arm, which includes A Beka Book) explicitly believe that Catholics are not Christians. Whore of Babylon and all that.

The tenth grade book declares that the French Revolution's excesses were okay because it broke the hold of the Catholic church on France. Because naked women dancing on the altar of Notre Dame Cathedral portraying the goddess of liberty are definitely better for Christianity than Catholicism. :?

[DifferentGurl]

Alright, thanks for your replies. This post is going to be about the Unit Three Summary ( covering chapters 9 through 12 ) and this "Overview of the Modern Age". And oh boy does this have a lot of snarkable propagandistic stuff.

The Unit Three Summary is just that...a summary of Unit Three. Some of the propagandistic quotes from this summary include:

For all future generations of mankind, the most important facts of history - Christ's birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension into Heaven - became the best documented facts as well.

I can think of several other events in history on the top of my head that were more documented than the life of Christ. 9/11, both World Wars, the Civil War, Lincoln's assassination, the Boxing day tsunami, the American Revolution, the Boston Marathon bombings, heck even Caesar's conquests are some of the few events in history that were more documented than the life of Christ. The life of Christ only has four books in the Bible and they weren't that very specific compared to other events in history.

On the persecution of the Christians during the Roman era:

Because true Christians acknowledged only one true God and bow to no man or government as Savior, persecution was inevitable and severe.

No, it was because the Roman emperors saw the Christians as a threat to their power or a threat to the whole system of Roman society that the Christians were persecuted. Back then, the Christians were the equivalent of a cult. People almost always feel threatened by cults.

On Islam:

Refusing to believe the Bible, Mohammed claimed new revelations from the one he called Allah and offered yet another variety of humanism in place of Christianity.

:angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

On how Christians should have just read the Bible instead of relying on their distorted version of Christianity:

Christendom, for al its worth, still had the Bible. If the simple but powerful truths of the Bible were ever seen again, tremendous progress would be possible in all fields. Unfortunately, distorted Christianity gripped western Europe so tightly that there seemed to little cause for optimism at the beginning of the Middle Ages.

Just because you have the Bible doesn't mean there will be tremendous progress in all areas of life. If that were the case, the fundies would have found the cure of cancer, solved world hunger, have created classical works of art, and have had our economy fixed by now. There have been plenty of pioneers in all fields that were not Christian! The Bible doesn't know everything.

On the Renaissance:

To guide the future, men might have looked to the Bible and to true Christianity. But through the mists of time, only one beacon seemed to shine for the Italians - ancient Greece and Rome.

On humanism and the Renaissance...oh good lord...

At first, the term humanism meant only intense interest in classical studies. But there was always the risk that this humanism would take a dangerous turn, emphasizing man to the point of neglecting God or even rebelling against Him. There was a serious danger of this kind of humanism in Renaissance Italy, homeland of the Roman church. The Church had already distorted Christianity with humanism by daring to stand between Christ and other men. It would be easy to go one step further and deliberately remove Christ from the picture all together.

"Humanism" in the Renaissance art...

But as great as Renaissance art was, it contained ominous signs. The more they tried to return to the glory and splendor of Greece and Rome, the further Renaissance men went into extreme humanism. In paintings and statues, man began to take on infinite power and majesty of the one true God Himself. How we respond to Christ determines our fate. As mankind stood on the brink of modern times and a new beginning, the distorted Christianity of the Middle Ages reached a climax with the extreme humanism of the Renaissance.

Um, from what I read, the "humanism" of the Renaissance wasn't that extreme. The artists weren't proclaiming themselves to be gods. Some of them were still Christians! They never tried to replace God in their lives. In my opinion, the Renaissance man realized that men should be in charge of their own destinies and not the Church. There's more to life than just religion. As for men beginning to take on infinite power and majesty in the paintings and statues, haven't the authors of this book heard of a little thing called...

Sorry, I couldn't resist that.

The Northern Renaissance...

Fortunately, the Renaissance followed a different course in Northern Europe. There, interest in classical languages led men to study the Scriptures, sparking another, far important movement. The simple but powerful truths of the Bible would dispel the darkness of the Middle Ages and usher in a new era of world history, the Modern Age.

Now, I'm not saying that the movement resulting from studying the Scripture without the Roman Church breathing down their necks was a bad thing or not important. It did led to the Protestant Revolution. But this paragraph just spells out how the authors felt about the Italian Renaissance...that the Italian Renaissance was bad. Yea, so what about the discoveries made during the Renaissance or the great art? The Italian Renaissance also had humanism which made it bad, bad, bad! Thus, the Northern Renaissance is instantly much better. :roll: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

Finally, we get an overview of the Modern Age. There's a brief description on the meaning of the Modern Age before we get to a section called "An Age of Individual Responsibility".

The Modern Age is unique for its emphasis on liberty, individual responsibility, and human progress. In the Modern Age, people began to see and respect others as individuals created by God.

And this didn't happen before the Modern Age? Because I'm sure it has.

This principle of mutual respect and responsibility has guided all that is good about the Modern Age. It has brought about more progress during the last 500 years than mankind had ever known before.

That and people had more access to education, thus opening their minds up and realizing there is more to the world than just trying to surviving from one day to the next. This got people thinking more about stuff like liberty.

The modern ideas of individual liberty and responsibility under God encourage everyone to do his best, to go as far as his abilities will carry him. The Modern Age unleashed the energy of the individual. As we enter the Modern Age in our study of World History, we will learn this lesson again and again: Give men who are right with God sufficient freedom and responsibility, and they will take steps that become leaps of progress for their countries and all mankind.

Like I said before...just because a person is a Christian doesn't mean they aren't going to make progress in their field of choice! Being a Christian doesn't mean you're instantly smarter or better or guaranteed to make progress in society! :angry-cussing: :angry-screaming: :angry-steamingears: :angry-cussingblack:

But we will also learn that there have been many men and movements in the Modern Age that cried freedom but for selfishness, demanding liberty but for evil purposes. The basis of individual freedom and responsibility is the inner freedom and responsibility of men before God, and that is the true spirit of the Modern Age.

Um, I can't exactly pinpoint what the "true spirit' of the Modern Age is, but I don't think it's that or at least just that.

Only when men are obedient to God are they able to use the freedom that He gives in a responsible, productive way. When a large number of people in a society have a right relationship with God, the entire society benefits and progresses.

*Takes a deep breath* Just because a person isn't a Christian, doesn't mean they will use their freedom in a responsible, productive way. It has to do with the person's character. A person can have good character and not be a Christian. The same can go for a group of people. Just because a group of people are not Christians doesn't mean that their society will be poor and hard to live in. There are many reasons that makes one society more "Successful" than others, but going into detail what those reasons are would take a whole book to explain. Let's just say religion isn't the main factor that determines which society progresses more than others.

We get information in a section called "An Age of Exploration, Science, and Invention." This includes the great explorers like Christopher Columbus, the founders of Modern science, the great inventions that came from the improvements in science, and books becoming widely available.

The first book that Gutenberg printed was the Bible, the key book of the Modern Age. Modern History is really a record of how people responded to the Bible. It is no exaggeration to say that all the good in the Modern Age has come about through a correct understanding of the Bible and all the evil of the age is the result of rejecting the truths of God's Word.[/

There are so many things wrong with these sentences. First of all, I don't there is a "key" book of the Modern Age. There are plenty of other books that made a huge impact in the Modern Age. Second, Modern History is more than just a record of how people responded to the Bible. It is so much more than that. Third, it isn't just because of a good understanding of the Bible that resulted in all the good things in the Modern Age. It was also the improvements in science and knowledge that resulted in all our progress. Finally, and most probably most importantly...

Just because a person is not a Christian doesn't mean they will be more likely to do evil things!

Was the reason why Hitler was a douche was because he rejected the teachings of God's word? No! It was because he was a racist, anti-sematic lunatic! There have been ton of bad people that have done horrible things in the name of Christianity. Look at the slave holders of American South. A lot of them thought it was ok to own slaves because the Bible said so. Religion doesn't whether you are going to be a good person or not. It's about morals and so much more. Being a Christian doesn't instantly make you a good person. There are plenty of other good person of different faiths that help make the world better for everyone.

Then we get a section called "An Age of Great Art, Music, and Literature." Pretty much a brief summary of some of the great artists, writers, and composers of the Modern Age.

After that, there's a section called "The Key Movement of the Modern Age". It starts with this part called "Importance of Religion".

The most important factor in any age is the religion of the people. Religion determines how people think and, therefore, how they act. History, the record of what people have done with the time that God has given them, is therefore very much concerned with religion.

There's more to how people act than just religion. So much more. Like economics, education, psychology, etc.

We get a brief description on the medieval religion, pretty much what we learned about earlier in the book. Then there's a description of the Italian Renaissance where they once again take a huge insult at it.

But these men looked back to the pagan ideas of Greece and Rome for their inspiration, ignoring the one Book that could give them true freedom.

*Sigh*

The Renaissance sparked an interest in the Scriptures up in the North. This led to the Protestant Reformation which is, according to the book, "The key movement of the Modern Age." I don't think there is just one "key" movement of the Modern Age. There were quite many "key" movements of the Modern Age.

The Reformation was a movement which promoted true faith of the Bible.

What really is the "true faith" of the Bible? It's in the eye of the beholder. It also proves what many of you said earlier...it doesn't think Catholicism is "true Christianity".

The section ends on this:

The Reformation marks the beginning of the Modern Age in Europe, for it made men aware of the true principles of individual liberty and responsibility before God.

Finally, we get a short section called "An Age of European Culture".

As the curtain rises on the Modern Age about A.D. 1500, the spotlight of history falls on Europe. It was there that a culture ( way of life ) substantially influenced by Biblical Christianity began and went on to sweep up much of the globe - a force of progress and advancement for the whole human race.

*Sigh* I hate to repeat myself, but I need to say it again...just because you are a Christian, doesn't mean there will be progress made in a certain area of life.

Now you can see why I had to put these two things in one post. There was just so much propaganda that I had to talk about. I just had to talk about it and explain it in detail.

[DifferentGurl]

Alright, it's time for some more Catholic bashing with Chapter 13 delving into The Protestant Reformation!

The chapter starts out with information on several groups that came before John Wycliffe. These groups include the Petrobrusians and Waldensians. We get this quote when talking about Peter of Bruis of the Petrobrusians:

His life is a testimony to the fact that a man in any age can find truth if he has the Bible.

*Sigh* I have a feeling I'm going to be saying this a lot more through out the book. Just because a person isn't a Christian, doesn't mean the person can't find "truth, whatever "truth" is.

Then we get information of John Wycliffe of England. He translated the entire Bible into English for the first time ( hey, didn't JimBob say that King James did that? ) and spoke out against the "worldly, hypocritical, and repressive" church officials. Some people supported him while others harassed him. After he died, the Roman Church in London condemned his beliefs and translation of the Bible and outlawed anyone owning the Bible and making it so illegal that they could lose pretty much all their worldly possessions. The Council of Constance condemned Wycliffe for over 200 "crimes' and ordered his writings burned. finally, they burned his remains. Luckily, Wycliffe's followers, the Lollards, were still around and there were still people who owned the English print of the Bible.

By putting the Word of God into the hands of the English people, Wycliffe did more to alter English history than any soldiers or kings of his day. For this, he is known as the Morning Star of the Reformation.

Um, Wycliffe doing more to alter English history than any soldiers or kings of his day can be debated. I'm not saying what he did wasn't important, but just saying.

We move onto information John Huss of Bohemia. He a dean and a headmaster at the University of Prague. He also preached at the Bethlehem Church in Prague...and his did it in the native language of people instead of Latin! Oh! What a rebel! He, of course, also believed that it's through God and not priests that we receive our true salvation. The Roman Church was not happy with him obviously and he was condemned to death. Unfortunately for the Church, they still had to deal with the Hussites. The Hussites became quite a success and by 1500, there was a surprising degree of political freedom.

There is also this boxed area that talks about the Inquisition. Nothing propagandistic in this boxed area.

Onto information on the Renaissance! There's a brief summary on the Italian Renaissance followed by information on the Northern Renaissance. Like the people of the Italian Renaissance, the northern scholars studied the humanities.

But these northern scholars realized that there is no book about man or any other subject more important than the Bible.

That can be debated.

Then we get Johann Gutenberg and the Printing Press. And for once the book say something that I actually agree with. The printing press is the most important invention in history. It allowed the mass production of books. This led to more education which led to people thinking more which led to revolutions and so much progress. The book is quick to point out that the Protestant Reformation grew out of the Northern Renaissance because of the printing press. There is a brief history of the printing press in China before explaining how Gutenberg did it. After that, we get a few paragraphs of what a historian said about why the printing press is of great significance of the Modern Age.

The textbook is also quick and proud to point out that the first book that Gutenberg printed out was the Bible. Gutenberg's reason for that?

Gutenberg himself had a very special reason for all the work he put into inventing the printing press. "God suffers because there are such multitudes of souls to whom His sacred Word cannot be given."

By 1500, printing presses were working all over Europe. 9 millions books were now available in Europe. Scholars welcomed the printing press and used it to help benefit others from their scholarship. And, of course, everyone could now have easier access to the Bible.

Onto Desiderius Erasmus, "The most famous figure of the Northern Renaissance." He saw through Bible study that the Roman Church had distorted Christianity. He translated the New Testament into original Greek so other scholars could translate the Bible into languages everyone understood.

Then we get to Martin Luther, which most of the rest of this chapter is dedicated to. Oh boy...do they go on and on about Luther. His story is explored in detail. They treat him like a saint. Only in a Christian history textbook do we get this much information on Martin Luther.

The section starts with this:

The story of how the Protestant Reformation began is the story of individuals who searched for the truth about salvation and found it in God's Word. It is the story of one man in particular who knew that he was personally responsible to God - a man who was willing to step out and stand alone for what is right against the Church of Rome and the Holy Roman Empire. It is the story of a man who gave the Modern Age a model of spiritual freedom.

We go through Luther's crisis in faith, his education at the University of Erfurt, how he became a monk after lightning struck him down ( though from what I've heard, lightning struck near him...maybe the book meant the lightning terrified him so much that he fell from his horse?), his life as a monk, his time at Wittenberg University, and him finally realizing that it's through God and not by a man's work that we are saved. Then there's information a friar named Tetzel and how he sold indulgences. After Albert of Brandenburg, a German aristocrat, purchased the leading church office in Germany, the Pope Leo X permitted the sale of indulgences in Germany. The pope would get one half that would go towards the construction of what is now known as St.Peter's Cathedral in Rome, and the other half would go to Albert. Unsurprisingly, Luther was not happy with the selling of indulgences. On October 31, 1517, Luther nailed the Ninety-five Theses to the church door at Wittenberg.

Wait a minute...he posted the Ninety-five These on October 31....then why aren't there many Christians ( at least the ones who belong to Protestant-spawned faith churches ) having some sort of holiday on that day to counteract the "evilness" of Halloween? Without the Theses, there may not have been the Protestant Reformation and all the faiths that resulted from that!

Anyways, Luther had no intention of breaking it off with the pope or the Church. He just hoped for a discussion among churchmen and scholars about the abuses of the selling of indulgences and for a better way to raise money for the church. The Theses were translated into German and distributed among the people. This, of course, led the Roman Church to go after Luther. In 1518, the Pope summoned Luther to Rome.

Luther appealed to a prince called Frederick the Wise. At the Diet of Augsburg ( which was made up of members that were also not happy with the Roman Church because it was taking money away from Germany for their own projects ), the pope's representatives tried to get Luther to retract some of his Theses but Luther didn't back down. He said that the papal bull supporting the indulgences was against Scripture. Finally, he appealed that his case should be considered by a church council.

Later, in 1519, he debated against Johann Eck, a Roman theologian and university professor at the University of Leipzig where he clarified his views on the Roman Church and the papacy. In 1520, he wrote several tracts including To the Christian Nobility of the German Nations, where he attacked the "walls" that the Roman church had built, and The Freedom of the Christian Man, where he addressed himself directly to the pope. We also get this:

During the Modern Age, the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer affected not only the spiritual awakening but all other aspects of life and learning as well. Elevating the common man with dignity, responsibility, and spiritual freedom, this doctrine eventually bore fruit in academics, politics, and economics. Our freedom and responsibility under God is the basis for all human dignity and liberty.

I'm sure academics, politics, and economics did not progress because of the doctrine of the priesthood of the believer...or at least not just because of that doctrine. Also, just because you're a Christian doesn't mean there's human dignity and liberty.

The pope was, of course, not happy with Luther's tracts. He compared Luther to a wild boar, condemned him for 41 of his "errors", ordered his books to be burned, and gave him 60 days to recant. But Luther did not back down. In fact, when the 60 days had passed, he and his followers made a bonfire and burned the books that supported the pope as well as the papal bull that gave him 60 days to recant. On January 3, 1521, the pope excommunicated Luther. Now Luther had to deal with the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

At the Diet of Worms, Luther spoke to the emperor, not backing down from what he said before. The emperor was furious with Luther and issued the Edict of Worms, declaring Luther a heretic. No subject of the empire was to give Luther any lodging, food, or drink. He was to be turned over to the emperor and executed and his books destroyed. On his way back to Wittenberg, he and his followers were "intercepted" by a group of masked men and rumor spread that Luther was killed.

In reality, Frederick the Wise arranged the kidnapping to protect Luther. For about a year, he disguised himself as "Knight George" and stayed at Wartburg Castle. During his time at Wartburg Castle, he translated the New Testament in German. When he got back to Wittenberg, he translated the Old Testament into German. The complete German Bible was published in 1521. Also, when he came back to Wittenberg, he worked on popular education, for both boys and girls. Yea, I'm surprised he supported girls' education too. When the University of Wittenberg was reorganized in 1530s, it became the first Protestant university. Luther reorganized the church services so that there wouldn't be any one man that completely dominated the service, that the services be conducted in the native language, that the preachers not wear elaborate clothing, all believers should participate in the Lord's Supper, sermons should be given a prominent place in the services, and that all believers should sing during services. Finally, Luther compiled a hymnbook and even wrote some of the hymns himself.

We then finally end the story of Luther and go onto other people from the Reformation. This included Ulrich Zwingli in Switzerland, John Calvin in Geneva, and the Anabaptists.

The chapter ends on this:

Although the truths of the gospel were not always perfectly understood or completely obeyed, they had a powerful influence on the Modern Age. The Protestant Reformation set loose the true spirit of individual spiritual liberty. It fostered respect for the dignity of every man and a sense of personal responsibility for all the activities of life. As a result, the Modern Age has been marked by tremendous progress, the fruit of freedom, in every field of human endeavor.

Now, I'm not saying that the gospel wasn't a powerful influence on the Modern Age, but there were other powerful influences than just the gospel. Also, "it fostered respect for the dignity of every man and a sense of personal responsibility for all the activities of life". Yea, respect for every man except for people of different religions or even race. And a sense personal responsibility for all the activities of life...yea, whether the gospel encouraged that more than before can be debatable.

God, this chapter was long! I also hate how they treated Luther as a saint while forgetting to mention that he was anti-Sematic to the point he wanted to destroy their synagogues, burn their prayer books, and destroy their homes. He even called the Jews "the devil's people". And he also was anti-Islam, calling Islam "the tool of the Devil". Oh wait, that was against other religions...so of course the book wouldn't mention that because the authors have no problem with the bashing of other religions. That and they didn't want to tarnish the image of their "hero" and or admit that their "hero" wasn't perfect.

Tune in next time!

[DifferentGurl]

Ok, onto Chapter 14. Once again, more fighting against the Catholics!

It starts with the Peasants' Revolt. This includes information on the Feudalism in Germany, the "Twelve Articles" that had a list of the peasants' grievances, Luther's response to the "Twelve Articles", and how the peasants' were not patient and how the nobles didn't change their ways. We also get this:

Luther's language had indeed been strong, but he was trying to make it clear that Christianity must not be thought of as a revolutionary political movement. Spiritual freedom does not always guarantee political or economic freedom.

"Spiritual freedom does not always guarantee political or economic freedom"?!?! Then what was up with this?!:

Although the truths of the gospel were not always perfectly understood or completely obeyed, they had a powerful influence on the Modern Age. The Protestant Reformation set loose the true spirit of individual spiritual liberty. It fostered respect for the dignity of every man and a sense of personal responsibility for all the activities of life. As a result, the Modern Age has been marked by tremendous progress, the fruit of freedom, in every field of human endeavor.

And this!:

If the simple but powerful truths of the Bible were ever seen again, tremendous progress would be possible in all fields. Unfortunately, distorted Christianity gripped western Europe so tightly that there seemed to little cause for optimism at the beginning of the Middle Ages.

And don't forget all the other stuff on how the "right" kind of Christianity led to progress in many areas of life.

Also, "Christianity should not be thought of as a revolutionary political movement". Too bad our favorite fundies can't think like that.

Anyways, the peasants decided to take things into their own hands. The nobles weren't changing and the peasants wanted things to be better!

Fanatics led many peasants from moderate and simple requests to extreme and disorderly demands. Because the peasants took matters into their own hands rather than trusting God to let the gospel bring about change, they became the pawns of evil men - self-appointed prophets who twisted the Scriptures for their own purposes.

Well what were they supposed to do?! Wait for something to happen?! Yea, maybe they should have tried non-violent means, but maybe that wasn't an option anymore.

Then we get information on the Peasants' Revolt itself and the price of the rebellion. The tyranny and feudalism was now stronger than ever in Germany.

After that, is information on the state churches or established churches, which Luther approved of. The German government eventually approved of this churches in 1555 at the Peace of Augsburg. It's only at the end do we get from the book that these churches controlled by the government was wrong. Gasp! Something that Luther said that the textbook doesn't agree with!

Then we read up on The Counter-Reformation led by the Catholic church. This includes the creation of the Jesuits and the Inquisition. The church was determined to get back what they had lost. Meanwhile, the Protestants thought badly of the Catholic church and the pope.

The Protestants, on the other hand, considered the pope to be the antichrist of the last days. Many of them believed when the forces of Romanism had been defeated ( and they had no doubt that this would happen ), then the Kingdom of God would be set up on earth in a political form.

I pointed this out because my family used to belong to WELS. WELS is well-known for thinking that the pope is the anti-Christ. My family was probably one of the few families that never thought that. Also, is it just me or are they...? gasp! Insulting Protestants in this quote?

We get a boxed area on the Hapsburgs. No propagandistic information in there.

Then we hear about the events leading up to the Thirty Years War. It was mainly a civil war between the Catholic states and the Protestant states of Germany. Soon it expanded to other areas of Europe including Bohemia ( who did good for a while until Ferdinand II became the Holy Roman Emperor and took away the political and religious freedom there ), the Protestant Denmark ( defeated in 1629 ), the Lutheran Swedes led by warrior-king Gustavus Adolphus ( Adolphus did well until he got killed in 1632 and the Swedes were finally defeated in 1634 ), and France. Finally, in 1648, the Peace of Westphalia was signed, ending the Thirty Years War. The Holy Roman Empire lost a lot of land during the war and now Lutheranism and Calvinism was legal along with Romanism.

We get history up until the Protestant Reformation on other European countries. First is Switzerland. It starts out with how Switzerland was conquered by Julius Caesar and how it began to be called Helvetia...wait, it's that a font. Oh, that's Helvetica, not Helvetia. Anyways, Helvetia used to be part of the Holy Roman Empire. The cantons of Schwyz Uri and the region of Unterwalden united together and revolted against the Empire. They united under the Swiss Confederation, later known as Switzerland. After a battle with France in 1515, they decided on a continuous policy of national neutrality. Later, during the Protestant Reformation, the country was split into two factions: Protestant and Roman. There were four civil wars but for the most part Switzerland remained a land of political freedom and religious diversity.

Onto Holland! Like Switzerland, Holland was conquered by Julius Caesar. The Franks and Saxons conquered the land and the Dutch had liberty for quite a bit. Around A.D. 1000, the Dutch began to engage in shipping and trade. They became prosperous. France and Germany started to see Holland as a valuable prize. During the 14th century, French nobleman Duke of Burgundy controlled the Netherlands. During the Protestant Reformation, the Dutch rose up and fought for their independence. By the end of the Thirty Years' War, Holland became an independent nation.

Next is France. There's stuff on ancient Gaul, being conquered by Julius Caesar, being conquered by the Franks, the Merovingians, the Carolingians, the Capetian dynasty, and how France allied itself with the Roman Church. There isn't that much info on France in this chapter because there will be a whole chapter dedicated to them later.

Then there is the Scandinavian countries. This includes stuff on the Vikings, life in Scandinavia during the time of the Vikings, Catholic missionaries coming to Scandinavia and converting to people to Romanism, Magrete of Denmark ruling over the lands of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Greenland, Lutheranism coming to Scandinavia, and finally the Swedes and Danish participating in the Thirty Years' War.

Onto Spain! There is the ancient people of Iberia, the Romans conquering Spain and calling their new territory Spain, the Goths, the Moors, the Castilians taking Spain back from the Moors, rule under Ferdinand and Isabella, the Jews being exiled from Spain, the Moors being exiled once and for all from Spain, the Spanish Inquisition, Spain's Golden Age, and how by the 17th century the powerful union of state and church smothered liberties in Spain.

Finally, there's Portugal. This includes how there conquered by the Romans under the name Lusitania, the Moors conquering Portugal along with Spain, how after Spain started pushing back the Moors Portugal went under Spain's control, Portugal's independence in 1143, Prince Henry the Navigator starting to discover new trade routes, other Portuguese explorers like Bartholomeu Dias, Vasco da Gama, and Pedro Cabral; how Spain conquered Portugal in 1580, and how Portugal finally got back its independence 60 years later. During this whole time, the Protestant Reformation had not effect on Portugal.

The chapter ends on how in many countries, the Protestant Reformation had little effect, established state churches, or had effect in countries like the Netherlands. The last paragraph includes this sentence:

The state church concept eventually produced cold, formal Protestant churches in which belief and practice stemmed from the dictates of government rather than the free choice of congregations in the light of their understanding of the Bible.

I'm really getting tired of hearing about the Protestant Reformation and what resulted from it. I never had world history in public school, so I have a question. Did World History in Public History focused so much on the Protestant Reformation and such?

Anyways, next chapter is on England. Maybe I'll get a bit of a break from the Protestant Reformation...hopefully..

[Arete]

I want it down on the record that the Church did not forbid laymen from owning Bibles in the Middle Ages. Laymen did not have Bibles because they were copied and illuminated by hand, which took years for even one copy. Therefore, a layman would not have the money to support a group of monks to produce a personal copy of a Bible. Only the Church and royal courts had that kind of money to commission the copying of Bibles. Then we have the other little problem of most laymen in the Middle Ages being illiterate. Even a lot of kings were illiterate at the time.

Only the invention of the printing press in the 15th century makes the mass production and purchase of Bibles by the non rich possible. It also opens the possibility of learning to read for more people because they could practice on things like handbills being produced in the vernacular.

Those lying whoresons at ABEKA don't need no sociology or context for the Middle Ages.

Sorry. Rant over.