History of the World in Christian Perspective...

[louisa05]

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.

The 10th grade book does credit the printing press with making the Reformation possible (which most mainstream historians would not argue with...new religious ideas could not spread widely in a pre-print society). Of course, it continues to emphasize the claim that people weren't ALLOWED to have Bibles. My favorite part (please read the adjective with all the sarcasm intended) was that it explained the pre-reformation/pre-Council of Trent/pre-Vatican II church doctrines of the period in the present tense. My A Beka raised students and many of their teachers assumed that you could go across the parking lot to the Catholic parish next door and mass would be in Latin, no scripture would be found anywhere (not even true in the period of the Reformation), and the priest would sell you an indulgence.

[DifferentGurl]

Alright everyone! Thanks for your responses! Today, we'll be looking into Chapter 15 "The English Nation" and boy is it long. Luckily, it's mostly educational.

The chapter starts out with this:

The Modern Age has been the Age of Nations, but that fact along does not account for the progress and freedom of modern times. Those nations that have been deeply affected by Biblical Christianity have enjoyed by far the greatest progress and freedom.

*Sighs* I really hate how I have to keep repeating this. Just because a country is not Christian doesn't mean it will have the greatest progress and freedom. The reason that the nations that have been deeply affected by Biblical Christianity have enjoyed great progress and freedom have to do with a lot more factors than just the religion.

The beginning continues on with saying how England has become an inspiration to all freedom-loving people, particularly Americans. This, of course, has to do with the stuff the British colonists brought to America, including - what the book is proud to point out - Biblical Christianity and a love for religious and political freedom.

Then we finally get to information on the history of England. It begins with the Celts, Druids, the conquest of the Celts by Julius Caesar, the Anglo-Saxons, the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to Catholicism, and how the Vikings ( particularly the Danes ) invading England. After that, we learn about some of the earlier rulers of England. This includes Alfred the Great, Canute the Dane, and William the Conqueror. William the Conqueror gets studied closer. The stuff on William includes his conquest of England and the Battle of Hastings, feudalism under the Normans, the Doomsday book, the old assembly of powerful nobles called the Witan being replaced by the Great Council, the king now being able to appoint the archbishop of Canterbury, and the influence the Normans had on England.

After William the Conqueror, we get the Plantagenet line of kings. The Plantagenet line includes Henry II, Richard I, John, Henry III, Edward I, and Richard II. During the section on the Plantagenet kings, we learn more about stuff like the beginnings of common, trial by jury, Simon de Montfort's parliament, Edward I's "Model Parliament", and of course The Magna Carta ( Great Charter ).

Then onto The Hundred Years' War. At first the English are winning, but in the end, the French won. During this section on The Hundred Years' War, we get this on Joan of Arc:

One of the weakest French kings allowed Joan of Arc, a peasant girl who claimed to hear "heavenly voices," to lead the French army into battle. Surprisingly, the "Maid of Orleans" did win a few victories, but they proved to be temporary, and Joan was captured and executed by the English.

Are they saying that only a weak king would be dumb enough to allow a peasant girl to lead the army? It sounds like they are insulting Joan of Arc.

After The Hundred Years' War is the Wars of the Roses. The war was the fight between the Lancasters and the Yorks. It all started when Richard, the duke of York, began ruling on behalf of the insane Henry VI ( the last of the Lancastrian kings ). The Lancasters were not too happy with the House of York's new power. Soon there was fighting between the Lancasters ( the red roses ) and the Yorks ( the white roses ). In the end, Henry Tudor ( Lancaster ) defeated Richard III ( York ) and Henry became Henry VII.

Onto the Tudor period! First there is a brief summary of Henry VII and the exploration that occurred under his reign. Then there's a more detail history of Henry VIII. This includes how Henry VIII became "Defender of the Faith" under the Catholic church, the lengths he went to get a son, his conflict with the pope, the separation of England from the Catholic church, and the beginnings of the English Reformation. We also get this:

Man never see themselves right unless they see God right. Man was created in the image of God; all have equal access to the King of the universe through Jesus Christ. The priesthood of believers makes it obvious that all men are created equal in value and moral responsibility to God. Not before the Reformation came to England and men understood this truth would the freedom and dignity of Englishmen have a solid formation.

Do I really have to explain what is wrong with this? It reminds me of JOY and how it says you have to care about Jesus before yourself.

Anyways, King Henry VIII then became both the church and state leader. There's also stuff on how he abused his wives before he died.

Then we get to Edward VI. There isn't that much information Edward VI himself. It's mostly about the regents who ruled for him like Thomas Crammer, Nicholas Ridley, and Hugh Latimer. After him was "Bloody Mary" and all the bloody stuff she did.

Finally, we get to Queen Elizabeth I. Under her section, we get stuff on her conflict with Spain and Phillip II, how she dealt with Mary Stuart, the Scottish Reformation, how Elizabeth sent 10,000 troops to deal with the French, the privateers under Sir Francis Drake, and the defeat of the Spanish Armada. There's also stuff on what was going on in the Netherlands during the conflict with Phillip II. This stuff on the Netherlands includes Phillip II inheriting the Netherlands, how there were many Protestants that lived in the Netherlands, William the Orange, the Dutch Reformed Church, the founding of the United Provinces of the Netherlands or the Dutch Republic, United Provinces declaring Netherlands to be independent from Spain, and Spain's reaction to Netherland's declaration of independence. The section on Queen Elizabeth I continues on with stuff on the Elizabethan Age and stuff like Shakespeare.

Onto the Stuart line of kings! It starts with James I. He spent most of his reign in conflict with the Parliament, the English courts of law, and the Puritans. He believed divine right was above common law and the Parliament. He fired the judges that did not agree with him. He dissolved the Parliament. The Parliament did not meet for 11 years until 1621. He then dissolved it again before the end of his reign. There is also a description on the Puritans, what they believed in, and the Independents or Separatists of the Puritans.

During the section on King James I we get this on the King James version on the Bible:

James did agree with the Puritans on one issue, however: a new English translation of the Bible was needed. By 1611, scholars had completed the King James or Authorized Version of the Bible, the best-loved and most widely used translation of God's Word ever produced.

So Jim Bob Duggar was definitely wrong about who wrote the King James Bible. It was scholars that wrote the King James version of the Bible, not King James himself.

Anyways, after James I came Charles I. Charles I also was in conflict with the Parliament. But he eventually realized he needed them in order to fund the money for his wars with Spain and France. Parliament gave him little. So Charles I did things like forcing "loans" from the citizens to pay for the wars. Those that refused were jailed or drafted into the troops. Troops were billeted for free in private homes and the people that objected were tried in military court martials or just imprisoned without any trial at all. The king was trampling on English liberties and common law. The Parliament drew up the Petition of Right, reaffirming the liberties and rights which Englishmen had won in the past, but this time officially written down. In 1629, Parliament was dissolved. Charles I declared he would rule England without the Parliament or the English people's consent. And thus began the Eleven Years' Tyranny. The section on James I also includes on there were many Puritans on the Parliament, how they weren't tolerate toward the Catholics and Protestant Episcopalians, and how the Puritans were persecuted during the Eleven Years' Tyranny.

Eventually, there was civil war. The English Civil War started in August of 1642 between the people that supported the king ( Cavaliers ) and those that were against the king ( Roundheads ). The Cavaliers fought for divine right while the Roundheads fought for government by consent. Unsurprisingly, the Puritans were on the Roundheads' side. Under Oliver Cromwell and his New Model Army ( also called Ironsides ), the Roundheads won in June of 1646. But things didn't stay peaceful for long. The Scots invaded England in 1648 and there were other people that wanted to bring Cromwell down. Cromwell's army defeated the enemy by the end of 1648.

Cromwell formed a military dictatorship of the country. Charles I was beheaded. He formed the Commonwealth, which included the Council the State. The Parliament had very little power, and in 1653, it was dissolved. Cromwell set up a new government called the Protectorate, and he called himself Lord Protector.

Richard Cromwell succeeded his father in 1658, but he didn't rule for long. In 1662, Charles II came to England and restored the monarch to the joy of the nation. But the joy didn't last for long. Charles II signed the Treaty of Dover with King Louis XIV.

Charles agreed to obtain toleration for English Catholics and to join the Roman Church himself.

The book makes it seem like this is a bad thing. I guess it would be a bad thing only because England was by then a Protestant nation and just changing religion would disrupt things a lot.

When Charles II, his brother James II, a Catholic, inherited the throne. During his reign, James II tried to re-impose Romanism on England. The Parliament obviously didn't want Romanism to be the main religion, so in June of 1688 seven leaders of the Parliament wrote a letter of William of Orange ( great-grandson of William the Silent or the William of Orange during Elizabeth I's time ), offering the throne. William accepted and arrived in England with his army. James tried to protect his throne, but once he saw that he had little support of the people, he fled to France, never to return. William took the throne and because William III. How William III got the throne would be known as The Glorious Revolution or the Bloodless Revolution.

We get this section called Foundations of Freedom which says this:

Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, England has enjoyed the blessing of civil peace and freedom as few other nations have. Why? Because the English people learned that political freedom and religious freedom are inseparable. The Englishmen established their liberties on the solid foundations of Biblical truths revealed by the Protestant Revolution. Of course, not everyone in England accepted the gospel, but the truths of the Bible influenced many.

Then finally there's this section called "A New World". It starts out with this:

The Biblical truths set loose by the Protestant Reformation gave the Modern Age more potential for progress than any previous era.

No, it wasn't because the Biblical truths that gave the Modern Age more potential for progress than any previous era. Or at least, it wasn't the main reason for the potential for progress during the Modern Age.

It talks about how there was a "New World" of ideas in the minds of men, sparking progress in areas like politics, philosophy, art, science, and economics.

Soon, Europeans began exploring other parts of the world.

Wherever Europeans went - especially Englishmen - they took with them this new way of thinking, a whole culture influenced by the Bible. And the day would could when missionaries would strive to carry the pure truths of the gospel to the four corners of the world, proclaiming that

The entire globe because a New World!

The Bible carries "pure truth"? What about the parts about slavery being ok and that you should stone prostitutes! And also, it's declaring that missionaries are a good thing. Yes, missionaries often carried great stuff like medical care and education, but they forced their own religion into other people's throats! Remember how the book talked about how horrible it was that James II tried to impose Romanism onto the Protestant English? That's pretty much what the missionaries were doing! But what the missionaries are doing is ok because they trying to impose Christianity? :angry-cussing: :angry-cussingblack:

Overall, this is mostly an educational chapter. But next chapter is going to be about the Age of Exploration. This includes stuff on Asia and the Americas. Looks like the next chapter will have the bashing of other religions while praising the work of missionaries. Good grief...

[DifferentGurl]

Ok, time for the next chapter! This one is going to include information on early history of some Asian cultures...which will obviously include religion bashing...oh good lord...

It starts out with monologues on "Influence of Western Civilization" and "America and the Modern Age". We get this during the monologue of the Influence of Western Civilization:

There is scarcely a person in the world today who has not been affected by Western culture and its benefits, particularly the influence of Biblical Christianity.

Note the part about Biblical Christianity. They really seemed proud to point that out.

The really educational stuff starts about how the Age of Exploration began with the Crusades. The Crusades renewed interest in trade with the Orient. We get stuff on Henry the Navigator of Portugal and his discoveries he made by sea. This is followed by Marco Polo and his travels to the Orient. Soon people realized that Asia was bounded by an eastern ocean. People then decided to try to find a route to the Orient, becoming a major objective of the Age of Exploration. Finally, we read about how Bartholomeu Dias sailed around the Cape of Good Hope.

Next is a section on Christopher Columbus. He was determined to find a way to Asia. A big thing behind his motive was religion. He wanted to start a Crusade and take back the Holy Land. He even hoped he would lead the Crusade himself.

It's during this that we get a typo. The book calls Muslims "Moslems". The book has managed to spell Muslims correctly before. Is Moslem how people in the Middle Ages spelled Muslim?

Anyways, Columbus first went to the King of Portugal to fund his exploration, but the King was determined to get to Asia by sailing around Africa and not by the route Columbus was planning. When he asked the King and Queen of Spain for funding, they accepted. A few paragraphs are dedicated to how the first trip went before he discovered America. He went on to discover more and more lands in the Americas.

Things did not stay good for Columbus for long. On his way back home during his third voyage, he was in chains. He was a cruel taskmaster in the Spanish colony. I should note that they don't mention how much of a jerk he was to the Natives. Well, unless you count them saying he was a cruel taskmaster, but I would have loved it if they went to explain why he was a cruel taskmaster.

Anyways, the person the Spanish sent to investigate Columbus was not too happy with what he saw. It doesn't help that Columbus wanted to be called Admiral of the Ocean, be the ruler of all the lands he discovered, and receive ten percent of all the gold he discovered. The Spanish weren't too happy with him. He was only able to persuade the King and Queen to sponsor a fourth voyage by presenting them with his Book of Prophecies, which was filled with his prophecies that resulted from his interpretation from the Bible. But Columbus never found Asia or found the gold he was looking for.

After a section of how America got its name, there is information on a list of Spanish explorers. These explorers include Ponce de Leon, Vasco de Balboa, Ferdinand Magellan, Hernando Cortes, Francisco Pizarro, Francisco Coronado, Hernando de Soto, and Juan Cabrillo. And unlike with Columbus, we read on how Pizarro and Cortes enslaving the native people. The stuff on Spain ends with their crusade against Protestantism.

Then there's the section on the discoveries of other nations. First there is Portugal and discovering places like Brazil. Then there's France. The part on France includes information on a list of French explorer. The French explorers include Giovanni de Verrazano, Jacques Cartier, Samuel de Champlain, Jacques Marquette, Louis Joliet, and Robert Cavalier de la Salle. In the Holland section, there's a brief description on Henry Hudson. Finally, there is England. The English include John Cabot, Sir Francis Drake, and Sir Walter Raleigh. They mention Jamestown, Virginia as well.

The part on England and the discoveries of other nations ends on this:

Meanwhile, another spirited stirred England during the Elizabethan Age - the spirit of individual freedom and responsibility, which grew as more and Englishmen read the Bible for themselves. Within a century of the defeat of the Spanish Armada, an untold number of lives would be changed in England as men recognized that God holds them personally accountable for their beliefs and actions. A flood of blessings came to 17th-century England as the true spirit of individual freedom and responsibility spilled over into the affairs of this life - in politics, economics, philosophy, science, art, and literature.

So this book is suggesting that if you don't believe in God, you are going to be immoral because you will believe that no one will hold you accountable for your beliefs and actions...Seriously? Just because atheists ( or people of other religions ) don't believe in the Christian God doesn't mean they are going to be immoral. They do good things because it's the right thing to do and not because God holds them accountable. :angry-cussing: :angry-cussingblack:

The half of the chapter that focused on the explorers of the Age of Exploration ends on a monologue on "America's Destiny".

The second half is on Asia. It first starts with early cultures and some of the stuff they evented including the saddle, harness, and the chariot. Then there is the stuff on the religions. Oh boy..

As you will see, all of these non-Biblical religions are basically the same and lead to the same spiritual, social, and economic results. Each rejects the one, true God of the Bible, and embraces the worship of false gods - whether spirits, men, or idols - espousing rebellion against the Creator. Under the tyranny of these false religions that glorify, even deify, men, countless souls are forced to try to work out their own salvation. The darkness of pagan religions and traditions has impeded economic and social progress in Asia for centuries, robbing the people of their individual freedoms and keeping them in spiritual darkness.

Oh good lord...where do I even begin. First, they are not all the same. Yea, they share similar beliefs...they all strive toward morality and peace and understanding. Something that *gasp!* Christianity does. Christianity in fact has *double gasp* some things in common with these non-Biblical religions. Second, these religions don't always lead to tyranny. It depends on the people the worshippers follow. Third, these religions don't always lead to the same spiritual, social, and economic results. Fourth, and most importantly...

Just Because A Person Is Not A Christian, It Doesn't Mean They Will Not Make Any Progress! :angry-banghead: :angry-cussing: :angry-cussingblack: :angry-teeth: :angry-screaming: :angry-fire: :angry-jumpinganger:

It goes on to talk about dynasties and empires and how the ancient history of Asia is mainly a story of dynasty and empires. Um, isn't that the same about European history? There is also a thing on Asian feudalism before going onto a brief history of early Indian history.

The stuff on Indian history starts off with stuff like the Indus Valley, the Aryan conquests. the Caste system, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Maurya Empire, the Guptas, the Moguls, and finally British rule. The description of Hinduism and Buddhism weren't that insulting...until this...

Although the Indians made many cultural advancements over the centuries, their pagan religions hindered progress. The results of the Hindu social structure and religious system on education are not hard to understand. The majority of the people were of the lower castes and were therefore deemed unworthy of education. Consequently, most of the Indian population was illiterate.

The Hindus failed to recognize the value of each man as a human being. Instead, men were respected or despised according to their level in society.

If you were of a higher caste, you were treated better. If you were of a lower caste, you were treated worse.

The primary education law was that each person be taught his place in life.

The only thing the lower caste people could do was hope they would be reincarnated into a higher caste.

As a result, the Indian people generally became patient, docile, peaceable, resigned, and polite. They developed almost none of that ambition for high personal achievement which makes men energetic in character and effective in life. They learned little of that self-reliance and sense of personal responsibility that are necessary to the performance of duty.

The book even quotes from a scholar that says that the Hindus were ( or still are ) incapable of making history because they have given over to an unyielding destiny.

Onto China!

The section starts off with a description of the geographical features of China like the rivers, the early Chinese dynasties, Confucianism, Taoism, the Ch'in dynasty, the Han dynasty, and printing in China. There isn't that much insulting towards Confucianism and Taoism, though we still get this:

One important relationship omitted by Confucius was the relation to man to his Maker. Confucianism fails to recognize the living God, who is the source of all goodness, justice, and judgment.

Then there's this part on science and anthropomorphism...uh oh...

Though the Chinese made great advances over the centuries, the cultural boons of the dynasties were near-sighted conceptions meant to suit the needs of the moment. Progressive measures were not founded upon scientific principles but were based solely upon observation and trial-and-error experimentation. This unscientific approach to nature is the product of Asiatic paganism, which stresses the "oneness" of nature - complete unity of everything - and assigns human characteristics to gods, animals, and even inanimate objects, a practice called anthropomorphism.

When man projects his characteristics on nature, man is, in effect, worshiping himself, worshipping the creature rather than the Creator ( Rom. 1:21 - 25). While striving for this unity with nature, man deliberately relinquishes his individuality. Paradoxically, rather than satisfying or exalting man, this humanistic view of nature actually stifles man's achievement because he is overly awed by nature and does not strive to subdue it as Scripture commands. Thus, instead of conquering and mastering nature, he becomes a slave to its tyranny. Since the main motive of science is the mastery of nature, the Asians were left without the motivating force for more substantial, consequential levels of cultural and economic activity. Their shifting sands of technology lacked the basic, solid foundation of theoretical, natural science.

First, doesn't modern-day science still use observation and trial-and-error experimentation? Second, just because there isn't any scientific principles driving behind your experiment doesn't mean it's not scientific. I mean, look at some of the early experiments and discoveries. Those people knew nothing about scientific principles. Third, I'm sure their religion had nothing to do with how the Chinese did scientific experiments. Fourth, "...conquering and mastering nature..."? "...strive to subdue it as Scripture commands."? No wonder some of our favorite fundies don't care that much about pollution.

Then we learn stuff on China under Mongolian rule, the Ming dynasty, and British rule.

The stuff on China ends on this:

The religions and systems of thought founded in both India and China are of great consequence to Asian progress and freedom. Because there was no distinction between religion and politics, the lack of personal freedom in the pagan religions necessarily had its effect in the government. In India and China, the ways of thinking, mainly Hinduism in India and Confucianism in China, dictated the outcome: tyranny. Whenever men are set up in the place of God, there will be a smothering of freedom and a subsequent rise of tyranny. Thus, in both countries, the people were enslaved to false religions and despotic rulers.

Yea, because tyranny doesn't happen in Christian societies! *sarcasm*

The last Asian cultures explored are Japan, Korea, and Indonesia. The part on Japan includes the Yamato, Shinto, Buddhism in Japan, Prince Shotoku, the Taika ( Great Reform , shoguns, daimios, samurai, and trade with Europe later in its history. Surprisingly, the book doesn't insult Shinto that much. The part on Korea includes them under Chinese rule, Silla founding a kingdom on the peninsula, General Wang Kon mending the kingdom after it split and naming it Koryo, the Mongols rule of Korea, Korea splitting from Mongol, the kingdom of Choson, and finally the arrival of the Europeans. Finally, with the Indonesia part, there's a description on the islands themselves, the early inhabitants of the islands, Hindu and Buddhist influences in the country, and how Indonesia became an important crossroad for trade with Europe.

Then we get to the Europeans finally making their mark in Asia. They started trading with Asia, but soon some of the European countries were conquering the Asian ones. Soon the East Indies were under control of the Dutch, the Philippines under Spain, and India under England.

Soon, missionaries started appearing. Oh good lord...

At first the English East India company opposed the missions because they didn't want to stir up religious animosities among non-Christians. It would make harder to rule and it would cut into its profits.

In many cases the policy of the British was oppressive and cruel, and they were by no means favorable to Christian missions. But the character of British rule changed, and when the missionaries had an opportunity to show the fruits of religion in making the Indians better subjects, the government came to encourage the efforts of those who were endeavoring to lead the people out of darkness into the life giving light of the Gospel [ LaTourette].

They were never in the dark! Just because they worshipped differently from you doesn't mean they were in the dark! Also, just because you're a Christian doesn't mean you're a good citizen.

There's stuff on the missionaries who worked in India. It's during the stuff on India does the book brag about an Indian prince being grateful for the English missionaries:

Where did the English-speaking people get all their intelligence, and energy, and cleverness, and power? It is their Bible that gives it to them. And now they bring it to us and say," This is what raised us. Take it and raise yourselves." They do not force it upon us, as the Mohammedans did the Koran, but they bring it in love, and translate it into our languages, and lay it before us and say," Look at it, read it, examine it, and see if it is not good."

Then there's stuff on the missionaries in Indonesia, the Philippines, China, Korea, and Japan. The chapter ends on a section talking about the success of missions in Asia. The end includes a quote from a man named Robert Pollack Kerr who talks about the wonderful the missions are.

There is hardly a country on earth where Christians are not free to preach the gospel, and to worship God[Robert Pollack Kerr].

I hated this chapter. Yea, it had educational moments but it was also just so insulting towards these cultures. They assumed that these cultures made little progress because of their religion. They didn't consider that there may have been another reason for it, like how the government worked? And they called the religions pagan....argh! Don't call them pagan! Not only that, but the book talked about how the cultures advanced only when the Christian missionaries arrived. I still can not help but think about when the book said how horrible it was of James II of England to try to force Romanism onto the Protestant English. Um, that's what the missionaries are doing toward the Asians! Yea, the missionaries also brought education and medicine, but they still were trying to make these people worship differently.

Just argh!! :angry-cussingblack: :angry-cussing: :angry-screaming: :angry-fire: :angry-jumpinganger: :evil:

The next chapter is on America. Seems good enough. But waits....there's a part in the chapter about the "Great Awakening"...and the "Second Great Awakening"...and missions...

This book is going to kill me!

[louisa05]

What they refuse to understand is that the modern American version of "Biblical Christianity" (because Christians who are not them have never heard of the Bible, least of all the pagan Catholics... :roll: ) was born of the Second Great Awakening in the 19th Century. It is pretty far removed from the ideology of Luther and the other reformers they idolize.