31–40 of 57 posts
Not a historian nor economist, but to my layman's mind, these revolts seem like a recurring phenomenon whenever long running economic cycles reach that point at which the aristocracy overreaches while trying to suppressing growing public sentiment against them, not unlike in Polybius' anacyclosis . But unlike Polybius' cycles, as technology improves, the likelihood of a successful reset at the end of a cycle, gradual…
Not a historian nor economist, but to my layman's mind, these revolts seem like a recurring phenomenon whenever long running economic cycles reach that point at which the aristocracy overreaches while trying to suppressing growing public sentiment against them, not unlike in Polybius' anacyclosis . But unlike Polybius' cycles, as technology improves, the likelihood of a successful reset at the end of a cycle, gradual…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Demographic Transition is modern but the age of family formation is actually used by historians to track how stressed the social contract is. Families have always been expensive and delaying them has always been a last resort for expense management.
Not an expert at all, so mostly a question. I have often heard the opposite, where large families are more common in less developed countries because having many children acts as insurance/social safety net for when parents become older and more frail. How does that relate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want…
Ours is a religion of submission to God, literally calling upon us to "pick up your cross daily." Which is, to die to yourself in submitting to God's will. Various books of the Bible were written to very specific peoples at specific times, but at the same time, to all Christians everywhere. It takes wisdom to discern to which group does an instruction apply, and when? This isn't to say that under no circumstances can…
This is a factually incorrect statement. There have been many times where Christianity and the State have aligned for mutual benefit. Ignoring that would be ignoring history!
Just a few examples:
- The Constantinian Shift (4th Century AD): When Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity (313 AD) and Emperor Theodosius I made it the official Roman state religion (380 AD), the Church transformed from a persecuted minority into an institutional ally of imperial power (Source: Eusebius, "Life of Constantine"; Peter Brown, "Through the Eye of a Needle").
- The Divine Right of Kings & Feudalism: Throughout the Middle Ages and Early Modern period, Christian theology was used to legitimize monarchical power and feudal class structures. Rulers were viewed as ordained directly by God, making rebellion against political elites a sin (Source: Ernst Kantorowicz, "The King's Two Bodies").
- Martin Luther & The German Peasants' War (1524–1525): When German peasants revolted against feudal oppression using Protestant ideas, Martin Luther explicitly sided with the aristocracy, writing Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, urging nobles to suppress the uprising forcefully.
- Pro-Slavery Theology in the Antebellum South: Major American denominations split over slavery in the 1840s (e.g., the founding of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845), with prominent theologians using Biblical texts to justify chattel slavery and protect the economic interests of the plantation elite (Source: Mark Noll, "The Civil War as a Theological Crisis").
- Currently in the US, the Federal Government and Christianity have strong alignment, to the point where pastors in churches advocate for politicians openly now. https://abcnews.com/Politics/meet-pastors-support-donald-tru...
Edit: Why TF was this flagged??
Not a historian nor economist, but to my layman's mind, these revolts seem like a recurring phenomenon whenever long running economic cycles reach that point at which the aristocracy overreaches while trying to suppressing growing public sentiment against them, not unlike in Polybius' anacyclosis . But unlike Polybius' cycles, as technology improves, the likelihood of a successful reset at the end of a cycle, gradual…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Demographic Transition is modern but the age of family formation is actually used by historians to track how stressed the social contract is. Families have always been expensive and delaying them has always been a last resort for expense management.
Not an expert at all, so mostly a question. I have often heard the opposite, where large families are more common in less developed countries because having many children acts as insurance/social safety net for when parents become older and more frail. How does that relate?
And even the wealthiest families would still lose kids. In 1924 the 16 year old son of the President of the United States, Calvin Coolidge Jr, went out to play tennis against his brother. But he forgot to put on his socks. He got a blister, it popped, got infected, and he died. That was the world that humans lived in just a century ago, even the most powerful could expect to lose children before adulthood. And so they needed large families to ensure that some of them made it.
Crazy how obscure episodes of world history land randomly on the front page - how does it even happen? I grew up in Germany but I don’t think we covered this in history class - maybe I forgot about it, the whole medieval period is mostly a blur for me now
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want…
Ours is a religion of submission to God, literally calling upon us to "pick up your cross daily." Which is, to die to yourself in submitting to God's will. Various books of the Bible were written to very specific peoples at specific times, but at the same time, to all Christians everywhere. It takes wisdom to discern to which group does an instruction apply, and when? This isn't to say that under no circumstances can…
However, the argument here is not that Christians side with the elite, but that the Church does. The Church has sided with the powerful again and again over the centuries, to great effect for its own wealth, going against what was objectively (ie not only by today's standards) morally right, and very much against scripture.
Your own argument that submission to God supersedes submission to government is one that the Church, as an institution, rarely abides by. By any reasonable reading of his sayings, Jesus would have preached against oppression of the poor, slavery, war, politically-convenient massacres, even the selling of indulgences. From the 4th century on, the Church has been part and parcel of oppression in all its forms, at enormous benefit to itself, and often against what the oppressed wished.
The changes that the Church made to early Christianity (centralisation, violent standardisation of beliefs, empowerment of the clergy) might have been sincere, but the continuing plight of the poor while the Church became one of the richest and most powerful institution in this part of the world is difficult to see as an an unfortunate coincidence.
If the Church is happy to call for the killing of peasants while at the same time initiating and celebrating massacres during the Crusades (a period of a Christian caliphate), among many many examples, it's only right that the institution be seen as an oppressor that has not much in common with Jesus or Christians.
Again, I'm not talking about Christians, or even individual priests, but the institution itself. I think Jesus had beautiful ideas, but it's difficult to know anything about history and not despise the Church.