Pope Francis

Quote: FrGamble

The Dark Ages are the "Dark Ages" for a reason..

It was called that because so little
info was known about that era.
We've come to learn a boatload
and those ages are no longer 'dark'.

One advantage I have over you is,
I can see the history of the Church
for what it was, with no built in
prejudice. You will never be able to
do that, they got to you at an early
age and took that ability away from
you forever.

Quote: Evenbob

It was called that because so little
info was known about that era.
We've come to learn a boatload
and those ages are no longer 'dark'.

Bob, is this literally just made up because it is not true.

"The Dark Ages is a term often used synonymously with the Middle Ages. It refers to the period of time between the fall of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Italian Renaissance and the Age of Discovery. Many textbooks list the Dark Ages as extending from 500-1500 AD, although it should be noted these are approximations.

The term 'Dark Ages' was coined by an Italian scholar named Francesco Petrarch. Petrarch, who lived from 1304 to 1374, used this label to describe what he perceived as a lack of quality in the Latin literature of his day. Other thinkers came along and expanded this designation to include not only literature, but also culture in general. The term thus evolved as a designation for the supposed lack of culture and advancement in Europe during the medieval period.

The term generally has a negative connotation. Debate continues to rage among historians over whether the Middle Ages were, indeed, dark or not. Increasingly, many scholars are questioning whether the term Dark Ages is an accurate description or not." From Study.com

The advantage I have over you is that I don't just make stuff up or exaggerate history or what people say. I am searching for truth and you are just searching for anything that supports your ideas or perspective. It has been clearly shown and you have admitted to being a bigot when it comes to this stuff and prejudiced. When I left the faith what led me back was an unflinching search for what is true.

Quote: FrGamble

Bob, is this literally just made up because it is not true.
.

Uh Huh.

"The term Dark Ages employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the era's "darkness" (lack of records) with earlier and later periods of "light" (abundance of records). Significantly, Baronius termed the age 'dark' because of the paucity of written records."

If you accuse me just one more time
of making something up, we're through.
I'm sick to death of it, of you insulting
me this way. I never make anything up,
ever. I've told you this again and again,
and still you persist. Knock it off.

Quote: Evenbob

Uh Huh.

"The term Dark Ages employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the era's "darkness" (lack of records) with earlier and later periods of "light" (abundance of records). Significantly, Baronius termed the age 'dark' because of the paucity of written records."

If you accuse me just one more time
of making something up, we're through.
I'm sick to death of it, of you insulting
me this way. I never make anything up,
ever. I've told you this again and again,
and still you persist. Knock it off.

While I am very glad you are using a Roman Catholic Cardinal as the source of the name "dark ages" I still think you put me in a very strange position. You don't quote your sources and they are not true so I honestly don't know where they are coming from. Just take a moment to think about the strange argument you are making. You seem to be saying the "Dark Ages" are called dark because we lack records concerning this time period. Do we have more or less records from the very far distant past? Why are the ancient epochs of our history not called the very, very dark ages. Maybe we have less records than we would expect for that period in the Middle Ages. Why then not use a less pejorative term like, "Unknown Ages"? If you think about it for a second I think you will realize that they are called Dark Ages because of the perspective of certain historians, including the Cardinal Baronius, that these were not good years for the Church and society in general. Power corrupted and people didn't seek out the truth as they should.

To be honest I am sick of you insulting our intelligence with history and facts that because you do not make anything up; are demonstrably false or big exaggerations or grotesque simplifications. I am also sick of you insulting me and the Church and my faith. Just stick to true facts and don't try to pretend you know about Church teaching and not only would we get along but I reckon we may both learn something.

Quote: FrGamble

You seem to be saying the "Dark Ages" are called dark because we lack records concerning this time period..

LACKED, we were LACKING records, we
aren't anymore. Over the years the darkness
revealed light as more and more records
were uncovered.

"Named the Dark Ages because few literary documents survive from those centuries. The main reason why there are few surviving literary documents of the era is because of lack of a suitable writing medium."

"They are often called the Dark Ages because, compared with other eras, historians don't know as much about this time. In some ways, this period of time has been lost to history. Many important records from this time have not survived."

"It was called the Dark Ages not because that period was more brutal or “darker” than other periods, but simply because not much was known about it. There were very few surviving records."

It's really that simple. Dark means lack of
records, lack of knowledge, it was mostly
picked up in the 19th century. The 20th
century slowly shed more and more light
on those dark centuries and we no longer
refer to them as the dark ages.

Where do you get this stuff from? Should we start calling them the Light Ages now? Do you really believe that because of a shortage of writing material the name Dark Ages was used instead of the middle ages? What records are you referring to? We know the names and history or oodles of important people during this time, we know the history of countries and their leaders and wars. What exactly is missing that caused people to consider these times so dark? Are you sure it wasn't really because of the brutality, poverty, and striggle of that age?

Quote: FrGamble

What exactly is missing that caused people to consider these times so dark?

I'll explain it yet again. Up till the 19th century,
very little had been uncovered about the time
period in question. So it was called a dark era,
because of lack of information available.

The term employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the era's "darkness" (lack of records) with earlier and later periods of "light" (abundance of records).[3] The concept of a "Dark Age" originated in the 1330s with the Italian scholar Petrarch, who regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity... the early 20th century saw a radical re-evaluation of the Middle Ages, which called into question the terminology of darkness. 20th-century scholarship has increased understanding of the history and culture of the period,[43] to such an extent that it is no longer really 'dark' to us. Many historians now avoid using Dark Ages altogether.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)#Modern_academic_use


We now know so much about the so
called 'dark' period that the term can
no longer be used.

This is really weird.

You cannot read the very link you send us to without learning that the paucity of records is one small reason that some historians use to claim this time period was "dark". However, the vast majority of the article and historians clearly point out that the term "dark" is a negative adjective unfairly used for the most part during this time.

Even in the highly redacted quote you piece together you can't avoid this more prevalent reason for the appellation dark.

"who regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the light of classical antiquity". This of course has nothing to do with the number of records or historical documents, but everything to do with culture.

Here is the whole quote that you edit very creatively at the end of the little hodgepodge you have give us:

Quote: wikipedia

Secondly, 20th-century scholarship had increased understanding of the history and culture of the period,[43] to such an extent that it is no longer really 'dark' to us.[10] To avoid the value judgment implied by the expression, many historians now avoid it altogether.

I think it is interesting what you left out. The word dark is generally considered by historians to refer to a value judgement not some statement of fact that there were not as many records as there should be.

Quote: FrGamble

This is really weird.

It was called dark for lack of records, that's a
fact. Now we know it was not 'dark' at all.

The Carolingian Renaissance was a period of advancements in literature, writing, the arts, architecture, jurisprudence, liturgical and scriptural studies which occurred in the late eighth and ninth centuries. The Carolingians were Franks and the most well known is Charlemagne. The Carolingian empire was considered a rebirth of the culture of the Roman Empire. At the time, Vulgar Latin was beginning to be replaced by various dialects as the main spoken languages in Europe, so the creation of schools was vital to spread knowledge further amongst the common people. It was also this period which gave us the foundation of Western Classical Music.

Thanks to the learning of the Islamic people in the East, the world received its first book on algebra. The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing was written by Al-Khw?rizm? (790-840) and the Arabic title of the book gave us the word “algebra”. The word algorithm comes from al-Khw?rizm?’s name. This book gave us the first systematic solution of linear and quadratic equations. Later translations of his books also gave us the decimal positional number system we use today. Al-Khw?rizm?, along with Diophantas, is considered the Father of algebra.

http://listverse.com/2008/06/09/top-10-reasons-the-dark-ages-were-not-dark/

Come on Bob, just read the introduction to the very good article you linked to. There is not a single reference to the lack of records.

It is scary how reluctant you are to admit you are wrong when even you are posting material proving my point. It should be a joy for you to realize your mistake and learn something new. Lord knows how often I realize how little I know and learn something new. Nobody thinks less of you because you thought this about the "dark ages" it is probably a common mistake. The only thing that would concern me is if you persist in holding something that is demonstrably not true.