Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dairygirl4u2c

the catholic church opposed street lights?

Recommended Posts

dairygirl4u2c    62
dairygirl4u2c

10696208_946137738794045_451032184768805

does anyone know if lights were officially taught as immoral? or was it just a ban with no further elaboration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archaeology cat    3,886
Archaeology cat

From WIKI: "Gregory XVI and Cardinal Lambruschini opposed basic technological innovations such as gas lighting and railways,[10] believing that they would promote commerce and increase the power of the bourgeoisie, leading to demands for liberal reforms which would undermine themonarchical power of the Pope over central Italy. Gregory XVI in fact banned railways in the Papal States, calling them chemins d'enfer(literally "road to hell," a play on the French for railroad, chemin de fer, literally "iron road").[11]

So looks like Cracked wasn't exactly accurate (not that Wiki is the best source, either, but this part came from a different book they referenced, so I'm going with it for now). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hotpink    97
hotpink

Lets be real here, the rise of the industrial age sent many people into abject poverty with no hope of ever having enough to feed their families.  Children were pressed into work that killed them. (Factory work)

The Pope's objection wasn't to having light at night but to the very real oppression and troubles that came from it.

While not hugely historically accurate as far as religion, the TV Show "Lark Rise to Candelford" gives a glimpse of what was occurring at the turn of the century.  People rented land and worked fields but they had their family.  The rise of factories had people sending children and adults off to work dividing family and in non-Catholic countries obscuring holy-days and Sundays.

We think that all of these technologies are great and changed the world.  They did.  They were way more revolutionary and life changing than the ipads and android phones we all run around with today.  They opened up many questions of morals that we can't even wrap our head around because people were faithful and observant.  Not only that but in the whole "rich become richer" scheme of thing, technology advantages ALWAYS favors the wealthy.  I mean look at things today, even in the US places without high speed internet are dragging far behind.  Seattle is great but you go west to Idaho or Montana a  you have places where even if you have the newest smartphone or computer it's meaningless.  Not to mention the people who live there can't afford those sort of computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NadaTeTurbe    1,748
NadaTeTurbe

Lets be real here, the rise of the industrial age sent many people into abject poverty with no hope of ever having enough to feed their families.  Children were pressed into work that killed them. (Factory work)

The Pope's objection wasn't to having light at night but to the very real oppression and troubles that came from it.

While not hugely historically accurate as far as religion, the TV Show "Lark Rise to Candelford" gives a glimpse of what was occurring at the turn of the century.  People rented land and worked fields but they had their family.  The rise of factories had people sending children and adults off to work dividing family and in non-Catholic countries obscuring holy-days and Sundays.

We think that all of these technologies are great and changed the world.  They did.  They were way more revolutionary and life changing than the ipads and android phones we all run around with today.  They opened up many questions of morals that we can't even wrap our head around because people were faithful and observant.  Not only that but in the whole "rich become richer" scheme of thing, technology advantages ALWAYS favors the wealthy.  I mean look at things today, even in the US places without high speed internet are dragging far behind.  Seattle is great but you go west to Idaho or Montana a  you have places where even if you have the newest smartphone or computer it's meaningless.  Not to mention the people who live there can't afford those sort of computers.

Well said, hotpink ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Real Name    324
Not A Real Name

Lets be real here, the rise of the industrial age sent many people into abject poverty with no hope of ever having enough to feed their families.  Children were pressed into work that killed them. (Factory work)

The Pope's objection wasn't to having light at night but to the very real oppression and troubles that came from it.

While not hugely historically accurate as far as religion, the TV Show "Lark Rise to Candelford" gives a glimpse of what was occurring at the turn of the century.  People rented land and worked fields but they had their family.  The rise of factories had people sending children and adults off to work dividing family and in non-Catholic countries obscuring holy-days and Sundays.

We think that all of these technologies are great and changed the world.  They did.  They were way more revolutionary and life changing than the ipads and android phones we all run around with today.  They opened up many questions of morals that we can't even wrap our head around because people were faithful and observant.  Not only that but in the whole "rich become richer" scheme of thing, technology advantages ALWAYS favors the wealthy.  I mean look at things today, even in the US places without high speed internet are dragging far behind.  Seattle is great but you go west to Idaho or Montana a  you have places where even if you have the newest smartphone or computer it's meaningless.  Not to mention the people who live there can't afford those sort of computers.

I agree with this but I disagree that they were more revolutionary than iPads and smartphones.  Also don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they were less either.  They were revolutionary for their time.  iPads and and smartphones have done their fair share of damage, case in point the stupid meme which caused this thread. 

Edited by Not A Real Name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hotpink    97
hotpink

Not really.  When you examine what technology did then, it moved society from agragrian to industrial.  It moved people from working the land to working on stuff, rampant materialism, longer hours of work and away from family.  Until the industrial age most parents worked from home.  Yes, there were a few people who lived in tows and wrote newspapers and there were jobs like fisherman, doctors and police/military, but they were not the norm.  Most children had little formal schooling but learned trades at the knee of a parent.  They had full contact with said parents all day, every day.  When the world moved on from this, it was families that suffered.  Young children, who could once expect to learn while working a variety of tasks were trapped in buildings where they were considered as replaceable as machinery---sometimes even less valuable. The family was now divided into wage-earners and those who "did nothing" but raise a baby.

New technology has only served to speed this tide.  The damage was done long ago to the core of the family, to the Church and to society.  As soon as we had technology that required the general population long hours away from the family, we destroyed a bit of culture we'd never have back.  Street lights allowed men to defy good reason, something which we've become adept at.

One of the great things about technology, however, is that our service economy has actually afforded a growing minority of people to be able to work from home.  These people, if they can learn to manage their time, often have stunningly better results in personal happiness, heath and well being as well as their families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Era Might    1,537
Era Might

We need to take seriously the fact that technology is not morally neutral or irrelevant to our spiritual lives. Technology changes how we relate to the world, and when you follow a spiritual tradition, presumably you are making a claim about the world, how it relates to a god or gods, and how we fit into that world. The most obvious example is language/the alphabet (which is a technology of sound). We clearly recognize from a spiritual perspective the need to guard how we speak, what we listen to, etc. We should extend this same critical/ascetic spirit to all areas of society and technology, including something such as light (what have we lost in a world where light is an artificial thing, no longer the traditional and natural experience of fire). Behind technologies such as the smartphone is, for example, an entire commercial society that we are being shaped into more efficiently...we can't escape the world we live in, but we should at least be aware of what's gone on and face the difficult question of how we are going to confront it without just conforming to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dUSt    6,232
dUSt

Are people closer to God now, or were they closer to God before technological advances? I think if you answer this question honestly you might realize "opposed to street lights" may not seem as crazy as it might sound.

Edited by dUSt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Real Name    324
Not A Real Name

Are people closer to God now, or were they closer to God before technological advances? I think if you answer this question honestly you might realize "opposed to street lights" may not seem as crazy as it might sound.

Such a great question, and I would say the answer is no.  We're always so busy busy busy or distracted distracted distracted that I feel many do not have a close relationship with God.  

Here is a great talk about technology and tradition.  If you have the time I recommend watching it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dairygirl4u2c    62
dairygirl4u2c

@dairygirl4u2c: Your posts suggest that you're constantly digging into the history of the Church. Why do you do that? And don't you think your urge to do it means something?

it means i am researching CC history. i concede it is possible to be the true church. i just tend to think otherwise. so i'm always looking at its history and consistency and such. 

here is a debate i posted elsewhere that condenses my main points against the CC


some points on why i consider the pope not infallible:

1. at one time noncatholics were damned, now it is possible for them to be saved. at one time, infants who weren't baptized were damned, now at least informally t is possible for them to be saved. 

2. there was next to no mention of infallibility or its description before around 1000AD when someone defined it, who some say is the inventor of infallibility. there are a couple quotes i find that seem to suggest at certain points the church happened to be without error but they dont expand that they think as a matter of principle the church cannot err. 

3. the eastern christians have always been separate and never recognized the necessity of submission to the roman bishop. 

4. the pope never headed any of the ecumentical councils in the early church, such as the first seven which is univerally recognized. some councils were started against the popes wishes. all councils only had a few members from rome and the pope was never present. some teachings were against the pope's wishes. some teachings were raised to be defined despite the fact the pope already ruled on the matter. 

5. when infallibility was defined, many dissenting bishops simply left instead of voting. of those who stayed, the pope made it clear he expected them to fall to his wishes, and they were finncially dependent on the pope.

@dairygirl4u2c: Your posts suggest that you're constantly digging into the history of the Church. Why do you do that? And don't you think your urge to do it means something?

it means i am researching CC history. i concede it is possible to be the true church. i just tend to think otherwise. so i'm always looking at its history and consistency and such. 

here is a debate i posted elsewhere that condenses my main points against the CC


some points on why i consider the pope not infallible:

1. at one time noncatholics were damned, now it is possible for them to be saved. at one time, infants who weren't baptized were damned, now at least informally t is possible for them to be saved. 

2. there was next to no mention of infallibility or its description before around 1000AD when someone defined it, who some say is the inventor of infallibility. there are a couple quotes i find that seem to suggest at certain points the church happened to be without error but they dont expand that they think as a matter of principle the church cannot err. 

3. the eastern christians have always been separate and never recognized the necessity of submission to the roman bishop. 

4. the pope never headed any of the ecumentical councils in the early church, such as the first seven which is univerally recognized. some councils were started against the popes wishes. all councils only had a few members from rome and the pope was never present. some teachings were against the pope's wishes. some teachings were raised to be defined despite the fact the pope already ruled on the matter. 

5. when infallibility was defined, many dissenting bishops simply left instead of voting. of those who stayed, the pope made it clear he expected them to fall to his wishes, and they were finncially dependent on the pope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gabriela    3,074
Gabriela

it means i am researching CC history. i concede it is possible to be the true church. i just tend to think otherwise. so i'm always looking at its history and consistency and such. 
here is a debate i posted elsewhere that condenses my main points against the CC


some points on why i consider the pope not infallible:

1. at one time noncatholics were damned, now it is possible for them to be saved. at one time, infants who weren't baptized were damned, now at least informally t is possible for them to be saved. 

2. there was next to no mention of infallibility or its description before around 1000AD when someone defined it, who some say is the inventor of infallibility. there are a couple quotes i find that seem to suggest at certain points the church happened to be without error but they dont expand that they think as a matter of principle the church cannot err. 

3. the eastern christians have always been separate and never recognized the necessity of submission to the roman bishop. 

4. the pope never headed any of the ecumentical councils in the early church, such as the first seven which is univerally recognized. some councils were started against the popes wishes. all councils only had a few members from rome and the pope was never present. some teachings were against the pope's wishes. some teachings were raised to be defined despite the fact the pope already ruled on the matter. 

5. when infallibility was defined, many dissenting bishops simply left instead of voting. of those who stayed, the pope made it clear he expected them to fall to his wishes, and they were finncially dependent on the pope.

Why are you researching the history of the Church if you believe She's not the True Church?

it means i am researching CC history. i concede it is possible to be the true church. i just tend to think otherwise. so i'm always looking at its history and consistency and such. 
here is a debate i posted elsewhere that condenses my main points against the CC


some points on why i consider the pope not infallible:

1. at one time noncatholics were damned, now it is possible for them to be saved. at one time, infants who weren't baptized were damned, now at least informally t is possible for them to be saved. 

2. there was next to no mention of infallibility or its description before around 1000AD when someone defined it, who some say is the inventor of infallibility. there are a couple quotes i find that seem to suggest at certain points the church happened to be without error but they dont expand that they think as a matter of principle the church cannot err. 

3. the eastern christians have always been separate and never recognized the necessity of submission to the roman bishop. 

4. the pope never headed any of the ecumentical councils in the early church, such as the first seven which is univerally recognized. some councils were started against the popes wishes. all councils only had a few members from rome and the pope was never present. some teachings were against the pope's wishes. some teachings were raised to be defined despite the fact the pope already ruled on the matter. 

5. when infallibility was defined, many dissenting bishops simply left instead of voting. of those who stayed, the pope made it clear he expected them to fall to his wishes, and they were finncially dependent on the pope.

Why are you researching the history of the Church if you believe She's not the True Church?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye    767
Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

Doesn't the book of revelations say that the beast will wipe out a third of the stars of heaven with its tail. Can't see many stars in cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blazeingstar    540
blazeingstar

Doesn't the book of revelations say that the beast will wipe out a third of the stars of heaven with its tail. Can't see many stars in cities.

Yeah---umm just because you can't see it dosn't mean it's not there.  Stars are viable in many rural places....even just outside of NYC and LA...or on a rooftop building you can see stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socrates    1,983
Socrates

iPads and and smartphones have done their fair share of damage, case in point the stupid meme which caused this thread. 

The Pope should ban teh interwebz.  I'm seeing way too much of people posting moronic internet "memes" on the debate table, as if they were real arguments worthy of debate and discussion.

Pair a nonsensical caption with a photo or other illustration, post it on the web, and some idiots will treat it as authoritative truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didacus    270
Didacus

Steets lights are evil!

BURN THEM!

 

The Pope should ban teh interwebz.  I'm seeing way too much of people posting moronic internet "memes" on the debate table, as if they were real arguments worthy of debate and discussion.

Pair a nonsensical caption with a photo or other illustration, post it on the web, and some idiots will treat it as authoritative truth.

I've NEVER done that often.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jl1989    0
Jl1989

It actually makes a lot of sense. Before streetlights, husbands, wives and children came home at night, ate dinner, spent time together and went to bed. With the advent of lit streets, men could hang out at bars, prostitutes could solicit more business and children could stay out longer. Nightclubs, bars, strip clubs and the like would never have existed had streetlights not been invented. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norseman82    856
Norseman82
On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2015 at 8:08 AM, dairygirl4u2c said:

10696208_946137738794045_451032184768805

does anyone know if lights were officially taught as immoral? or was it just a ban with no further elaboration?

That was before Vatican 2. 

Vatican 2 changed all that....:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4    182
Jack4
On 30/7/2017 at 7:56 AM, Norseman82 said:

That was before Vatican 2. 

Vatican 2 changed all that....:)

Not if the Council is interpreted in "light" of tradition. *pun intended ) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×