Which statements, false in what particular way @GraySheep? Could you clarify?

@Escapeddentalpatient. I removed them as not needed. You can check the content in the history.

I have. It concerns me that you may have misunderstood the purpose of edits and the scope of the privilege. If the OP has an opinion about their world's history, then that's essential background - edits are not for correcting the ideas of the OP. If you disagree with something the OP says, then leave a comment asking for clarification. @GraySheep

If there's something that could be reasonably considered offensive, then flag the post for attention. @GraySheep

@Escapeddentalpatient. Unfortunately, there is. Maybe you might read the post history.

@GraySheep The issue you point out as false/hate speech is the idea that the church hated things like individual thought and science?

@T.Sar Yes. Monks copied a large part of the ancient (roman and greek) knowledge, for example. Or there was a close astronomist friend of the Pope, with his big mouth, but he could even reach that the Pope paid his not cheap telescopes

@GraySheep Worth to note that the endeavors of some monks didn't speak for the church as a whole during the whole period. The church during what we call medieval times had a bunch of ups and downs, with some periods being way darker than others, with religious figures having wildly differing ideas from one another.

@T.Sar Yes, of course. We are talking about 1500 years of history of a whole continent. It is a little bit unfair to summarize on that way as the post did.

@T.Sar You can also see the baroque cathedrals, staying even today. Which today created building would survive even a century? These were built for the eternity. And they are there even today. And how their inside looks. I can not see that "darkness"...

@GraySheep Don't confuse the views of the religion of the time with other developments of the era. Those times had some quite strict religious views, and those often came to the detriment of the population, despite great some great feats of architecture.

@GraySheep When people talk about "dark ages", they mostly are referring to the abuse the times had over peasants, the corrupt nobility, an the difficulty of the society in progressing sciences as a whole. It was a time of decline, even if great feats got done.

@GraySheep intelectual and social decline, to be more specific.

With all of that said, while I can understand the argument that the OP could be wrong with their original text in the question, I'm not sure if that qualifies as hate speech or even a reason to remove the text from the question. We allow "wrong premises" on questions all the time, and those wrong premises are good material for frame challenges in answers.

I for example think that the original wording should be preserved, and that an answer for this question then could address the misconception, if there is any.

@GraySheep: Yes, people who actually bother to read would know that the entire idea of "dark ages" is post-medieval propaganda, and would also know that Christian medieval philosophers, who were almost all clerics, made great advances in logic, for example. They would know that for half of the period we call the Middle Ages there was no one single Universal Church.

They would know that some of the major medieval civilizations were not Christian at all and did not care one jot about the opinions of the Christian Church(es). But the reality in these fallen times is that when most people who ask questions say "medieval" they really mean "late western European medieval"...

@T.Sar I am sorry but that qualifies as hate speech on all objective definition.

@T.Sar Beside that, it is mostly lie. First, there was no such thing that "the Church", at least since 1517, but more likely since 1054, because there is no "THE church" since that. Second, you did not prove the responsibility of this not existing "THE church" in any of your perceive negativity. Third, ask the royal scholars of the era, what do they think, does "THE church" hate science or not...

For example, you could ask Tycho Brache (friend astronomer of the Danish king), you could ask Galilei (close personal friend of the pope), Isaac Newton (high-level uhm... "employee" in the UK government), Kopernicus (also astronomist, maybe at the Polish king)

But, most importantly, there are 1.2billion Christians of the world and this sentence insults most of them.

Without a reason. And, based mostly on lies.

even though I don't agree with the statement that church(es) in those time supported science and philosophy (Galileo was forced to abjure, Giordano Bruno was burned for his philosophy), I will only remove the sentence about the "everything the church hated in those time". Talking about a (fictional) religion who promotes individual thoughts, science and philosophy is not hate speech.

@AlexP Yes. Also Mersenne comes into my mind. He found a simple formula to find quite big prime numbers for the time. Largest primes are found until today based on his formula. He did it to find perfect numbers...

...and the existence of the odd perfect number is the oldest unsolved problem of the math. It is the oldest because already the ancient Greeks did not find a solution...

...fortunately, roman catholic clerics of the so-named "dark ages", like Mersenne himself, translated these old Greek texts, this is why we know these.

@L.Dutch You are again defending a oversimplified lie about the 1500 years of history of a continent. But nice to see that Galilei was only "forced to abjure". You know, the very "objective" "common knowledge" of today is that Galilei was burned at the stake because he discovered that the Earth is spherical........

@L.Dutch I also think that the only possible reason, why is this sentence in the text, and why did you even lock that insulting post with this (unneeded) sentence, is a will to keep it there.

The question would be okay and well answerable even without that sentence. As we talked about here, this sentence is at least oversimplification or maybe a lie. Then why do you keep that sentence in the post?

@GraySheep: Bruno, Galileo, Mersenne, and Newton are all post-medieval, so they don't count anyway.

@L.Dutch Galilei was the victim of what we would call flamewar today. He lost, not because he had not been right, he lost because his enemies were stronger. Btw, he had no right in the sense that the proofs what he had at the time, would not be enough strong in the science od the today. Not even "the Church" said differently. There are notes about the talks with Cardinal Bellarmini, his "investigator".

@L.Dutch: Giordano Bruno was sentenced to death because he was a cleric who preached blatant heresy. The Church really had no choice. On the other hand, Galileo got off with eseentially a slap on the wrist. He wrote and published openly his most important work, the Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences, after the second trial. Nobody bothered.

@L.Dutch Bellarmini (representing "the Church") did not say that the Universe (they considered the solar system of the today on that), so Bellarmini did not state a geocentric model. He stated that Galilei has not enough proof for a heloicentric model. And yes, he really had not enough proof. After the events, Galilei became disgraced, but lived until his death from a papal pension in a papal flat. He was not a "celeb" and the friend of the pope any more.

@AlexP Yes. The papers of Brunos' process did not survive, thus it is hard to say anything, what has really happened. He was convicted for practicing sorcery and heresy, but as far I know, it is not really known, what they exactly understood on that.

What is known: being the head of the Roman Catholic Church, being the king of the Papal State (today Vatican), and being the Bishop of Rome, that is 3 different jobs. It is only tradition that the same person fulfills this 3 at once.

@AlexP I'm sorry, what? How can you say the church had "no choice"? Of course they had choice - you can just ignore the guy, if you want. Nobody forced the church at the time to murder one person because he belived and preached something different than what was mainstream at the time.

I'm disengaging with this conversation. It went far beyond what is reasonable to discuss already.

@T.Sar Church did not stay over the law and practicing sorcery was capital crime on the law of the time, for example.

@T.Sar No one knows the details because the relevant papers are lost. There are only rumors and these rumors are likely not more friendly to the church as the rumors about the Gailei case (where the papers survived)

@T.Sar Note, I do not say that the church is innocent. I say that there is not enough proof for any direction. Yes, I can imagine that he was burned for heretic views, but I do not believe it.

@GraySheep I do not want to engage this dicussion any further.