Christian Theology General

[astrolabeabelard]

1. Christianity is European in that it models platonic metaphysics. There is no Kike source for this. Christianity is accordingly European.  All that is Kike achieves its essence in opposition, to all 3 roots - the european, the platonic, the christian. 

First, there were Jews in Alexandria since Alexander founded it, so there were probably Platonist Jews before Philo—for unrelated reasons, Stoicism had become the dominant philosophy at Athens, so many later Platonists came from Alexandria or Rome even if not Jewish. Some Jews embraced philosophy and some of them rejected it because of how recently they were introduced to it.

Second, there's nothing Platonic about Christian metaphysics since all Christians believe e.g. change exists (short of heresy).  

GraalChud

2) I think that Jews have a better claim to being adherents of/the spiritual descendants of whatever you want to call the religion of the Old Testament Israelites than do Christians

That doesn't make very much sense because, to the Jews, they're just descendants of the Israelites; nothing about spiritual descent from any religion at all (Jacob himself didn't practice the Jewish religion, Samaritans believe in Jacob).

Julien Sorel
Platonism is a result and symptom of the degeneration of ancient Greek culture - in other words a degeneration from precisely the Aryan aristocratic culture which gave birth to the ideal of paideia that is the beating heart of Western Civilization. The moralizing and flight from nature central to Platonism are more similar to the Jewish cultural perspective than they are to anything that preceded them in ancient Greek culture. Turn off Keith Woods and read Nietzsche...

If philosophy came from Argentina and I were a Greek person, I would feel weird talking in this flippant gay way about Argentine history.

[GraalChud]

A) Do we (today) believe? Or did they (that is, historically, after the Christianisation of Europe) believe?


B) "Christianity as traditionally practiced by your average European from the Middle Ages to Early Modern Period" is what you said and is window of time that I was responding to. "Whatever it was that they practiced in Europe from the Middle Ages to 1815" is what I responded.


C)... maybe you know that one of the most civilised (and nuanced) legal systems ever created would surely never survive the many centuries that it has, or function as intended, with a burden this high and you were just being a deliberate rhetorician. In any case, I obviously can't meet this "burden of proof" because it just isn't possible to do. Why didn't you phrase the burden as having to prove that they didn't convert out of spite by a preponderance of the evidence? Ahh.  

D) 1) .In time, obviously, this ancient form of religion became more separated from the social system, or should we say government, of the city/nation. This is to say that the religion itself gradually lost its power over society. And thus the entrance of Christianity. Whereas the religious and social institutions were intertwined pre-Christianity, Christianity distinguishes religion from the state. Caesar is no longer a "god" because there only exists the "God". 

2) The reason for this extremely simplified background information is that it serves as a preface for my main point, one in which I think that we are in agreement, which is that of course there was a Europeanisation of Christianity, just the same as there was a Christianisation of Europe. This is the exact reason why people acknowledge that Catholicism retained a number of pagan elements, Medieval Europe being the best example of this. But we need to ask, and I believe this is one of the whole points of this specific discussion, how much was the doctrine of Early Christianity perverted by Europeans, and was this wrong to happen? Well I guess your answer on that depends on how you view supersessionism and predestination. It's interesting and certainly worthwhile to think about on the whole, but can you get a definitive answer that all can accept as true, especially in the year 2023? I doubt it.

I`ve labelled each of your points so as to make my responses easier to follow.

A) W.r.t. whether they believed themselves to be chosen or we do is not the point, as if I`m not mistaken, we are discussing a claim you`ve made and seem to believe - that there is evidence that Europeans are the chosen people, specifically on the grounds that they had great success when Europe was Christian - and I am asking you to substantiate that claim, to break it down and show why our success in the period in question can be attributed to Christianity and how this suffices as evidence to bolster your claim (as it could be that Christianity is, in part, responsible for our success but for reasons wholly unrelated to Providence and entirely related to material benefits that any religion that had the specific form and function of Christianity, regardless of its substance, would have bestowed upon us). 

B) If you`re contending that our success in the period in question - a period in which we were Christian - is evidence that we are chosen, and I`m contending that there is a period of time in which we were Pagan and saw a similar level of success - which I could just as easily point to as "proof" that the Gods were watching over us, or could use to show that the common denominator in periods where Europeans were successful/prosperous is not religion, but race - then yes, you do have to explain away that example if you wish to make a convincing case for why that contention is correct; if you do not do so, then there will be evidence that is strong as that which you`ve provided in favor of your contention, against your contention, which you will have left unaddressed. 

C) Re: the use of "burden of proof", yes, I was being a deliberate rhetorician, but to argue over the specific language used when that language conveys my point - that I`m asking you to show evidence that supersessionism is true and that the Jews are aware of this and are essentially refusing to convert only out of spite - is to veer into the realm of semantics. 

D) 

1) Lastly, I see you`re drawing on Coulanges for your summary of Paganism (in Rome and Greece, anyway). I`ve my own issues with that text, as it gets some fundamental tenets of comparative religious studies wrong and draws what I believe to be incorrect conclusions based on these things that it gets wrong, but that`s neither here nor there. 

2) Anyway, on the final point you made, we largely agree.

[GraalChud]

GraalChud

2) I think that Jews have a better claim to being adherents of/the spiritual descendants of whatever you want to call the religion of the Old Testament Israelites than do Christians

That doesn't make very much sense because, to the Jews, they're just descendants of the Israelites; nothing about spiritual descent from any religion at all (Jacob himself didn't practice the Jewish religion, Samaritans believe in Jacob).

Is this supposed to be a joke? Their entire faith is predicated on them being inheritors of the Torah, the Chosen people of YHWH, God of the Old Testament, and their most important holy books outside of the Torah - the Mishnah and Talmud - are commentaries/transcriptions of debates on the contents of the Torah and commentaries/transcriptions of debates on those commentaries/transcriptions of debates on the contents of the Torah, respectively. 

The notion that Jews don`t conceptualize themselves as being anything other than people who happen to be descended from Israelites but don`t place any particular importance on their claims to literal and spiritual descent from them is patently absurd.

[astrolabeabelard]

The notion that Jews don`t conceptualize themselves as being anything other than people who happen to be descended from Israelites but don`t place any particular importance on their claims to literal and spiritual descent from them is patently absurd.

What are you even saying? "Literal descent" just means being that sort of Israelite; and Jews don't claim spiritual descent from them, they claim actual descent from them. They all disagree on the spiritual importance of descending from the Jewish tribes, what they share is (alleged) descent from those tribes.

[august]

A) [...] I am asking you to substantiate that claim, to break it down and show why our success in the period in question can be attributed to Christianity and how this suffices as evidence to bolster your claim (as it could be that Christianity is, in part, responsible for our success but for reasons wholly unrelated to Providence and entirely related to material benefits that any religion that had the specific form and function of Christianity, regardless of its substance, would have bestowed upon us). 

B) If you`re contending that our success in the period in question - a period in which we were Christian - is evidence that we are chosen, and I`m contending that there is a period of time in which we were Pagan and saw a similar level of success - which I could just as easily point to as "proof" that the Gods were watching over us, or could use to show that the common denominator in periods where Europeans were successful/prosperous is not religion, but race - then yes, you do have to explain away that example if you wish to make a convincing case for why that contention is correct; if you do not do so, then there will be evidence that is strong as that which you`ve provided in favor of your contention, against your contention, which you will have left unaddressed. 

I remember when I was young and in primary, the Medieval period was constantly referenced as a backward and stagnant time with little cultural and material advancement and horrible quality of life. In reality, what r/AskAHistorian worms have dubbed the "Dark Ages" is more aptly one of the few, last times since antiquity that man was anywhere close to the Light. 

Fundamental to this understanding is something that can't really be argued against; that is, that Medieval Europe was defined by various separate but equally important cultural elements whose confluence created something entirely new but not so much different (recall my prior mentioning of "ingrained holdovers" i.e., vestiges of the old, that made Christianity uniquely European). European man's "success in the period in question can be attributed to Christianity" precisely because it was Christianity that provided the vessel by which European man could once again become who he truly was, who he truly had been. 

In our most romantic ideas of antiquity, there is a conception of war as something higher, sacred... holy. "The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Em--ACKKSSSDF." Impaled... that's what happens to those fat bald retards who countersignal White civilisation.

Actually it was Holy and Roman and an Empire, and the Crusades were the best thing that happened in Europe since antiquity and until two small glimmers of hope in 1769 and 1889. 


You're correct to attribute European success to the racial component, but you don't go far enough. That alone doesn't get us all the way there. Have you ever met a wigger? A norwooding libtard? Why are they like that? ... They're white, after all. It's because they're spiritual eunuchs that care so little about anything that they let themselves be raped over and over again. 

It was by way of the Crusades, the call to war for something above and beyond mere glory on Earth, that we see the true Renaissance of the European spirit in the hearts of man. They weren't really marching toward death to capture a tangible city of Jerusalem, but rather a kingdom not of this world. They wanted to die, just as their European ancestors of times gone by wished for the same fate, each knowing that only then could they begin their new life in another world, while remaining for all of history in this world as A Real Hero. "Memento mori," whispers the servant into his triumphant master's ear... he sees the skull, the somber reminder that pierces deep into his conscience and soul and helps him not to forget the most important universal inevitability. It is here in these "Dark Ages" that we see the rebirth of man's understanding of life in accordance with his acceptance of death. Without Christianity's cultural influence during this time, who can say whether or not European man would have had this flame reignited within himself?

Now, whatever nonsense you said about jews being the more accurate spiritual descendants of the Israelites of the OT. When was the Talmud written? If Christians aren't the spiritual descendants, then jews definitely aren't.

[august]

The late, great Jonathan Bowden once said, "One man alone in a room with a computer, a typewriter as it was, can change the world. A few people alone in a room, if they cleave to an idea whose time has come, can still change the world." 

I'm nothing special. I don't assert that I have influenced the thoughts of a single person on this Earth through anything I've ever posted online. But the realm of possibility spans great distances, and there is always potential for our discussions, aimed at that everlasting star of truth, to resonate with anyone who has ears to hear. Veritas est amicus noster. I came across a recently published short essay that muses the idea of the Middle Ages in a strikingly similar -- though better written -- manner as my last post above. The essay can be found easily enough if the topic interests you.

I remember when I was young and in primary, the Medieval period was constantly referenced as a backward and stagnant time with little cultural and material advancement and horrible quality of life. In reality, what r/AskAHistorian worms have dubbed the "Dark Ages" is more aptly one of the few, last times since antiquity that man was anywhere close to the Light. 

The Middle Ages have been maligned, a victim of the grandiloquent “Enlightenment of the New Age”— a PR campaign that rebranded a millennium rich with spiritual profundity and human depth as an era of misery and ignorance.
[...]
The Middle Ages [...] emerge not as a period of darkness but as an age of light

It was by way of the Crusades, the call to war for something above and beyond mere glory on Earth, that we see the true Renaissance of the European spirit in the hearts of man. They weren't really marching toward death to capture a tangible city of Jerusalem, but rather a kingdom not of this world. They wanted to die, just as their European ancestors of times gone by wished for the same fate, each knowing that only then could they begin their new life in another world

In its crusade for a rational utopia, the Enlightenment cast the Middle Ages as a time of obscurantism, yet in doing so, it eclipsed the inherent beauty of a society rooted in the recognition of something greater than the self, something more enduring than the flesh.

It is here in these "Dark Ages" that we see the rebirth of man's understanding of life in accordance with his acceptance of death. Without Christianity's cultural influence during this time, who can say whether or not European man would have had this flame reignited within himself?

This was a civilization that understood life as a mere vestibule to eternity, where each individual’s existence was interwoven with a cosmic narrative far grander than the mere material plane.
[...]
Thus, a society built around the immortality of the soul represents the zenith of human civilization — a flame that the Enlightenment’s myopic gaze could not extinguish.

Friend of this sphere, we can discuss this and plenty more if you'd like. 

Most of this particular thread is unnecessary hairsplitting, sullied with too many words just to say very little that I see as capable of being put to practical use. I don't attack anyone in saying that, as this is a "General" thread after all, but the conversation hasn't satisfied my real interests in discussing the topic of Christianity with respect to our current age. Though I hadn't the chance to post in it, the since-deleted "Rehabilitating Christianity" thread had potential to spur more fruitful discussion, and some recent conversations and thoughts that I've had will likely compel me to recreate it anew when I get the chance.

[astrolabeabelard]

If the medievals were uniquely enlightened, that means that everything which we actually lost during the beginning of the Western medieval (i.e. most of Plato, most of Aristotle) and then regained during the end of the Western medieval (via e.g. Ficino, Aquinas) was totally unimportant for enlightenment. So Ficino and Aquinas and everybody else was wrong about what makes good theology?

I think modernity is important because the things lost medievally constituted a significant Dark Age, and when we regained those lost texts we immediately experienced the same kind of renaissance which Greece experienced after the end of her Dark Age (the "Geometric" era): an upper-class interest in literature, discourse, and science. This is the same upper-class investment in academia which has produced the bourgeois-oriented academic culture which America suffers right now. This bourgeois-oriented academic culture is incredibly influential over anyone who wants to know anything. That's why we can't just limit ourselves to medieval scholarship: The medieval institutions for tracking knowledge have been physically and politically reformed by modernity (the See of Rome used to have temporal power over Rome, that's where that phrase in canon law comes from) and we no longer have direct access to those pre-modern institutions. We can no longer even be certain what the medievals thought about the world, because our worldviews are all so informed by modern notions.

[august]

If the medievals were uniquely enlightened, that means that everything which we actually lost during the beginning of the Western medieval (i.e. most of Plato, most of Aristotle) and then regained during the end of the Western medieval (via e.g. Ficino, Aquinas) was totally unimportant for enlightenment.

I do not think that they were uniquely enlightened, but rather enlightened in comparison to current-day modernity in their conception of life based on an acceptance of death. This can be strongly countered, as it can be said that this is 'anti-life'. After all, I did present the idea that perhaps they "wanted to die." The broader point, though, is that we see a spirit that lacks fear of death, similar to that of antiquity—though the similarities likely end there. 

Here is one view: Platonism, on its face, was important for (1) Christianity's victory over Roman society (the vessel of Greek enlightenment), but also for (2) The Enlightenment's victory over Christianity (the vessel of outward, facial Platonism). It was said: 

"They, however, thought that the senses might lure them away from their own world, from the cold realm of 'ideas,' to some dangerous southern island where they feared that their philosophers virtues might melt away like snow in the sun. Having 'wax in one's ears' was then almost a condition of philosophizing; a real philosopher no longer listened to life insofar as life is music; he denied the music of life—it is an ancient philosopher's superstition that all music is sirens' music." 

What is this? One remains a "real philosopher" while having "denied the music of life"? It is apparently so. Thus, the assumption: Plato, like Ulysses, heard fully the music of life, but it was only an act of charity on his part to plug the ears of the others, lest order would be destroyed by the sounds, the senses, that the multitude wouldn't be able to bear.... is this the problem of tyranny and philosophy in the thought of Plato and Nietzsche?

we immediately experienced the same kind of renaissance which Greece experienced after the end of her Dark Age [...] an upper-class interest in literature, discourse, and science. This is the same upper-class investment in academia which has produced the bourgeois-oriented academic culture which America suffers right now. This bourgeois-oriented academic culture is incredibly influential over anyone who wants to know anything.

 
Post-Enlightenment modernity, for all it's talk of secularism, is really nothing more than a gross contortion and bending of very particularly selected Christian concepts. Behold, the fruits of enlightened secularism... Secular Christianity, the desecration that serves as the New Religion of the modern state... our 'Judeo-Christian' values. The Holocaust, slavery and Jim Crow... these are literal appropriations of the Passion.

Here is the problem with your Jacobinised (I don't attack to the person, you've admitted such yourself) comparison: the "upper-class" is not an upper-class, the "bourgeois" is not even bourgeois. These "class" distinctions don't exist, not really. For all that can be asserted to prove the deleterious effects that Christianity had on what we may call "literature, discourse, and science", it can just as easily be said that the "renaissance" which sprang from post-Enlightenment modernity (today) is more 'Christian' than Christianity ever was, and has done more to create the "academic culture which America suffers right now" than Christianity, historically, ever did. This can be said with as much certainty as the sun rising tomorrow, because what is modern academic culture if not 'equality' and 'charity to the poor' (i.e., 'virtuous' pity)? The classrooms of today's academy are filled with yesterday's serfs, who, for all intents and purposes, remain serfs in all but their falsely derived credentials. And "anyone who wants to know anything" understands this, and knows that such "bourgeois-oriented academic culture is [NOT] incredibly influential" over them, but rather is the real destruction of truth and knowledge. 

A friend said recently, "whether [Christianity] will be remembered as something else is up to the genuinely religious friends I have to ponder. It may have something to do with how these religions get filtered when you have a democratic mass."