A New Balance Between Rome and Jerusalem

From the desk of Fjordman on Thu, 2007-06-28 15:30

My post about the impact of Christianity on Western culture generated some interesting comments. Several readers stated that Christianity is flexible, unlike Islam, and that the United States, perhaps still the most devoutly Christian of Western nations, also has the most dynamic military forces. And it was the Americans who dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which hardly indicates that Christians have to be soft.

The blogger Vanishing American says she can’t count the number of Internet discussions she has seen blaming the “Camp of the Saints” invasion of the West on the feminizing impact of Christianity. She should note that The Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail does indeed describe how Christian leaders and bishops are at the forefront of surrendering Europe in the name of compassion, and this really is happening. Moreover, she says that “I cannot see how Christianity has been capable of instilling guilt in Europeans long after they have stopped believing in Christianity.”

This is an inaccurate view of the situation. Although some of the destructive ideas I mentioned earlier are not always directly related to Christianity, they have adopted certain aspects of Christianity or at least ideas derived from Christian cosmology. However, they have upset the balance, and the resulting secularized religions have become caricatures of the original, sometimes highly dangerous ones. These post-Christian political religions believe in human perfectibility. That sounds like an attractive proposition, but its track record shows that this ideal has caused a lot of pain in real life.

Some observers are aware of the fact that notions such as human rights are ultimately based in Christianity. I don’t always agree with the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who does have some quirky ideas, but he is right when he says that “Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.”

If we assume that Christian anti-Semitism is partly a reflection of a Christian Oedipus complex vis-à-vis its parent religion, Judaism, which is a plausible hypothesis, this opens up new perspectives on the hatred directed against Christianity by Multicultural, post-Christian Westerners. Since their creeds are secularized versions of Christian ideas, Christianity without Christ, some of them hate their parent religion, this outmoded and abrogated creed that still dares to exist.

According to Vanishing American, “Truly, liberalism in general, even the extreme secular brand of liberalism, is a sort of counterfeit Christianity. This has been pointed out many times. Karl Marx, the son of a Christian convert, was a nonbeliever, but whether consciously or not, the system he fathered was a parody of Christianity. Instead of looking to a kingdom not of this world, Marxism and its offshoots proposed to create a heaven on earth.” She also quotes scholar James Kurth, who has called the deformation of Christianity behind Multiculturalism “Protestantism without God.”

I’ve seen this claim before, that Multiculturalism is tied to Protestant culture. There could be some truth in this, but the Catholic Church is also infected by this problem, and it has other challenges in that it is a bureaucratic institution that is first and foremost looking after its own interests. Since it is demographically speaking increasingly based in developing countries, it more and more resembles a Christian version of the United Nations. Although I would welcome it, I therefore question the Church’s ability to defend the West.

I understand what blogger Conservative Swede means when he talks about European rather than Western civilization. When speaking about the West, we tend to include Protestants and Catholics, but not eastern, Orthodox Christians. But since the Roman Catholic Church is becoming one large religious NGO, it is increasingly difficult to say that it represents the West. As a Western European, I have more in common with a Serb or Bulgarian Orthodox than I have with a Catholic from Bolivia or a Protestant from Botswana.

As I’ve demonstrated elsewhere, cultural relativism in the West can be traced back at least to the Enlightenment, perhaps to the Age of Exploration in the 16th century. However, there are even those who would claim to that its seeds date back prior to the Reformation. Humanists of the fifteenth century championed cultural criticism and presented their audience with a choice between a powerful past in ancient Italy and a corrupt and divided present. The most extreme strands of humanist thought led in the direction of repudiating Christianity altogether, and were personified by Machiavelli, who relied almost solely on Rome, very little on Jerusalem.

The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism by Jill Kraye explains it this way:

Their intimate knowledge of another culture, their habit of comparing that culture with their own age, their realism and their habit of arguing both sides of a question led in the end to an incipient form of cultural relativism. This is perhaps most obvious in the writings of the late humanist writer Michel de Montaigne, but signs of it can already be found in Petrarch. A major lesson of cultural relativism, of course, is that what one is in the habit of thinking of as a given of nature may in fact be a product of culture. And what belongs to culture, not nature, is within human power to change. Applied to the sphere of high culture, the will to reject tradition and embrace change can lead to a Renaissance; applied to the political sphere, it can lead to a Utopia.

The writer Paul Gottfried says that Multiculturalism “travels in the baggage of the American empire, as was evident during the unprovoked attack on Serbia.” I agree with that. As a fully mature developed ideology it was exported from the USA, which acted as the Multicultural Empire in the case of Serbia in 1999, an ideological war to uphold Multicultural orthodoxy.

Gottfried also warns against a secular or Multicultural theocracy. He continues: “Mass democracy is a term used to describe a government that rules in the name of the ‘people’ but is highly centralized and operates increasingly without an ethnic-cultural core. It is a bureaucratic empire that distributes political favors and provides a minimal level of physical protection but is no longer capable of or interested in practicing self-government. (...) What happened is that, contrary to what nineteenth-century critics of democracy believed, universal suffrage and urbanization did not lead to the outbreak of anarchy and violent expropriation. Rather the people voted to hand over power to ‘public administrators’ and more recently in the U.S. judges, who became the agents for practicing democracy on our behalf. Democracy was not equated with meaningful self-rule but with being socialized by administrators, who taught us ‘equality’ and later, pluralism and multiculturalism. That mass democratic regime has turned progressively therapeutic, with the advent of the cult of victims and the degeneration of Christianity into a purveyor of the politics of guilt.”

James Kurth calls this the “Protestant deformation,” which has paved the way for Multiculturalism. According to Gottfried, “At the heart of the problem is the transformation of justified spiritual guilt into social guilt and the Protestant focus on the individual into a rejection of membership in a shared civilization that needs to be preserved.”

But this confirms what I have said earlier. Our guilt complex does have its roots in Christianity, but it has been transformed into something else. Christianity believes in sin, but it also believes in forgiveness and redemption. According to the new post-Christian creed, we are told to feel vaguely guilty all the time for some unnamed sins. This makes us weak to resist attacks from outside because we will always feel that any act of aggression is justified. This guilt complex is destroying us, leaving us mentally disarmed in front of every enemy. Unlike in Christianity, where Christ sacrificed himself to wash away your sins, in this new Christianity without Christ, there is no possibility of redemption. And since it’s unbearable for us to live with this guilt for real or perceived past sins (again, a secularized version of the Christian concept of original sin), the only way we can free ourselves of this sin is to rid ourselves of our culture and everything that makes us “us.” We thus end up sacrificing ourselves. This secularized, post-Christian version of Christianity clearly isn’t sustainable. If left unchanged it will leave us powerless in front of Islam, and we will lose.

I’ve stated that post-Christian ideologies, arguably even Marxism, have expropriated ideas derived from Christian cosmology. However, they have been highly selective in which elements to use and which to discard. Christians believe in right and wrong, good and evil, something which Multiculturalists do not, except perhaps racism and discrimination, which are the only sins and one for which there can be no forgiveness. They have rejected crucial components of Christianity. Likewise, Socialists tend to view criminals as misguided individuals, at best in need of proper ideological guidance by Leftist social engineers, at worst as victims of society that should get an apology from us. They don’t believe in evil, except perhaps in those who reject their ideological guidance and wisdom.

Marxists substituted God as the engine of history with the impersonal forces of class struggle, but their religion contains no afterlife. The reasons why Marxists find it easier to accept Islam than Christianity is first of all because they can continue their hatred for traditional Western culture under a different garb, but second of all because Islam, with its sharia and its desire to regulate all aspects of society in minute detail, has stronger emphasis on establishing its Paradise in this life as well, as opposed to Christianity.

By claiming that post-Christian ideologies have adopted elements of Christian thought I am in no way implying that they are in any sense identical to Christianity, just as a kidney transplant from one individual to another doesn’t make the two bodies identical. It could be useful to think of them as a sort of ideological Frankenstein monster made up of haphazard combination of body part from a variety of sources, some of which in post-Christian Europe happen to be from the newly slain corpse of Christianity. Seeing the number of dead corpses in Socialist regimes, one could argue that the religion of Marxism more closely resembles the religion of the Aztecs, with its human sacrifice, than Christianity.

Michael W. Perry, author of the book Untangling Tolkien, left a blog comment stating that during the 20th century, a simplistic, moralistic pacifism replaced the Christian belief that, given the sinful nature of humanity, just wars were necessary. That’s why medieval Europe knew it had to fight Islamic invasions, while modern, secular Europe does not. One of the bloodiest naval battles in history was the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, fought to keep the Ottoman Empire from invading Italy and turning St. Peter’s in Rome into a mosque.

In the view of Mr. Perry, “it’s not Christian virtues that weaken Europe, it’s the warped continuation of some of those virtues in the total absence of others, particularly a deep and pervading sense of the nature of evil that means that it often can’t be fought by words, international institutions, or diplomacy. (...) Historically, Western Christianity benefited from the way it spread. Contact with Greek thought awakened it to ideas that Jews rarely wrestled with. Contact with Rome taught it how to deal with large, complex, cosmopolitan societies using structured government and the rule of law. (Israel had been small and agricultural.) And finally, contact with the heroic in Northern Europe helped to teach it individualism and the necessity to fight for freedom. You see that in Tolkien, who was devoutly Catholic.”

Tolkien was a deeply Western writer. Being a linguist by profession, he was fascinated with the languages of the Celtic tribes of the British Isles, especially Welsh, but also with Finnish, a non-Indo-European language radically different from the other tongues he was familiar with, and with the Kalevala, the national epos of Finland. He was preoccupied with the period of British history in between the downfall of Roman rule in the province of Britannia in the 5th century and the Norman Conquest in the 11th century. During the Migration Period, Germanic tribes from the east moved into Britain in large numbers. The epic poem Beowulf, to which Tolkien devoted considerable time, describes this culture in the 8th and 9th century at a time when Christianity was spreading, and mentions tribes from today’s Sweden and Denmark. The Kingdom of Rohan in The Lord of the Rings is clearly inspired by this Anglo-Saxon culture and its Scandinavian roots.

The names of characters such as Gandalf the wizard may be derived from Scandinavian examples, for instance the Saga of Halfdan the Black, who married Ragnhild, daughter of Harald Goldbeard, and fought against King Gandalf. Together they produced a son, Harald, who succeeded Halfdan as ruler around 860 and later earned the nickname Harald Fairhair. Following a rejected marriage proposal, he took a vow not to cut his hair until he was sole king of the entire country. He is traditionally regarded as Norway’s first national king. His successor Erik Bloodaxe later killed his brothers to get rid of rivals. This according to Heimskringla, the tales about Norwegian kings recorded by Icelandic writer Snorri Sturluson.

One highly interesting legacy from the Roman era is the border between England, which along with Wales was a part of the Empire, and Scotland, which was not. This border has remained more or less stable for two thousand years. Hadrian’s Wall in northern England was built by emperor Hadrian in AD 122 after his predecessor Trajan had conquered so many new territories, making the Empire reach its greatest territorial extent, that his successor needed to consolidate Roman rule. The intersection between Roman, Christian and Germanic influences had a decisive impact on the histories of England, France and Germany, respectively.

The Frankish ruler Charles Martel, after beating back the Muslim invasion at the Battle of Tours in 732, founded the Carolingian Empire, which bears his Latin name: Carolus. He also laid the foundations for the feudal system, and thus shaped much of the Middle Ages. His grandson Charlemagne was crowned Emperor in the year 800 by the Pope. The Carolingian Empire, which was a deliberate attempt to revive the Roman Empire in the West, at this point encompassed France, Germany and much of Central Europe plus Italy down to Rome, but was divided into three parts in 843. The eastern third, with its heartland in today’s Germany, later became known as the Holy Roman Empire and lasted for another thousand years, one way or the other. This is somewhat ironic, given that most of Germany was never included in the original Roman Empire. After Roman forces were massacred by Germanic tribes at the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest year 9 A.D., the Romans never again made any serious attempts to conquer the lands north of the Rhine.

In England and France, the memory of centuries under centralized Roman rule never totally disappeared, which could help explain why the English and the French managed to create unified states in the Middle Ages while Germany wasn’t unified until Bismarck in the late 19th century. This could arguably be due to geography as well in the case of England, but it is more difficult to explain why France and Germany, both part of the Carolingian Empire, went their separate ways without taking the Roman legacy into account.

The unity of Germany was also upset by a religious conflict in the 11th and 12th centuries, at a time when the papacy asserted its power. Pope Urban II initiated the First Crusade in 1095. The Investiture Controversy, regarding who should have the right to appoint church officials, broke the authority of the German king. The Thirty Years’ War in the 17th century left the Empire further in shambles. Thereafter, it existed in name only. In the play Faust, written at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, the German author Goethe briefly mocked its powerlessness, but the Empire wasn’t formally abolished until the Napoleonic Wars. Following Germanic traditions, the Emperors had to be elected and gave concessions in order to win favors, which weakened their authority. Still, some families such as the House of Habsburg dominated the list of emperors for centuries. They also dominated the successor to the Holy Roman Empire, the Austrian Empire, which later merged into the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary until it was dissolved after World War I.

As these examples show, the memory and the legacy of Rome never quite left us, even into the modern age. Islam became a world religion by creating an empire though war. Christianity became a world religion by being born into and growing within an already established empire, the Roman Empire. Christianity was influenced by Roman civilization from the very beginning and would probably have been impossible without it. I do see potential problems with Christianity as such. Yet since it is flexible, it is colored by what other impulses it is combined with, which is why I do not agree with those who say that we have to get rid of Christianity in order to survive. Realistically though, it contains potential flaws that need to be contained by adherence to nations and by balancing them out with emphasis not only on Greek logic, but also Roman strategic skills.

The West has always been a composite civilization, comprised of a complicated mix of different impulses. We will need all of them to survive. Relaying on just one isn’t enough. We need both Rome and Jerusalem, both the Greco-Roman and the Judeo-Christian strands of the West, but maybe we need to strike a new balance between the two. The crucial question is whether Christianity, at least in Western Europe, has already been so weakened and discredited that it has been removed as a significant factor.

P.S.: Regarding civilizations and religion, China also provides an interesting example. According to scholar Thomas T. Allsen, “In addition to the commercial goods, mainly silk, coming west, many cultural wares, from folklore motifs to alphabets and religions, moved eastward. Almost all of the major religious movements originating in the Middle East — Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Manichaeanism, and Islam — reached China, while Chinese ideological systems made no inroads in the West. This intriguing and persistent pattern, which has never been explained, was apparently established quite early.”

As Allsen points out, too often we “equate political and economic superiority with cultural dominance. There are many examples to the contrary. As Braudel points out, England emerged in the eighteenth century as the premier political power but France retained and even extended its cultural influence. This is true of Roman cultural reliance on the Greeks and the Achaemenid [Persian] dependence on Mesopotamia. Consequently, it is no anomaly that the Mongols of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries were certainly dominant in the political and military spheres but hardly in the cultural.”

China, despite having a reputation as a proud civilization, has historically proved more willing to accept non-Chinese religions than vice versa. Christianity isn’t native to Europe either, it came from the Middle East. But at least it was a part of the same empire and political entity at that time, so it was still a “Roman” religion. Buddhism was not in any way native to China. Silk was known to Julius Caesar, and the silk trade with Rome grew rapidly from the reign of Augustus. Chinese trade with Iran and India had been established much earlier. Yet despite the popularity of Chinese goods, and despite the fact that China is one of the oldest continuous civilizations on earth, and for several thousand years also was one of the wealthiest and most technically advanced, its religions and philosophies never had a large impact outside of East Asia.

Why? I don’t know, but it’s an intriguing question.

In Reply to MarcFrans, Part II

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Sat, 2007-07-07 05:35.

MarcFrans: "I am not Christian in a narrow denominational sense, only in a broad cultural sense."

Translation: I am not a Christian. There is no broad Christian culture to speak of. Different denominations are effectively different schools of interpretation, to which a Christian belongs unless he or she interprets the Bible differently and founds his or her own school. Western civilization is not purely Christian. There are non-Christian Westerners and non-Western Christians. One can, however, be a secular Jew or Muslim because of the ethnic affinities that are intertwined with those two faiths.

MarcFrans: "But I do know that genuine 'religious' Christians will say that Jesus gets crucified every day AGAIN by all sorts of people!"

If you're not "genuine" yourself (as if there's any other kind), how would you know?

In Reply to MarcFrans, Part I

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Sat, 2007-07-07 05:31.

MarcFrans: "With his [mine apparently] explicit racism, legalistic-type of nitpicking, and parsing of singular specific sentences, he wouldn't have been amiss in the Sanhedrin itself."

 

I fail to understand the relevance of accusations of racism in the context of religion. Though suggesting that I belong in the "Sanhedrin itself" gives me pause, I must note here that the term is actually a corruption of the Greek Synedrion or council, that formally assembled and had representative and/or judicial functions in the city-states. That this term is wielded as an insult suggests to me that you in fact harbor some sort of anti-Semitism due in large part to the crucifixion itself. The unfortunate part is that Christianity required Jesus' martyrdom for its very existence and continuation through the centuries.

 

MarcFrans: "While the Kapitein and I agree on many 'details' of history, and disagree on some others, you both have great difficulty in being able to see the big picture."

 

Which is? 

 

MarcFrans: "But, of course, in a distant sense, Marx also came out of the jewish (argumentative) tradition, since he is very much part of western civilisation (and its judeo-christian roots)."

 

Western civilization has Christian, Greco-Roman and Germanic roots. Period. The Jews were a minority forced to reside within European territories and were thus imbued with European rather than Levantine culture, to some extent. Given their relatively small numbers, lack of political, military and legal power, and general isolation from Christians, European Jewry was largely on the receiving end of cultural influence.* Indeed, the influence of the Celts on Western civilization is probably greater given their larger numbers, infusion of Christianity with pagan traditions and Irish monasticism's importance to the three medieval revivals of learning (Northumbrian, Carolingian and Italian) and to the spread of Christianity as Germany was mainly converted by Irish missionaries.

 

Marxian theory could be in part influenced by Judaism, but because it merely builds upon egalitarianism, a product of Christianity and the Greco-Roman tradition that emerged during the Enlightenment, Marx could have simply been influenced by the milieu around him. In all likelihood, his basis for egalitarianism is ultimately a Christian one, especially as Christianity had the universal cosmopolitanism necessary to "unite the workers," whereas the Jewish basis for egalitarianism was decidedly ethnocentric.

 

MarcFrans: "You [Yitzhak] are simply hung up on the words 'offshoot' and 'outgrowth'."

 

Every religion is technically-speaking an "offshoot" or "outgrowth," and simultaneously different. Either academics begin to use terms such as Judeo-Zoroastarianism, Anglo-Catholic, Menno-Lutheran, Luddo-Calvinist, Judeo-Islamic, Abhrahamic, Bhuddo-Hindu, etc., as frequently as Judeo-Christian, or they should dispense with these politically expedient hyphenated terms.

 

MarcFrans: "Neither your assertions, nor the Kapitein's nitpicking, can take away the fact that it was the Sanhedrin that tried Jesus and that wanted him crucified and dead."

 

The Sanhedrin did not have the authority to place Jesus Christ on trial for his life. Moreover, he was tried by the Roman authorities, and in particular by Pontius Pilate, at which point we was crucified by the Romans at the behest of the Roman governor and died, irrespective of the opinions of Jewish elders.

 

MarcFrans: "Frankly, in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't matter at all whether it was "the Jews" or "the Romans" or whoever who crucified Jesus."

 

It does to you. Certainly the Jewish elders pressured the Roman authorities into trying and executing Jesus, however, it was the Romans' decision in the final analysis.

The big picture, please

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2007-07-06 14:50.

@ Yitzhak

If you think that the Kapitein "has covered everything" you only confirm how shallow your thinking really is.  With his explicit racism, legalistic-type of nitpicking, and parsing of singular specific sentences, he wouldn't have been amiss in the Sanhedrin itself.  While the Kapitein and I agree on many 'details' of history, and disagree on some others, you both have great difficulty in being able to see the big picture.

In the early part of our discussion I focused on the simple historical fact that christianity came out of the jewish religious tradition.  Besides the obvious fact that jesus was a jew, who got into trouble with the (jewish)  religious establishment of his time, the best proof resides in the role that the old (jewish) Testament plays in christianity.  Your comparison with Marx is faulty, because we are talking here about the religious foundations of morality and life, not about narrow secular political theories.  But, of course, in a distant sense, Marx also came out of the jewish (argumentative) tradition, since he is very much part of western civilisation (and its judeo-christian roots).  How often do I have to repeat that judaism and christianity are different religions, and how often are you going to assert that jesus "rejected jewish way of life"?  He certainly rejected A (particular) jewish way of life, but he stood very much in the jewish tradition.  You are simply hung up on the words "offshoot" and "outgrowth".  But, if you want to keep on denying the obvious, go ahead.  

My most recent response was to your assertion that it was "the Romans who crucified Jesus".  Yes, and my response is (1) ONLY the Romans could crucify anybody under those particular circumstances, and (2) that they did this at the behest of the Sanhedrin.   Neither your assertions, nor the Kapitein's nitpicking, can take away the fact that it was the Sanhedrin that tried Jesus and that wanted him crucified and dead.

Frankly, in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't matter at all whether it was "the Jews" or "the Romans" or whoever who crucified Jesus.    I am not a Christian in a narrow denominational sense, only in a broad cultural sense.  But I do know that genuine 'religious' Christians will say that Jesus gets crucified every day AGAIN by all sorts of people!     

@marcfrans

Submitted by Yitzhak on Fri, 2007-07-06 12:24.

Ok I think Kapitein had covered pretty much everything. Now whatever Sanhedrin did or didn’t do was thousands years ago. Lets just take a closer look at you labeling people.

Yes there is no shortage of people in this world who just hate Israel and US Europe etc…for example people in Arab world etc…. calling them Anti-American or Anti-Israel won’t make any difference so why bother?? Then we have westerns who just don’t like government etc…or fed up with system.etc or whatever reason shutting them off labeling them something is not helpful. I don’t like labeling people coz that’s totalitarian tactic. Now people like you and your fellow bandwagon riders are using same tactic where everything is divided in two camps either you are cheerlead every American Israel action crowd or if one disagree with your opinions he/she belongs to Anti-Israel Anti-American Islamofascist appeasing crowd. 

Now if I don’t join your cheerleading every American Israel action crowd doesn’t mean shallow thinking. You are blaming me and confined to personal attacks coz I refuse to accept like Majority of Jews your Interpretation of Jewish History.

Father of Communism Karl Marx was a Jew does that mean Communism is offshoot of Judaism? Ridiculous. Judaism and Christianity are two different ways of life. Jesus rejected Jewish way of life.

In Response

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Fri, 2007-07-06 08:23.

MarcFrans: "And can you answer the question as to WHY "the Romans" did that? [crucified Jesus]...it was the Roman Governor who had ultimate authority over such matters. Only the Roman authority was 'allowed' to crucify ANYBODY in those parts."

 

Spot on.

 

MarcFrans: "Since Jesus did not question Roman authority over 'wordly' matters, he was no problem for Rome."

 

Au contraire...Judea was a very restive province of the Imperium Romanum and the legions had already crushed several rebellions before the emergence of Christ as a powerful spiritual and political figure. Indeed, Jesus was regarded as merely one of many rebel rousers that were dealt with by the Roman authorities before they could mobilize the Jews for another uprising. Furthermore, Jesus brought about his own demise by failing to deny that he was 'king of the Jews' and by failing to acknowledge the supremacy of the Emperor. He was a problem for Rome. Alternative Biblical interpretations regard Judas Iscariot as secretly acting on Jesus' instructions in order to enable Jesus to confront Rome on his own terms. Mel Gibson's Passion is inaccurate because it: (a) depicted the Jews providing Judas with the thirty pieces of silver, when in fact it would have been the Romans; and (b) highlighted the payment, when this was the standard reward for such information offered by the Roman authorities.

 

MarcFrans: "No, he questioned someone else's 'authority', and they made sure that the Romans did the dirty deed. So, if the religious establishment (let's call them the Sanhedrin**) wanted to get rid of someone, how do you think they went about doing that? Are you smart enough to fathom that?"

 

Partial agreement here, and only because had Jesus Christ been allowed to continue his 'heresy' under Roman 'protection' (due to the latter's monopoly on execution), the Sanhedrin may have sparked an insurrection.

 

MarcFrans: "Now, Yitzhak, perhaps you can see that the old-jewish Sanhedrin-style of government shows a lot of similarities with today's Ayathollah regime in Iran."

 

So did early Eastern Orthodox Christianity due to its continuation of the Roman tradition of Caesaro-Papism. Indeed, there were countless Protestant and Catholic Prince-Bishoprics throughout the Middle Ages, not to mention the Papacy, Holy Roman Empire (Carolingian and German), and England after Henry VIII's break with Rome. Furthermore, the Imperium Romanum itself was arguably a theocracy given the personality cult that surrounded the Caesar, as were numerous Greek and Etruscan city-states, and Celtic, Teutonic, Balto-Slavic and Finno-Ugrian tribes, in which religion/spirituality/animism were central.

 

MarcFrans: "Unfortunately, today there are no Romans left to restrain them."

 

Unless your ancestors are descended directly from the city of Rome or had no contact with the Imperium, that is an ignorant comment. I fall in the latter camp, but all the same this is not the first time you have romanticized (no pun intended) Romanitas, indicating a support for order over chaos rather than for the small European nation-state. You seem to favor empires rather than nation-states, however, the West is no such entity...

 

MarcFrans: "But, rest assured, I do not blame "the jews", nor the Romans, for what happened 2000 years ago."

 

How enlightened of you.

 

Yitzhak: "Here we go again if you can just refresh your memory maybe you can remember it was Romans not Jews who crucified Jesus."

 

'nuff said. 

Absolutely silly

Submitted by marcfrans on Thu, 2007-07-05 17:23.

@ Yitzhak

 

And can you answer the question as to WHY "the Romans" did that?   I suspect that you could if you wanted to, but do you possess the intellectual honesty to even raise the question?

Furthermore, since Judea etc...was then part of the Roman empire, it was the Roman Governor who had ultimate authority over such matters.  Only the Roman authority was 'allowed' to crucify ANYBODY in those parts.  Since Jesus did not question Roman authority over 'wordly' matters, he was no problem for Rome.  No, he questioned someone else's 'authority', and they made sure that the Romans did the dirty deed.  So, if the religious establishment (let's call them the Sanhedrin**) wanted to get rid of someone, how do you think they went about doing that?   Are you smart enough to fathom that?

(**) Sanhedrin is an Aramaic transcription of the Greek synedrion, meaning "council".  It was the body that governed the Jewish nation over two millenia ago.  Its power was determined by the Roman government. The full Sanhedrin consisted of 70 chief priests, scribes (experts in Jewish law), and elders (prominent Jewish laymen).  Christ was tried by the Sanhedrin before being brought to Pilate.   

Now, Yitzhak, perhaps you can see that the old-jewish Sanhedrin-style of government shows a lot of similarities with today's Ayathollah regime in Iran.  Unfortunately, today there are no Romans left to restrain them.   But, rest assured, I do not blame "the jews", nor the Romans, for what happened 2000 years ago.   But I do blame you for shallow thinking and for falling pray to fashionable absurd opinions of the day.   I repeat "the only thing more foolish than calling a Jew Anti-Israeli & Anti-American would be to deny that such phenomena exist all around us..."   

@logicalman

Submitted by Yitzhak on Thu, 2007-07-05 15:14.

Here we go again if you can just refresh your memory maybe you can remember it was Romans not Jews who crucified Jesus.  

@logicalman

Submitted by Yitzhak on Wed, 2007-07-04 17:54.

So you are admitting Jesus rejected Teachings of Torah & Talmud….

Jesus fulfilled the Torah

Submitted by logicalman on Wed, 2007-07-04 20:11.

but rejected the Talmud.

His knowledge of the Torah is better than that of the rabbis. He explained to the Jews the spirit of the Law whose meaning was ruined for a long time the religious leaders who have been "supplementing" it with their interpretations, which are written down and form the Talmud.

When Jesus was only 12, he discussed the Law with the priests who were astonished by his knowledge and understanding of the Law. And after his symbolic baptism by John the baptizer when he was 29, he spent his time as God's spokesman and witness. Most Jews and especially the religious leaders rejected him and finally plotted to have him killed as a criminal.

@logicalman

Submitted by Yitzhak on Wed, 2007-07-04 13:22.

 

I have nothing against Christianity or Christians. I am just pointing using Judeo-Christian term in religious context is Misleading & not realistic.

@marcfrans

Submitted by Yitzhak on Wed, 2007-07-04 13:00.

Its totalitarian tactic labeling people who don’t agree with your point of view instead of any meaning full debate you are confined to finger pointing and personality attack.  Common sense tells me that we should not fall in to fantasy world.

Now if you can get off from your fantasy land express and pay some attention to reality and facts you might understands things

Jesus was a Jews no one is denying that but an action of one Jew doesn’t mean his actions originated from Judaism. In reality Jesus absolutely rejected Jewish way of life.  1392 in Poland son of a Rabbi Claimed he is Messiah and started some kind of movement does that mean his movement was out growth of Judaism? No absolutely not. Most of Koranic Text is copied from Old and New Testaments   does that mean origin of Islamofascism are in Judaism and Christianity? NO ABSOLUTELY NOT. Judaism is not just a religion it’s a way of life.  You can not just reject teachings of Torah and Talmud and claimed to be offshoot of same teachings you are rejecting. Your portrayal of Judaism and Christianity “Split” is fundamentally and historically absurd.

Ok let’s just say you are right and Christianity is offshoot of Judaism that means Christianity accepts the legitimacy of Jewish beliefs and Jewish way of life right then why Jews were forced to convert to Christianity in past and even to this days church’s are actively converting Jews(not by force thou). Why should we abandon Jewish way of life and adopt Christian way of life?

Judaism

Submitted by logicalman on Wed, 2007-07-04 15:55.

Yitzhak: "Why should we abandon Jewish way of life and adopt Christian way of life?"

That is certainly a personal choice, not the best choice, but still a choice.

Given Jesus' track record, i.e. a very wise person, one would take his teachings very seriously, meditate upon each and all of them, and make the decision to adopt them or not. Again it's a personal choice. Some people are drawn to God (and Jesus), many are not.

It's one thing to know and understand what a religion is and stands for, it's another thing to follow it. We must all use our power of reasoning and keep discerning.

Apparently the Talmud is full of regulations about everyday life. Are they justifiable, necessary, and beneficial? Are they divinely inspired, or as Jesus stated, just mere commandments of men (the rabbis and learned men). While Joshua wrote that parents are to inculcate their children God's law and read them in an undertone day and night, is it beneficial to do that with men's laws?

I'd like to cite a banal but real example about men's law: in California, a driver is to come to a complete stop at a STOP sign. The idea of that law is to reduce accidents. But cops will pass out tickets to those drivers whom they catch not coming to a complete stop, even when no accident occurs. So that law is just a way for cops to raise money for the state of California, in reality. I personally never have an accident the last few decades, but I did get some STOP tickets when I didn't do a complete stop at a T intersection where visibility is 100% due to the soccer field. Well every time I hit that intersection that has only occasional car from the side street, I curse the cops and such law makers, and of course watch for presence of cop. Tens of thousands of useless and gas-wasting stops just for making it safe for about 20 cars a day from the side street to get into the major street.

Many laws in the Talmud are similar to the above traffic law. Completely unnecessary and really meaningless toward the Jews' worship of their God. Why, the can't even fulfill the 613 Mosaic laws, yet their learned men and rabbis heap thousands more on them, and call that a way of life. Devote Jews would try to follow them as much as they can but is that what God command them to do?

Well many Jews I know, even though they go to synagogue a few times a years, don't study the Talmud let alone practicing it. Are they good Jews? Not from religious sense, while they could be good human beings.

Most religions are used as convenient labels, by themselves or by journalists and writers. They have little influence in people's life (except Islam, which is a religio-political system of enslavement and control of people) Godly devotion is much different from that.

Bonkers !!!

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2007-07-03 12:34.

"As I've demonstrated elsewhere,cultural relativism in the West can be traced back at least to the Enlightenment...".

 

And,as Cherie Blair demonstrates here,the more "enlightened" the cultural relativist becomes,the more "bonkers" they appear to those of us who totally reject this arrant nonsense:

 

Visit: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live femail/article.html?in_article_id=465798&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490

 

Title: Is Cherie Blair misunderstood or bonkers?

Once upon a time in the Middle - East

Submitted by Jari on Tue, 2007-07-03 13:52.

One characteristic that distinguishes Western culture from other cultures, is that it's system of belief (Christianity as interpreted from the bible) lacks a great deal of reference to the history and geography of the Western world.

This might have been an important premise to modernity, enabling Westerners (and even Christians) to distance themselves from ethnic and other situational sentiments, which are likely to cloud discussions that are somehow related to these sentiments.

It could be one of the explanations why Jewish people (and I have met quite a few) without exception, seem to display a troubled vision on these subjects.

And please stop referring to the holocaust Yitzhak, because we are already aware of it.

In Reply to Yitzhak

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2007-07-03 06:25.

Yitzhak: "...almost every nation in Western world opens its door to Jewish people from anywhere."

 

Almost every Western state is currently pursuing policies of multiculturalism and political correctness, influenced significantly by the legacy of the Holocaust, and the Shoah in particular. Additionally, these states are nations in the civic sense, in that their political establishments have largely abandoned traditional nationalism based upon a homogenous nation or ethnic group e.g. British v. English, etc. A resurgence of ethnic nationalism in the West would have adverse consequences for Muslims first and foremost, however, Jews would suffer from a 'trickle-down' effect, although they might not be at the top of the ethnic cleansing food chain.

 

Yitzhak: "Case in point Germany after WWII just very few Jews were left in Germany but today we have more then half million living in Germany. Few months ago a poll in Israel showed 65% of Israeli would like to live in Germany."

 

Even a greater number of Palestinians would like to do likewise. Though I am suspicious of conspiracy theories surrounding 'Judeo-Polonia,' I believe that much of world Jewry would have preferred establishing a Jewish state in East-Central Europe as opposed to the Levant for obvious economic, military and cultural reasons.

 

Yitzhak: "Most of them are from Eastern Europe do you think Germany would tell them to go to Israel coz they got homeland in Israel?"

 

Wasn't that why Israel was created?

 

Postmodern chatter # 4

Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2007-07-02 16:49.

The false 'strawmen' are all around us.

 

@ Amsterdamsky

So, from your "examples" it would seem that you measure religious "devotion" by:

-- by the presence or absence of the availability of "legal abortion", not by the actual incidence of abortion.   

--  by the degree of enforcement of "separation of church and state", the implication being that "religious devotion" is something that could be imposed by the state.  How quaint!  In your 'world', religion seems to be something that can only be imposed, which suggests that you only know a caricature of it.

Moreover, you seem to think that the presence of "blasphemy laws" would be an indication of religious "devotion", instead of being an indication of an intolerant (political) attitude, and despite the fact that true religion teaches that 'salvation' must rest on free choice or free will, not on imposition by anyone.  You don't think that contemporary laws criminalising 'negationism, 'racism', selective 'insults' etc... are not a postmodernistic type of  secular "blaspemy laws"?   How blind can one be?  Could they, too, be "religious" in nature?

You even seem to think that catholic-church-run schools" are more "backward" than schools run by public-sector trade-unions of teachers.  And this coming from someone who claims to know something about the cultural 'devastation' in Detroit and California in recent decades!  Empirical observation is obviously not your strength, but a shallow version of libertarian ideology certainly is.

@ Yitzhak 

The only thing "more foolish than calling a Jew Anti-Israel & Anti-American", would be to deny that such phenomena exist all around us, at least in western civilisation.  Shall we start with Noam Chomsky, and go on from there....... You seem to be unaware that the most distinctive (and distinguishing!) characteristic of western civilisation, compared with other civilisations, is its ability to be self-critical, and its tolerance for 'aberrations' of perverse self-hatred.  Indeed, in its later (current) decadent stage that seems to have become a dominant characteristic.

In a way you live in the past, and keep fighting the battles of the past, which prevents you from applying common sense to the present.  How else can one explain your determination to deny the historical fact that christianity is an offshoot or an outgrowth of the jewish religious tradition?    Once again, christianity and judaism are different religions, and it's quite all right to think of the historical jesus as a 'reaction' to a certain kind of legalistic judaism.  But that is just one interpretation of this 'split'.  Similarly, one could come up with numerous interpretations of the protestant 'split' with the catholic church, but numerous protestant churches are offshoots of the 'christian tradition'.  Dont' get hung up on specific words.    

Look, do you think that western woman are not western because they were culturally and politically 'suppressed' in past centuries?  Or, do you think that Germany is any less 'European' because in the 20th century it tried to destroy other European nations, etc... So what is the relevance here of your (valid) complaint about past Christian oppression of jews?  

    

Friends of Israel????

Submitted by Yitzhak on Mon, 2007-07-02 12:37.

MITZVOT are foundation of Judaism. I don’t understand why ya’ll are not willing to accept reality. Yes Jesus was a Jew talk like Jews argue with other Jews used Jewish vocabulary but that doesn’t mean he accepted Jewish way of life. Why is it so hard to accept a simple realistic fact that Jesus broke away from Judaism? He refuses to accept Jewish way of life and chose or started Christian way of life. Judaism is not just some set of beliefs it’s a way of life. Practically specking how many Church’s are fulfilling Mitzvoth’s? If they don’t disown the Torah then why don’t they follow Teachings of Torah and Talmud? New Testament is not reformed version of Torah its absolutely different. It might be shocking for you that Islam commands its followers to accept Bible and Torah’s teachings. Anyway these are theological and religious arguments without any practicality. 

Christianity, Judaism and Islam are 3 very different ways of life there probably are some similarities but that doesn’t make em offshoot or outgrowth. If Christianity is offshoot or reformed version of Judaism then why I am still going to Synagogue and not to a Christian Church? Why Christians demonized Jews throughout history? And still fundamental Christian belief is Jews will convert to Christianity after Jesus’ return why? If Christianity if offshoot or outgrowth of Judaism why this conversions?

Rocket science is not required to understand what I had wrote read that again. And don’t spin it.  Now about Judeo-Christian term you assumed whatever would fit in your little fantasyland and jump on bandwagon. This totalitarian tactic of labeling difference of opinion as “Anti-Americanism, Anti-Israel” is absolute hypocrisy. What happened to Judeo-Christian Brotherhood when millions Jews were being slaughtered in Spain during inquisitions? I just can never forget what happened at Holocaust. Yeah lets look at through Cultural Historical perspective. No sane Jew would ever forget the History. Should I start from 312AD or would you mind enlightening us on ridiculous suspicion? 

People pretending to be friend of Israel in reality are worst enemies of Israel. Cheerleading and being a keyboard warrior is very different then living in Kiryat Shamona watching relatives getting hurt by rockets. What would be more foolish then calling a Jew Anti-Israel & Anti-American?

Mitzvot

Submitted by logicalman on Mon, 2007-07-02 15:39.

= any of the collection of 613 commandments or precepts in the Bible and additional ones of rabbinic origin that relate chiefly to the religious and moral conduct of Jews.

I guessed correctly after all.

Judeo-Christian religions are similar to the extent they're supposed to worship they same God, but in reality they deny the God of the bible in many ways, for example by doing things not approved by Him, such as killing each other in wars.

Judaism is indeed a way of life dictated by thousands of "commandments of men" that actually separate the Jews from the spirit of the Mosaic law. Followers of Christ were called followers of "the way", which is based on Jesus' two simple commandments that embody the spirit of the Torah, but without the minutia of regulations of the Talmud, which define for example what is allowed on the Sabbath and what is not.

Jesus contrasted the spirit of the Law when he cured people of diseases on the Sabbath, and the Pharisees accused him on that count (of doing an unlawful thing)

But seriously, Judeo-Christian countries are giving up on the God of the Bible and most of their people are atheists, not reading or practicing the teachings of the bible.

US not the most devoutly Christian

Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Mon, 2007-07-02 07:22.

"and that the United States, perhaps still the most devoutly Christian of Western nations"

No way. For example:

1) Legal abortion
2) it is illegal to teach intelligent design or creationism in public schools
3) seperation of church and state is pretty well stricly enforced.

Ireland or Greece is far more Christian than the US. Greece still prosecutes for blasphemy and in Ireland the Catholic church actually runs the schools. Incredible and very backwards.

Postmodern chatter # 3

Submitted by marcfrans on Sun, 2007-07-01 22:37.

@ Yitzhak

 

1) Of course, judaism has its own "sources".  Did I claim otherwise?  So why do you start off with the word "Actually", which suggests some (contrived) implied contradiction.  And, of course islam can be "combined" with the other Abrahamic religions.  Did I say otherwise?  No, I did not.  But you seem to have a need to set up 'strawmen'.   The context was the 'roots of western civilisation', and are you now claiming that islam played a big role in that?  Let's be serious.   Also, with your "suspicion" of the use of the term "judeo-christian" as a political device you are simply reflecting the contemporary anti-American and anti-Israeli European media and 'elites'.  However, viewed from a cultural historical perspective, this is a ridiculous suspicion.

2) I used the term "vague" to indicate that pre-christian notions of "liberty, conscience, democracy, human rights" were very different from contemporary western notions of these terms.  While I cannot say much about understandings in ancient Judea, Galilea, etc...reading of any serious historical book on classical Greece and Rome should make that obvious.

3) Of course, christianity is an outgrowth or offshoot of judaism.  Why are you and the Kapitein trying to deny obvious historical facts?  The historical Jesus was a 'jew', talked like a jew, argued with the jews around him, used jewish vocabulary and mythology (messiah etc...), and subsequent christians and their main churches have not 'disowned' the old (jewish) Testament.  Christianity came out of (or originated in) the jewish 'tradition', and not any other religious tradition, and certainly not out of paganism and atheism.  You seem to have a need to assert a greater 'difference' than is warranted.     

@Kapitein Andre

Submitted by Yitzhak on Sun, 2007-07-01 19:32.

Yes Kapitein Israel provides homeland for Jewish people but almost every nation in Western world opens its door to Jewish people from anywhere. Case in point Germany after WWII just very few Jews were left in Germany but today we have more then half million living in Germany. Most of them are from Eastern Europe do you think Germany would tell them to go to Israel coz they got homeland in Israel? Few months ago a poll in Israel showed 65% of Israeli would like to live in Germany.

In Reply to Yitzhak

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Sun, 2007-07-01 17:15.

Yitzhak: "Christianity is not an Offshoot or outgrowth of Judaism.  It’s very misleading to portray Jesus as a “Jewish Rabbi” etc Jesus founded Christian way of life which is very different from Jewish way of life. The early Christians broke away from the Jewish people and stopped...Fulfilling the MITZVOT. They said they have a "new testament” So they didn't keep the real Torah. Christianity effectively broken off any linkage with Judaism by rejecting Torah and MITZVOTS…"

 

Agreed.

 

Yitzhak: "Western Civilization is mixture of different ideologies etc…"

 

Agreed.

Yitzhak: "Israel is a western state not Jewish in reality."

 

It is a Jewish state to the extent that it provides a homeland for the Jewish people, irrespective of whether the state itself operates on a day-to-day basis according to the Jewish philosophy.

Yitzhak: "Judaism is not developed from any Zoroastrian or any Mesopotamian religion. Our religious traditions are unique certainly not copied from some other religion."

 

Incorrect. Though nominal and practicing Jewish pundits regularly comment on the originality of Judaism and its prior invention vis-a-vis Christianity, etc., it is a fact that Judaism's mythology is almost entirely Sumerian in origin and its monotheism is derived from Zoroastarianism. Indeed, many Hebrew religious terms are actually Sumerian in origin, as is being discovered by the examination and translation of tens of thousands of cuneiform tablets that depict the Old Testament.

Christianity Judaism

Submitted by Yitzhak on Sun, 2007-07-01 13:58.

Christianity is not an Offshoot or outgrowth of Judaism.  It’s very misleading to portray Jesus as a “Jewish Rabbi” etc Jesus founded Christian way of life which is very different from Jewish way of life. The early Christians broke away from the Jewish people and stopped

Fulfilling the MITZVOT. They said they have a "new testament” So they didn't keep the real Torah. Christianity effectively broken off any linkage with Judaism by rejecting Torah and MITZVOTS….. Western Civilization is mixture of different ideologies etc…

Indeed term “Judeo Christian” is political. Israel is a western state not Jewish in reality.

Judaism is not developed from any Zoroastrian or any Mesopotamian religion. Our religious traditions are unique certainly not copied from some other religion.

Christianity vs Judaism

Submitted by logicalman on Sun, 2007-07-01 20:34.

Yitzhak: "The early Christians broke away from the Jewish people and stopped fulfilling the MITZVOT".

I'm assuming "Mitzvot" means Mosaic law.

Jesus obviously knows the Hebrew scripture very well. He quoted abundantly from the Torah in his Sermon on the Mount. More importantly, he contrasted the Pharisees' commandments of men vs the spirit of God's law (the Torah) in many instances, and later did not hesitate to call the Pharisees "hypocrites". Example: Mat 5:17:

17 “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take place. 19 Whoever, therefore, breaks one of these least commandments and teaches mankind to that effect, he will be called ‘least’ in relation to the kingdom of the heavens. As for anyone who does them and teaches them, this one will be called ‘great’ in relation to the kingdom of the heavens. 20 For I say to YOU that if YOUR righteousness does not abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, YOU will by no means enter into the kingdom of the heavens.

The problem with Judaism is that the priests added tons of minutia and turned 600 Mosaic laws into something longer than the proposed EU constitution! and therefore kept the priests/rabbbis in full employment interpreting those thousands of meaningless laws, putting huge burden on the people they lorded over. It was already very difficult - basically impossible - to meet all the Mosaic laws, yet the Judaic priests added more and more of their interpretations (men's commands) while leaving the Laws' spirit.

Read Matthew CH 5 with cross references (most of them to Hebrew Scripture) and one can see how deeply Jesus understood the Law. He was the only one able to fulfill the Law.

The Pharisees were called "Offsprings of viper" by Jesus because they were really hypocrites. No wonder they searched to destroy him via false accusations, yet Pilate found nothing wrong with Jesus. However the Jewish mob chose to pardon a criminal instead of Jesus, and demanded killing of him.

In Reply to MarcFrans

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Sun, 2007-07-01 08:34.

MarcFrans: "Yes, judaism and christianity are separate and different religions, but they both played a vital role in the development of western civilisation over the ages...Christianity is an outgrowth or offshoot of judaism, and in this context it does not matter very much whether one sees the historical figure of Jesus as a jewish rabbi, a jewish revolutionary-cum-reformer, or the 'son of God'."

 

Actually, Judaism developed from Zoroastarian monotheism and Mesopotamian religious traditions e.g. those of the Sumerians. Furthermore, Islam is derived from the Abrahamic religions that preceded it, albeit with a distinctly Arab ethos. Given this, I fail to understand why Judaism and Christianity can be combined but Judaism and Islam or Christianity and Islam cannot, Zoroastarianism notwithstanding. Granted, as institutions, Judaism and Christianity are more similar than either is to Islam but this is the result of circumstance. I suspect that the term "Judeo-Christian" is a political device used to: (a) promote Jewish and Christian solidarity vis-a-vis Islam, (b) reduce "Christian anti-Semitism," and (c) demonstrate the affinity that Evangelical Christianity has for Judaism, in contrast to Catholicism, mainstream Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity.

 

MarcFrans: "Christianity did certainly not arise out of any other religious 'tradition', nor out of paganism and/or atheism."

 

As aforementioned, Judaism too has its sources.

 

MarcFrans: "Certainly, some vague notions of "liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy" were held by a number of individuals in times prior to christianity...The idea of the primacy of individual conscience over group-think, and the idea of the (moral) equality of ALL people (i.e. all human individuals) as 'childeren of God', those are very firmly rooted in the 'judeo-Christian tradition'."

 

Where I disagree is that these prior and/or non-Christian conceptions of liberty, democracy, human rights, etc. were "vague." Moreover, the primacy of the individual is self-evident and is only challenged by another individual (e.g. ruler) or group (e.g. family) exerting power over another individual, or by the relationships that an individual develops with others (e.g. friends, wives). Unfortunately, the practical implementation of these ideas was difficult for non-Christian societies because this depended upon either social convention, which was subject to change, and/or decree, which could be challenged e.g. if two individuals agree that they do not want to die, they may decide to enact a law that murder is forbidden. However, a third individual may enter the scene who does not want to die either, but has no qualms about murder, which jeopardizes the law. If this law is upheld by force of arms, it can be challenged by the same means.

 

However, Christianity provided the necessary structure for these ideas to be implemented. Laws (i.e. Biblical) were effective 'set in stone' by God and upheld by Him, not by individuals. This allowed for the addition of Germanic and Greco-Roman ideas, which were unstable on their own.

Spot The Difference

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2007-06-30 18:05.

Both Christianity  and Islam have had their Martyrs or Shehids.What has been the difference? Well,historically,it would appear that the difference has been that a Christian martyr has always been prepared to die for his beliefs,while his Muslim counterpart has always been prepared to kill himself,AND OTHERS, for his beliefs.

 

Question: Why would that be?

don't you believe it

Submitted by Jari on Sun, 2007-07-01 01:45.

What about .. to invoke an archetype - deity that girds the world against destruction ?

Or liever a jewish star and swastika and all as such, to overlive christianity and judeaism and .. preceed it !

Mohammed? Playing in a lower leage than the league of Budda and Jezus ..

Multiculturalism is a lazyness: not having to undertake a far journey.

it is not about what to do with the free will...

Submitted by telder1 on Sun, 2007-07-08 20:14.

"Multiculturalism is a lazyness: not having to undertake a far journey"

Nice.

If there were such a thing as free will. The whole of your comment/s and article spring from a foundation of a supposed best-honesty question of "what ought the free will be used for?" and the accusation that some are not using "it" properly.

That the multiculturalist is lazy in a spiritual and emotional way is true only within a larger lie of free will. So the line is valid and has a certain ring to it ..within a lie that is the genuine best honesty of most --esp. multiculturalists.

Ezekiel 14:3-5 Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumbling-block of their iniquity before their face: should I be inquired of at all by them? Therefore speak to them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumbling-block of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet, I Jehovah will answer him according to this, according to the multitude of his idols: that I may take the house of Israel by their own heart, because they are all estranged from me through their idols.

When you make an idol out of your own best honesty even after you admit that in life you cannot avoid going though a series of best honesties over time, and then you really call out to God within that lie, all you ever hear from God is that your idol is true. He genuinly answers you --but according to your idol. No matter what you read or hear all you ever say when the question comes up is "See there? Speech itself makes no sense unless I have free will. Therefore the whole question of "what ought the free will to do" is valid."

John 12:37-43 But though he had done so many signs before them, they believed not on him, that the word of the prophet Esaias which he said might be fulfilled, Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? On this account they could not believe, because Esaias said again, He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, that they may not see with their eyes, and understand with their heart and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias because he saw his glory and spoke of him.
Although indeed from among the rulers also many believed on him, but on account of the Pharisees did not confess him , that they might not be put out of the synagogue: for they loved glory from men rather than glory from God.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

On a Christian reticence

Submitted by Jari on Mon, 2007-07-09 17:15.

@telder

True, most people consider themselves to be free persons, because they are aware of their cravings and wishes, without being aware of the causes of these cravings and wishes.

What seems to be at hand, is that not only the debate on multiculturalism looses it's relevance, as soon as we fully commit ourselves to develop our understanding(s) of the 'divine'.

And indeed, if we were to agree with Spinoza to define the divine as 'the way the universe works' ('werkelijkheid'), understanding the divine also means to abstain oneself from any form of idolisation.

Cultural and ethnical homogeneity may not be decisive, although I ask myself why I have only received thrilling handshakes (if you know what I mean) from individuals who were raised in relatively homogenous – Asiatic – nations.

More certainly, the reason why many Christians seem reticent to 'walk within the eternal light', is a church, a society and a bible that encourage to follow Jesus, not (!) to become alike him.

And within the esoteric void, Christian and scientist dwell .. as eternal scholars.

Postmodern chatter #2

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2007-06-30 17:52.

1) Fjordman has written another fascinating piece, with speculations on possible roots of an aberration (multiculturalism) to which western civilisation has given rise.  

2) Antioccidentalis obviously doesn't like western civilisation (given his choice of pseudonym), and that is his prerogative.  But, it certainly does not entitle him to posit nonsense affirmations.  Yes, judaism and christianity are separate and different religions, but they both played a vital role in the development of western civilisation over the ages.  To deny that obvious reality is to display massive ignorance of the history of western civilisation.  Christianity is an outgrowth or offshoot of judaism, and in this context it does not matter very much whether one sees the historical figure of Jesus as a jewish rabbi, a jewish revolutionary-cum-reformer, or the 'son of God'.  Christianity did certainly not arise out of any other religious 'tradition', nor out of paganism and/or atheism.  It is almost unbelievable that someone can assert that he is "a believing christian" and at the same time appears unaware of the 'linkages' between the Old (jewish) Testament and the New (christian) Testament. 

But, antioccidentalis certainly has valid points, where he asserts that (i) christianity is not the same thing as the "modern west", and (ii) that the latter has (at least some) "evil and satanic traits".

3) However, the real "postmodern chatter" can be found in the comments of 'Johan B' where the superficiality and shallowness of 'modern western education' is on full display.  

-- Certainly, some vague notions of "liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy" were held by a number of individuals in times prior to christianity.  For instance, they existed in the jewish tradition, which is much older than the christian one.  Also, in the classical Greco-Roman world these concepts were around, but in a very different sense than in their contemporary meanings.  The idea of the primacy of individual conscience over group-think, and the idea of the (moral) equality of ALL people (i.e. all human individuals) as 'childeren of God', those are very firmly rooted in the 'judeo-Christian tradition'.   The manifestly-obvious facts that Johan B is willing to overlook (because of his 'acquired' need to loath the religious roots of his own civilisation) are the following: (A) Democracy and 'modern' concepts of INDIVIDUAL human rights arose (very slowly) in western civilisation (which in geographic terms overlaps with the 'christian or ex-christian world'), and NOWHERE ELSE; and (B) genuine democracy and 'modern' concepts of human rights remain very 'tenuous' at best in most of the nonwestern world (India and Japan are the main exceptions) and virtually nonexistant in major parts of the world today.    Of course, everybody in the world (even the worst totalitarianisms) uses the labels 'democracy' and 'human rights', but the reality is quite different, and democratic attitudes are definitely on the way out in Europe (as demonstrated by both the manifest 'racism' of some regular commentators on this forum and the willingness of others to support legislative and judicial violations of freedom of political speech).  

--  History is full of "plenty of violations of 'liberty, conscience, human rights and democracy' " EVERYWHERE.   That only tells us something about HUMAN NATURE.   In itself it doesn't tell us anything about judaism, or christianity, or islam or budhism, or paganism, or atheism, or ...whatever.  And, it should be obvious - at least to any thinking person (as opposed to a parroting person of fashionable opinion) - that people (particularly rulers) will use whatever 'works' for them in their particular culture or tradition.  So, there is nothing surprising about fallable 'christians' using the bible as justification for their wrong actions, nor about other people(s) using 'their' base texts or belief systems for their justifications of misdeeds.  

--  "The bible" does not do anything.  Only people do things.  And the fact remains that genuine 'democracy and liberty' came historically out of the christian world, in the sense that they could there be realised in concrete forms for all citizens.   But history also teaches that everything is temporary, which means that democracy will not necessarily survive in the (ex-christian) 'west' (that should already be clear today) and might well continue elsewhere (we must hope).   

Fjordman

Submitted by antioccidentalis on Sat, 2007-06-30 10:33.

I am believing Christian and Christianity isn't the same thing as modern West, thanks God it isn't. Modern West has many evil and satanic traits.

And another observation: there is no such thing as "Judaeo-Christian" or "Judaeo-Christianity." These catch-phrases so dear to Fjordman are nonsense. Christianity is one thing, Judaism another. I have nothing against Jews, don't get me wrong. Let them have their religion and Christians their own. Mixing-up religions can be a dangerous thing.

  

God and religions

Submitted by logicalman on Sat, 2007-06-30 17:26.

To further elaborate antioccidentalis and to reply to Johan B and others, there're huge differences between true worship of God and religions, including Christianity and Islam. Readers of BJ already know islam is evil, in words, and in deeds of its followers, and many cited the bible verses especially the Mosaic law and the Israelis' taking over the land of Canaan via war to argue that Christianity is similarly bad. Hey, even many Buddhist monks practice martial art and armies have their share of Buddhist soldiers, or soldiers professing one or other religions.

To answer briefly, acknowledging the complex nature of the subject, the God of the bible is characterized by his power, wisdom, justice, and love. Stephen, in Act ch.7 gave a good summary the history of christianity before his death by stoning by the Jewish religious leaders.

The Israelites chose to enter into a covenant with God. Mosaic laws are His laws for them at that time, to keep then spiritually clean, and to point to the need for a messiah. Jesus fulfilled the mosaic law which no longer apply. Jesus' only two commandments are "love God" and "love your neighbors like yourself"

Thus to please God, true Christians don't kill, steal, cheat, fornicate, etc...In the New Testament or Greek scripture, Jesus' followers have killed and kill no one, or steal, or do unneighborly things. Those who kill in the name of God are not Christian by definition. Thus those who kill - and churches which ordered or condoned killings - are false Christians and practice false religion. Indeed "the whole world is under the power of the wicked one" or Satan. 2 Co 11:13 says "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light"

For their practice of Jesus' commands, true Christians have always been prosecuted just as Jesus was prosecuted by the Pharisees and most Jews during his short ministry, even when he was curing the sick, the lame, the blind, as a precursor of the new world after Judgment day - contrary to what Johan B wrote or quoted.

Thus those who act unneighborly and don't love their brothers can't love God and are most likely not true Christian, but only Christian by a label, by their own claim. They are basically hypocrites.

The ebook "Two Babylons" shows the origin of false religions and their many manifestations in every day's life. Alexander Hisslop the author did that in a narrow scope yet was still correct about it. He was a real erudite who spoke and understood many languages, including Near-Eastern ones.

BJ is not a place for religions, but many writings touch that difficult subject, whose authors have insufficient knowledge about God and religions. Jesus gave a simple criterion to distinguish true/false religion: "by their fruit you will recognize them."

Postmodern chatter

Submitted by Johan B on Sat, 2007-06-30 09:44.

Fjordman wrote: "he is right when he says that “Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.”"

This statement can be refuted in many ways. Liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy already existed before the invention of Christianity. Secondly, during the reign of Christianity there was plenty of violation of liberty, conscience, human rights and democracy, all inspired by the Bible. For example Leviticus 20:27: "Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them." This verse inspired Calvin and Luther to start their unprecedented, brutal witch hunt in the early 16th century. Thousands and thousands of innocent people were slaughtered on the altar of Christianity.

"The Bible was the real persecutor," said Robert G. Ingersoll. "The Bible burned heretics, built dungeons, founded the Inquisition, and trampled upon all the liberties of men." So I don't see any reason why we should continue to nourish ourselves from this source. I don't see why we should continue to grovel in the dust before the ignorant legends of the barbaric past and call them the ultimate foundation of liberty.

Told Ya So

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2007-06-29 23:42.

Earlier today,in London,we had a terrorist  'incident'.Er,correction,no we didn't,well,not according to the conspiracy theorists:

 

Excerpted from the Huffington Post

 

No, I don't consider this news.Excuse me for being somewhat cynical over the last few years, but I think it's just as likely that Gordon Brown wanted something to make him look forceful and efficient on his 1st day in office,and this was it... 

 

 

Target for Tomorrow: A Suggestion

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2007-06-29 16:13.

Before we talk about splitting the atom again,why not  first try splitting  the difference?

 

This war could be over far sooner if 350 million Europeans insisted on a modicum of behavior from Middle Eastern rogue regimes,rounded up and tried terrorists in their midst,deported islamofascists,cut off funding to killers on the West Bank...and warned the next SOB who blew up Europeans in Turkey,North Africa,or Iraq that there was a deadly reckoning to come from the continent that invented the Western military tradition...But if they do not even believe in the unique legacy of their civilization,then why should we - much less their enemies?

 

Victor Davis Hanson

 

Target for Tomorrow

Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Fri, 2007-06-29 15:36.

My tax money went to pay for a hell of a lot of nukes.  No reason why Tehran and Damascus can't be included.  In fact it will help balance the US budget as maintanence and upkeep of these weapons is expensive. First strike is the best strike. Certainly would save money on the military after if it is done right. A little radioactive debris in my gas won't harm my engine too much I don't think.

Target for Tomorrow

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2007-06-29 14:07.

Perhaps one day we will wake up...

 

Or,perhaps one day we will wake up to find that the Iranian's,or some other proactive component of the Burkha Boys' Brigade have beaten 'us' to the button.

 

Question:What then?

Target for the Day

Submitted by Amsterdamsky on Fri, 2007-06-29 13:15.

"And it was the Americans who dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,"

So maybe we will wake up and drop the next nukes on Rome and Jerusalem before we end up in a full scale world religious war that humanity will never recover from. Maybe wait until the oil is gone before we hit Saudi Arabia.

Gramsci and the Soviets

Submitted by Rob the Ugly American on Fri, 2007-06-29 05:19.

In college (in the US), we studied the Soviets' use of Gramsci's techniques of subverting society through subverting society's leading elements and agents of influence. Much of what was taught as accepted wisdom or was being pumped out through popular culture and Hollywood was being influenced in this way. One egregious example was that AIDS was a creation of the US govt. to commit genocide against blacks, which was popular in this country in the 1980s. Above all, was the idea, foreign to American history, but readily accepted by professors and the media, that instead of rights adhering in individuals, rights adhered in groups based on certain characteristics, like race or sexual orientation, and that suppression of contrary views was ok, because it violated these groups' rights. (This belief is much older than Marx, but Americans tended to value the individual, his/her rights as primary until quite recently). And so our politics increasingly have become based on interest groups pursuing their grievances. Of course, if you mentioned many of the ideas infiltrating our universities could be traced to Marxist writers, you were labeled a paranoid.

Other beliefs that became popular among the pro-Soviet elites were that there was no absolute truth, everything is prespectival. Camus, in his journals, noted the problem with this right away; if there's no truth, then there's no objective standard for judgments, and so, he asked, on what grounds can we then judge people like Hitler for what they did. Above all, there was the belief that America could never be as it saw itself, a superior way of life, because of our country's past sins (in one way, though this propaganda had a positive affect, as it influenced race relations in this country; for example, the State Department wrote a brief in favor of integration in Brown v. Bd. of Education, arguing that integration was necessary to counter Soviet propaganda.

But then, the Soviets fell. And the leftist elites had only these notions that were introduced to make us more susceptible to totalitarianism, and what pops up, another totalitarian creed, Islamism. This has left our elites and those who swallowed that propaganda with no defenses. At some point, there will come a break and these notions will be rejected (most likley violently and in Europe) or we will succumb.

Yin Without Yang?

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2007-06-28 20:40.

The West has always been a composite civilization...We will need all of them to survive.Relying on just one isn't enough.We need both Rome and Jerusalem,both the Greco-Roman and the Judeo-Christian strands of the West...

 

Well,not according to some.

 

visit: www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=7500

 

Title: 'The horror of a New Atheist world'.