Music and the Rise and Decline of Western Civilization
From the desk of Fjordman on Fri, 2009-10-02 11:56
This text overlaps with a few of my earlier essays like Why Muslims Like Hitler, but Not Mozart. I have had some interesting discussions with Ohmyrus, the essayist who runs the Democracy Reform blog. He is a Chinese man who appreciates aspects of Western civilization that many Westerners have forgotten or rejected. He is not unique in this regard. One of the best books about European culture is Defending the West by the former Muslim Ibn Warraq, who was born in the Indian subcontinent. As a native European it is strange to notice how some (non-Muslim) Asians apparently appreciate my civilization more than intellectuals in my own country do. The Iranian-born ex-Muslim Ali Sina denounces Western Multiculturalism in his book Understanding Muhammad, which I have reviewed online:
“If any culture needs to be preserved, it is the Western, Helleno-Christian culture. It is this culture that is facing extinction….We owe our freedom and modern civilization to Western culture. It is this culture that is now under attack and needs protection.”
Ohmyrus believes, like myself, that the West is in decline, not just in relative terms as a percentage of the global economy or population but in real terms. He points to structural flaws in our democratic political system, which “tends to divide people, pitting one race against another and one economic class against another” and is by the nature of its short election periods not well suited for long-term planning. European civilization reached its peak when it was pre-democratic, and Muslims have found it easier to penetrate democratic than pre-democratic Europe. In nineteenth century Britain, Queen Victoria and the aristocracy were not as powerful as their ancestors had been, but they wielded more power than today. Power was divided between the monarch, the House of Lords and the House of Commons in Parliament. This corresponds to what ancient political theorists such as Aristotle would have called a good balance between the monarchic, the aristocratic and the democratic elements of society.
Ohmyrus, who is a Christian, believes that one of the reasons why the Scientific Revolution took place in Europe and not in Asia is Christianity, which taught people that God had created the universe according rational laws which could to some extent be discovered and described by humans. While the West originally enjoyed more free speech and free inquiry than most other societies, in some critical aspects related to immigration, free discourse in the West has in recent years become stifled by ideological censorship. As he states, “Anyone suggesting that some races are more intelligent than another is labeled a racist and even threatened prosecution for a hate crime. Substitute ‘heretic’ for ‘racist’ and we are almost back in medieval times. But over here in Asia, there is hardly any problem in discussing it.”
Ohmyrus thinks that Western civilization is currently living off the cultural capital produced in earlier times when power lay in the hands of a better educated elite whose personal interests coincided with the long term interests of the country. This may be partly true, but I personally believe that one of the greatest problems facing us today is precisely the fact that the interests of Western nation states do not always overlap with the narrow interests of the elites. In previous generations, rich and influential individuals would often support nation states not only emotionally but also pragmatically in order to enhance their own wealth and power. In the age of international organizations and powerful multinational corporations that wield more power than many smaller countries, this is no longer the case. These same elites will now look to other organizations and tools to further their personal interests and careers.The democratic system has its flaws but worked to some extent as long as there was sense of being a demos, a people with a shared identity and common ethnic interests. This is gradually breaking down in Western countries, starting from the top. Powerful groups frequently have more in common with the elites in other countries than they have with average citizens in their own. Without a pre-political loyalty, emotional ties or even a pragmatic interest in supporting nation states, the democratic system becomes a vehicle for distributing favors to your friends at home and abroad, for betraying your voters and hopefully ensuring a lucrative international career along the way. You will have few moral scruples against importing voters from abroad for maintaining power or because your business friends who provide you with financial support desire access to cheap labor. This process is related to technological globalization but has gone further in the self-loathing West than in any other civilization.
In Western Europe, much of the real power has been transferred to the unelected organs of the European Union. Between 1999 and 2004, 84 percent of the legal acts in Germany – and the majority in all EU member states - stemmed from Brussels. National elections are becoming an increasingly empty ritual. The important issues have been settled behind closed doors. Our daily lives are run by a bloated bureaucracy, which is becoming increasingly transnational.
In the eyes of the left-wing American theorist Noam Chomsky, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” In most Western countries the public has a choice between left-wing candidates who champion mass immigration and “right-wing” candidates who also champion mass immigration and implement the left-wing agenda at a slightly slower pace. This is called “freedom.” The mass media present a biased and ideologically filtered view of the world. The fact that members of the media and the academia tend to be more, sometimes a lot more, left-leaning politically than the average populace is well-documented.
This situation is intensified by the fact that globalization of communications and transportation, ironically to a large extent created by European and Western inventions, puts severe pressure on our nations in ways which were unthinkable a few generations ago. When the Christian Gospels were written down at the end of the first century AD, the population of the Roman Empire was maybe 60 million people. This mirrors the annual population growth in the early twenty-first century. In other words: The global population grows by another Roman Empire every single year. Our system wasn’t designed to cope with such numbers.
Virtually all Western countries have lost control over their borders, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the political elites, substantially aided by multinational corporations and cheaper travel, have deliberately vacated such control. This is not a sustainable situation. You can call your political system a democracy, a dictatorship, a republic, a monarchy or whatever you want to, but a country that does not control its territory will eventually die.
I am increasingly supporting the conclusion that the political and economic elites throughout the Western world are cooperating on dismantling their nation states in favor of a new, global world order. Swamping their countries with immigration is one step in this planned “creative destruction.” Author Bat Ye’or in her well-researched book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis from 2005 documents how the European Union is actively collaborating with the Arabic-Islamic world on promoting Muslim immigration and culture in Europe. I myself wrote a book entitled Defeating Eurabia while going through her claims, and found them to be sound.A flaw frequently pointed out in the democratic system is that the “common man” is on average not smart enough to run a country, but when it comes to promoting Multiculturalism and mass immigration of alien and often hostile peoples it is in every single Western country the political, economic and academic elites who are pushing for this. Resistance to these suicidal policies comes from the common man. Another problem is that in the post-Enlightenment ideological environment, especially after Marxism, there is a tendency among some educated elites to view the common man as a guinea pig for their social experiments.
The West is a non-traditionalist civilization. We have unquestionably made great advances that no other civilization has done before us, but maybe the price we pay for this is that we also make mistakes that nobody has done before us. Organized science is a modern Western invention. Organized national suicide, too, is a modern Western invention. Our university system once represented a great comparative advantage for Europe vis-à-vis other civilizations. Today that same system is undermining the very civilization that gave birth to it.
Marxists have essentially completed their Gramscian “Long March” through the institutions of the Western world during the second half of the twentieth century, accelerating from the 1960s on with the Western Cultural Revolution. Young Westerners are at best taught indifference, at worst outright hatred, toward their own cultural heritage and civilization. The irony in this is that it is precisely the more educated groups who are the most anti-Western ones because they have spent many years absorbing anti-Western teachings.If you have one brainwashed generation then you have a problem. If you have two brainwashed generations then you have a very serious problem. If you have three brainwashed generations then you have a problem that is so big that it becomes difficult to solve, because few in living memory can remember how it was to have a sane worldview. We are now fast approaching a point where young Westerners, indoctrinated with anti-Western hatred, not only do not receive a correction from their parents, but in many cases not even from their grandparents. By then we have reached a serious cultural discontinuity.As much as I personally loathe admitting it, Marxists and other anti-Western forces have been far more successful at staging a slow, “permanent” revolution in the West than they ever were at staging an armed revolution. They have partly succeeded in their goal of eradicating Western civilization from within and are now working hard to physically eradicate the European peoples who created this civilization to ensure that it cannot be rebuilt in the future, either. They achieved this feat not by gaining control over the means of production but over the means of indoctrination, the mass media and the education system.
Out of all the criticism against Europeans, the claim of “Eurocentrism” is the most unfair. All cultures are ethnocentric to some degree. Frankly, I would be tempted to say that the default position of mankind is that “We are the best people, the others are barbarians.” I'm not going to claim that you cannot find serious cases of bigotry in European history. You can. But what is unique about Europe is our ability to sometimes transcend this basic human impulse. Even during the colonial period, Western Europeans could show an unusual degree of curiosity about other cultures and their history. This is one of the major reasons why archaeology and comparative linguistics were invented by Europeans; we were one of the least ethnocentric groups, yet for some reason the only ones who are denounced for our alleged ethnocentrism.The problem is that whites are now the only ethnic group on the planet who are not allowed to retain distinct countries or pride in their heritage. This is creating a wave of quietly simmering anger against immigration and at least as much against Western authorities, rightly perceived as indifferent or hostile to their interests. It is debatable whether supporting a “Christian revival” is the right solution to this situation since Christianity promotes altruism, self-criticism and universalism, while some of the greatest problems of the white West today are caused by deranged altruism, pathological self-criticism and excessive universalism.
You can successfully track the rise and decline of Western civilization through music. There are other ways to do this, of course, but music is as good as any, and better than most. With the likes of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, it is not bigotry to say that Europeans created some of the greatest music any civilization on this planet has ever done. During the same time period we also made advances in science and technology that no other civilization had ever done before us. There appears to be a close correlation between the sciences and the arts. Perhaps it has something to do with cultural confidence and sense of purpose, or lack of such.Europeans still made good music in the nineteenth century, but fewer great names were produced in the twentieth. By the early twenty-first century, many Europeans don’t even listen to the composers we once had. The only people who take European Classical music seriously today are East Asians and maybe some people in the eastern half of Europe, the only part of the continent that still looks like Europe. If you want to see a simple illustration of cultural decline you can listen to basically anything by Mozart and then turn on the TV and see rap stars cursing, doing drugs and bragging about their criminal “gangster” lifestyle.
Asians adopt some of the highest cultural achievements of European civilization at a time when many people of European descent themselves appear to be on the verge of forgetting them, which is symbolic on many levels. On the other hand, Asians are more or less immune to the self-loathing of the contemporary West. I see this as a sign that they appropriate the best aspects of the Western traditions but stay away from the worst ones, which makes sense.
China had fine instruments and a well-developed musical tradition at least as far back as the Zhou period (1122-256 BC). The word “music” was written with the same character as “enjoyment.” There is no direct equivalent to Mozart or Beethoven in Asia, but perhaps the fact that they have such an ancient and deeply-rooted native tradition makes in easier for East Asians to appreciate the fruits of other musical cultures. David P. Goldman, who writes under the pen name “Spengler” for the Asia Times Online, thinks that “The present shift in intellectual capital in favor of the East has no precedent in world history.” According to him, European Classical music “produces better minds, and promotes success in other fields.” A high proportion of the students at top Western musical schools are now Koreans, Chinese and Japanese, followed by Eastern Europeans. There are comparatively few North Americans or Western Europeans among the best instrumentalists.
According to Spengler, “China has embraced the least Chinese, and the most explicitly Western, of all art forms. Even the best Chinese musicians still depend on Western mentors. [Pianist] Lang Lang may be a star, but in some respects he remains an apprentice in the pantheon of Western musicians. The Chinese, in some ways the most arrogant of peoples, can elicit a deadly kind of humility in matters of learning. Their eclecticism befits an empire that is determined to succeed, as opposed to a mere nation that needs to console itself by sticking to its supposed cultural roots. Great empires transcend national culture and naturalize the culture they require.” Albert Einstein received a thorough philosophical education by studying Kant, Schopenhauer, Hume and Spinoza in addition to mathematics and the physical theories of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and James Maxwell. This taught him how to think abstractly about space and time. He was also an enthusiastic amateur musician and would play his violin as a way of thinking through a difficult physics problem. His mother was an accomplished pianist and pushed for him to take violin lessons. At first he chafed at the mechanical discipline of the instruction, but after being exposed to Bach and to Mozart’s sonatas, music became magical to him. Author Walter Isaacson writes in his biography Einstein: His Life and Universe:
“‘Mozart’s music is so pure and beautiful that I see it as a reflection of the inner beauty of the universe itself,’ he later told a friend. ‘Of course,’ he added in a remark that reflected his view of math and physics as well as of Mozart, ‘like all great beauty, his music was pure simplicity.’ Music was no mere diversion. On the contrary, it helped him think. ‘Whenever he felt that he had come to the end of the road or faced a difficult challenge in his work,’ said his son Hans Albert, ‘he would take refuge in music and that would solve all his difficulties.’ The violin thus proved useful during the years he lived alone in Berlin, wrestling with general relativity. ‘He would often play his violin in his kitchen late at night, improvising melodies while he pondered complicated problems,’ a friend recalled. ‘Then, suddenly, in the middle of playing, he would announce excitedly, ‘I’ve got it!’ As if by inspiration, the answer to the problem would have come to him in the midst of music.’ His appreciation for music, and especially for Mozart, may have reflected his feel for the harmony of the universe.”
Einstein was not as fond of Ludwig van Beethoven as he was of Johann Sebastian Bach, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Franz Schubert. According to Walter Isaacson, “What Einstein appreciated in Mozart and Bach was the clear architectural structure that made their music seem ‘deterministic’ and, like his own favorite scientific theories, plucked from the universe rather than composed. ‘Beethoven created his music,’ Einstein once said, but ‘Mozart’s music is so pure it seems to have been ever-present in the universe.’ He contrasted Beethoven with Bach: ‘I feel uncomfortable listening to Beethoven. I think he is too personal, almost naked. Give me Bach, rather, and then more Bach.’ He also admired Schubert for his ‘superlative ability to express emotion.’ But in a questionnaire he once filled out, he was critical about other composers in ways that reflect some of his scientific sentiments: Handel had ‘a certain shallowness’; Mendelssohn displayed ‘considerable talent but an indefinable lack of depth that often leads to banality’; Wagner had a ‘lack of architectural structure I see as decadence’; and Strauss was ‘gifted but without inner truth.’”
The Russian ex-pat author Alexander Boot was a philology graduate of Moscow University under the Communist system during the Cold War, lectured on English and American literature and wrote art criticism before getting into trouble with the KGB, the secret police and espionage organization of the Soviet Union. Boot emigrated to the West in 1973 only to discover that the West that he admired and was seeking no longer existed. This inspired a life-long quest for an explanation, some of it detailed in his book How the West Was Lost.
Alexander Boot has a deeply Christian way of seeing the world, which I as a non-believer obviously do not always share, but he brings fresh and unusual perspectives to analysis and to history, which can often prove fruitful. In his view, “Religion, for all the misdeeds committed by it or in its name, was the foundation on which Westman culture and civilization had been erected. Destroy the foundation, and down comes the whole structure with a big thud.”
Boot sees Western history as a prolonged internal struggle between two different beings which he calls Modman and Westman, which Modman eventually won. Saint Paul was a Roman Christian and the first Westman. Modman saw himself as close to divine; Jesus Christ, God as man, had been replaced by Modman as God. For Modman to become God the old God had to die first. Modman followers are introspective because their own self-expression has taken on huge proportions. Boot traces the development of Western civilization through art and ideas, but especially music since “nothing illuminates culture as much as music.”
He argues that you can find the early seeds of some ideological perversions already in Beethoven at the turn of the nineteenth century, post-French Revolution, which did not exist in the compositions of Mozart or Haydn, let alone Bach. There was a new type of artist: the conscious innovator. Boot is not saying that music should remain unchanged. Just like life itself, music cannot remain static. Bach was not identical to those before him, and Haydn was not like Bach. With Mozart, Classicism had been taken as far as it could go. Something new would inevitably develop, but Beethoven pushed the limits in both good and bad ways:
“Beethoven, a genius though he was, had Modman tendencies and drew not only human but even artistic inspiration from the 1789-1815 upheaval in France. This manifested itself either directly, in pieces like his 3rd Symphony and the 5th Piano Concerto, or indirectly in the bravura finales of many of his other works. In common with most Modmen, Beethoven believed that the future was knowable, plannable and rationally mouldable, which is why it had to be glorious.”
Interestingly enough I have heard a few people from former Communist countries state that they do not like Beethoven because they sense some form of ideological megalomania underlying his music. Personally, I would say that a man who could compose timeless and beautiful pieces of music such as the Moonlight Sonata cannot have been all bad, but it is undoubtedly true that he was not a humble craftsman like Bach was. Alexander Boot is not claiming that Beethoven produced bad pieces, something a genius like him was incapable of doing, but he made a conscious attempt to break the old forms just for the sake of breaking them, and by doing so paved the way for more destructive personalities of lesser talent:
“Art began to worship at the altar of subjective originality rather than objective truth. Yet, until the nineteenth century it had been universally accepted that looking for truth was the real purpose of art. Because of that, traditional forms had a liberating rather than constricting effect. The artist could take the canonical foundation of his work as a given and concentrate instead on the higher goal. As long as truth did emerge, it did not matter to the artist whether he was the first to uncover it or the thousandth. Westman did not see life as a race, and he was free of the hubristic desire to be original at any cost.”
This humble respect for tradition did not lead to artistic cloning, as an artist seeking a higher truth can only find a vision of it in his own soul, which means that his vision of truth will always be individual. He was largely immune to the self-deification of Modman.
According to Boot, “great music cannot survive in a free-market way while remaining great music” because “serious art was not designed, and cannot be produced, for large numbers. If it is, it stops being serious art.” The twentieth century was the age of mass consumers, not the aristocratic patrons who supported Mozart, and “As audiences became mass-produced, so did performers.” Consequently, “Music had to be downgraded to the status of entertainment – serious entertainment to be sure, but not something meeting any claim to enigmatic nature.”
Alexander Boot’s basic conclusion is that the West is dead, but as a Christian man he also believes in resurrection and in life after death. Perhaps that is not a bad summary.
Dacapo! Dacapo!
Submitted by Capodistrias on Sun, 2009-10-18 17:35.
Apolgies to all, but Wagner does bring out the self-indulgent in us all.
Liebstod indeed, bravo to the audience as well. KO, Atlanticist, Dacapo!
Liebstod?
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2009-10-18 15:40.
@ kappert
http://members.tripod.com/~avengers_soundpage/files.htm
* carl schmidt singing 'mein liebling, mein rose'.
@ Atheling
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sun, 2009-10-18 10:54.
You're still whining about Sola Scriptura? This is not a theological debate site. Write to the Pope, I'm sure he'll be able to give you a satisfiable explanation of this 'damnable heresy'.
You turned a simple disagreement from my part into a personal and theological debate, which was never my intention. I've had about enough of your arrogant claims and personal attacks.
Frankly, you can think whatever you like about me. I don't take advice from people who call me ill-educated, insinuate I am a simplistic, rabid, irrational zealot, and claim I am not much different from a Muslim.
PS: "Pwned" is not English. Only ill-educated computer game addict use it. Surely you're not one of those?
Egotism
Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2009-10-18 17:29.
@pale rider:
Once again, you misconstrue what I write. English is not your first language, but this is beyond miscomprehension - is it willful distortion?
You call me "arrogant", yet you refuse to take responsibility for your debating errors. Can you not see where your arguments are full of holes and irrationalities? How can you expect a person to debate someone who does not adhere to rules of rational discourse? You have made false conclusions over and over again, while I have pointed them out, and you call me "arrogant"?
Can you answer me that? Also, you still have not provided proof of the biblical justification for Sola Scriptura.
You respond with your ego, rather than with your brain. Not good.
Disappointment
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sun, 2009-10-18 21:01.
You continue to amaze me and you disappoint me in the rather denigrating way you address me. Clearly you doubt my sincerity as if by questioning your view I have purposely intended to vilify you and your religious beliefs. So do you seriously expect me to respond to yet another one of your personal attacks and insults? I wrote that my summary was intended for others to know what this argument was about and for those interested to be aware of my take on this issue. Write your own summary in beautifully written English as befitting of a native English speaker to defend your case, allowing the reader to judge for himself.
The Protestant issue and Sola Scriptura are things you brought up and I believe these to be largely irrelevant to the original topic of discussion. So I am not going to waste any more time of my precious time arguing with you in favor of Sola Scriptura. Check the link I provided earlier in one of my replies (sorry, I'm too lazy to insert html tags this time). It is a database containing a massive amounts of articles written by Reformed theologians. If you don't find your answer there I don't know where you'll find it.
The Pale Rider, who - among other things - is going to continue for another week studying your native language (yes, I must be insane), salutes you.
Sigh...
Submitted by atheling on Mon, 2009-10-19 01:00.
All I asked for was the scriptural reference that compels Sola Scriptura. I don't care to wade through theoligical dissertations. It should be simple enough, shouldn't it?
The fact that you refuse to do so indicates that you haven't a leg to stand on.
And whining about my critiques of your logical fallacies and debating problems isn't going to change your situation. Man up, kid!
You're "disappointed"? How the hell do you think I feel? How does one debate any issue when the person you're debating cannot argue logically? I wasted my time correcting your logical fallacies instead of addressing any content! Content isn't worth crap if it's presented with no reasoning!
Flemings
Submitted by KO on Sun, 2009-10-18 23:20.
Do you have any details on which Germanic tribes they are descended from? The Toxandrian Franks, perhaps? The Batavians?
RE: Flemings
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Mon, 2009-10-19 16:46.
Interesting question. I was taught that the Flemish are descendants of the Salian Franks, with Celtic admixture. There was also some Ingaevonic influence, if I'm not mistaken, but I think that was mostly limited to language. I'm far from an expert on this so I hope that Capitão André or others will be able to shed more light on this.
In the meantime, here's a link to the Benelux & France DNA Ancestry project. Lots of fascinating stuff there.
A word of advice: My
Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2009-10-18 04:08.
A word of advice:
My criticism of you is not about your beliefs. It’s about the way you arrived at them and how you hold onto them.
I do not answer your (sometimes wild) accusations or points, because it does no good when the person with whom you debate cannot argue reasonably. You have made illogical leaps and conclusions, non sequitors and red herrings that require too much work to address. I just don’t have the time or inclination to deal with it. But I would take some logic and rhetorical analysis type classes to help you out with it, especially if you wish engage in proselytization or apologetics.
Your criticisms of the failings of the Church are not always without merit. But it does not perturb me because I understand the frailties of human nature. Following Christ does not necessarily mean one will automatically become perfect. Very few do. We call them saints. And I have noticed that the critics of the Church NEVER mention her glory in those who perfected the way of Christ. An unbalanced view, it appears.
Pale rider, I do not believe you are a “bad” person. But you are ill- educated in the way you reason. This is why I compare your kind of Christianity with Islam, for Islam also possesses some irrational aspects in its theology and epistemology. This turns atheists and agnostics away from conversion and reinforces their often unfair belief that all Christians are irrational, rabid zealots. They will not be convinced of the truth about God if all you can say is, “It says so in the Bible!” There is more to it than that.
@Pale Rider and Atheling
Submitted by Capodistrias on Sat, 2009-10-17 20:02.
http://www.pearlsflowers.com/images/products/roses111.jpg
Regrettable
Submitted by KO on Sun, 2009-10-18 12:39.
Looks like we have reached the Liebestod. Pity. PR and atheling, you are full of interesting thoughts and information, but when they are framed in violent ad hominem argument it is too unpleasant to read them, at least in this short lifetime. Though perhaps some perceptive critic will undertake the chore and tell us lightweights that the key to all conservative thought is buried in your vitriolic dialogue! I look forward to your future contributions, which I do not doubt will be of interest.
I am no expert in blog etiquette, but it might be worthwhile, when insulted, to terminate the exchange or ignore the insult and move on. (I make an exception for the tradition of kappert-baiting, out of deference, and perhaps for any insult witty enough to pay its way.) Otherwise the blogspace quickly becomes cluttered.
@KO
Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2009-10-18 17:31.
So you don't see logical fallacies in pale rider's monologues? Pointing them out are not ad hominems. Showing the similarities in faulty Christian theology and epistemology with that of Islam are not ad hominems.
@ PR and atheling
Submitted by KO on Sun, 2009-10-18 19:53.
I certainly am not going to interpose myself as a judge between two such educated theological combatants. Is what is at stake the Deuteronomic view that God rewards fidelity and punishes betrayal in this world? I doubt you two disagree on the orthodox view that all comes about by His providence, and the most horrible evils may be sent to punish us, or test us, or improve us. Job refused to curse God and die. He is the hero in the face of providential trials.
The Chinese have their own destiny. We don't know how their present relative prosperity will play out or the role that their growing Christianity is playing or will play. I think it is a refuge in a miserable, anxious, insecure, spiritually impoverished society, and as such a refuge may help people survive the crises that must come with the rise of their empire. Thus Christianity may provide material and/or spiritual rewards to the Chinese. I only know there are very courageous Chinese Christians willing to bear witness at great risk, compared to those who can enjoy their Christianity without even taking the risk of proselytizing neighbors and co-workers. Best wishes.
Summary
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sun, 2009-10-18 15:41.
KO, I've decided to write a summary of my views because of what you wrote. I hope it will clarify my position to others who have been or will be reading the comments below. This is a summary of what I have said only, and it is not intending to continue the debate since I believe it has become pointless.
1. Atheling commented on Christianity in China earlier in this thread, asserting that the spread of Christianity in China is leading or helping China to become a more prosperous and mighty nation, citing that Western decline coincides with a loss of Christian faith. She also quoted from the Genesis account, notably Genesis 1:28, to support her view.
2. I disagree strongly with this view because (a) I do not believe such a principle is taught in Scripture, and (b) that both ancient and contemporary history provide plenty of examples showing that nations can be extremely mighty and prosperous while flat out rejecting any kind of Christianity, either as a civilization or as the government of the nation.
3. On a theological level this topic has everything to do with the nature of God's Kingdom. Since Atheling used Scripture to defend her view, I referred to Scripture myself, explaining that I believe Scripture teaches that the Kingdom of God is not of this world, and that Christian believers are part of a heavenly Kingdom that transcends earthly boundaries.
4. In that sense, I do not believe there are any truly Christian nations. At least, not in the sense that an entire nation is beyond doubt part of the invisible sphere of God's Kingdom. A nation can be officially Christian, its subjects may be part of visible manifestations of God's Kingdom, but this does not mean the entire nation and all individuals that belong to it are indeed holy unto God. Any true believers regardless of their ethnic background constitute a godly nation. 1 Peter 2:9-17
5. To further demonstrate what I meant, I referred to the temptation of Christ (Luke 4) while fasting in the desert. Satan offered Christ all kingdoms on earth, if only He would bow to him. From this we learn that the world and its kingdoms are imperfect because they - unlike God's Church - are headed by fallible men, even though civil authorities are generally to be respected by Christians as God has appointed all governments and may use even wicked ones to achieve His own ends.
6. There is no Scripture that says the promises believers inherit include worldly riches. Much rather, Christ tells His disciples to seek a reward in heaven. Whoever links faith to prosperity does injustice to the principle of catholicity, which is that there is no Greek or Jew in Christ. Christians are, by faith, heirs according to the promise God gave to Abraham and Israel, i.e. that He would send His anointed one to rule His people, writing the Law in their hearts and minds. We find no promise of earthly riches to the NT Church, as the Church in Christ is not a chosen ethnic nation as ancient Israel was.
7. Atheling objected, saying that I was employing the principle of Sola Scriptura. I believe she was misquoting scripture, which is why I questioned her views. I maintain that the fact that I happen to believe in Sola Scriptura (i.e. all doctrines of the Church and its synods and councils [etc] must be biblically founded) as a Protestant, is irrelevant to this discussion as my objection was to Atheling's assertions and I had no intention to attack her being Roman Catholic. As a matter of fact I was not even aware of her being RC.
Regards.
RE: @ PR and Atheling
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sat, 2009-10-17 20:53.
I'm still baffled that my original response of atheling's view on Christianity in China lead to this type of argument. I did not write my original message to her with any feelings of superiority nor with any intention to attack her or 'convert' her to my beliefs. I wrote it as a Christian to another professing Christian. My point has continuously been that she should not quote scripture to back her view if she does not want to be countered with scripture. That any Christian would not want to hear Scripture seems inconceivable to me. So her being RC is really one of the lamest arguments I have ever heard. There are Roman Catholics out there who are not offended at hearing the revealed Word of God. In any case this is my last reply on the subject. This is not a debate site about theology after all. I have explained my views and I will let other readers judge for themselves which view they believe is correct.
More Flawed Thinking
Submitted by atheling on Sat, 2009-10-17 22:48.
@pale rider:
Do you read? Did you read my statement which says (and I will post it in bold caps so you do not miss it):
CONTRA SOLA SCRIPTURA DOES NOT EQUAL NON SCRIPTURA.
You have no right to tell me that I cannot quote Scripture just because I do not subscribe to the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
Again you are lying. You make the false assertion that I am now "offended" by "hearing the revealed Word of God"?
Are you bloody insane?
RE: More Flawed Thinking
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sun, 2009-10-18 00:59.
You have no right to tell me that I cannot quote Scripture just because I do not subscribe to the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
True, but I do have a right to believe that you are being thoroughly inconsistent. You also certainly sounded like you were offended upon hearing that the New Testament does not endorse your personal observation that seems to suggest a relation between Christianity and national prosperity or secular power. You're dealing with the wrong person if you think I will refrain from objecting to your blatantly misquoting of the Genesis account to support your personal view, especially since you call yourself a Christian (no special treatment because you're RC though).
The rest of your rantings do not merit a response. Quite frankly I did not expect such nonsense such as your comparison Calvinism and Islam (no such thing as 'Islamism' actually) coming from you. Talking of mixing apples and oranges. I could easily draw comparisons between the RCC or the EOC and, say, Shi'i Islam. But that would be absurd, since these are superficial comparisons based on outward appearances. The substance of the two religions is too different and the major Islamic sects are not even as theologically divided as many Christian denominations are.
I will pretend I did not read your last phrase regarding my, uhm, mental health.
Insanity and Evasion
Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2009-10-18 01:23.
Still waiting to hear your evidence that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is scripturally based...
You call my writings "rantings"? It seems that two other people here have commented on the lengthy nonsensical ramblings you have inflicted upon this thread, and you call my writings "rantings"?
You have done nothing but spew incoherent non sequitors, red herrings, all sorts of logical fallacies and accusations drawn from... nothing. A case of what we Yanks call, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls***".
And yet, you are unable to answer my question honestly.
Face it, you've been pwned.
Oh, and yes, from your latest post, YOU ARE BLOODY CRAZY.
What Have I Done?
Submitted by Capodistrias on Sat, 2009-10-17 19:09.
Well, I think we have our Parsiful.
Sorry Kapitein you may end your Wagnarian days typecast as a dwarf.
Meanwhile, bravo! bravo! the new Isolde comes roaring back in a commanding performance.
I sense a production of the Flying Dutchman is in the air!
Oh, Capo, what have you done?
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2009-10-17 17:05.
You mention Wagner and immediately Pale Rider's essays got even longer, KA and Marcfrans posts got decidedly shorter and to top it all off Kappert served me breakfast this morning dressed up as Wonder Woman. (Not a pretty sight).
What was that you said sonny?
Submitted by Capodistrias on Fri, 2009-10-16 18:17.
Pale Rider, I chose to address you as a Wagnerian commentator for a reason. TOOO LONG, your posts are too bloody long. I appreciate your thinking and ability to write in a second language. Bravo.
But you treat a debate as an opportunity to launch into a monologue rather than a dialogue. Furthermore, Atheling was right you did start taking her arguments to places where she did not necessarily have to go. Her 'Sola Scriptura' became YOUR take on Sola Scriptura. You didn't ask questions to draw her thoughts out, you went on and on about what she must have meant.
Maybe I am getting a little senile, or drifting into dementia. I know I feel a lot older after I finnish one of your posts. And frankly you seem to get lost a little in your own words, or maybe it's just that Wagnarian thing you do.
For example, did I say you were a teen or juvenile? No, I said your performance was one for such an audience. You characterizations of the typical European youth attitude towards America suggest that under different circumstances, i.e. when you weren't sticking your tongue out at me, you might better appreciate my take on your performance.
Well, I'm getting tired. Time for another nap. But just one question: will you be trying out for Parsiful?
K.A. is a formidable foe, I've heard his version of a Greater West Germania is the talk of the Rhine, well I think I heard that, this Wagnarian festival the local radio station has playing for weeks is frying my brain.
Kappert can I borrow your Deep Purple CD?
@ Capo
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Fri, 2009-10-16 18:52.
will you be trying out for Parsiful?
Do you realize you're encouraging me to be even more Wagnerian? ;)
I'm sorry but I cannot agree with what you said on the Sola Scriptura debate. Atheling claims her views are supported by Scripture and history. When I argued her view is biblically unsound, she dismissed my entire argument claiming it testifies of a belief in Sola Sciptura and used her being Roman Catholic as an excuse for not offering any serious reply. She's the one who turned it into a Protestant vs Catholic argument, not me.
Of course, if she won't argue and just blindly follow her feelings and the infallible Pope, that's fine with me. But I won't let her point of view go unquestioned just because she doesn't believe in Sola Scriptura. If I did, I would be no different from the political correctness crowd.
However, I do promise never to waste my time on people who base their arguments on their gut feelings again.
Best regards.
A Challenge
Submitted by atheling on Sat, 2009-10-17 04:45.
I'm sorry but I cannot agree with what you said on the Sola Scriptura debate. Atheling claims her views are supported by Scripture and history. When I argued her view is biblically unsound, she dismissed my entire argument claiming it testifies of a belief in Sola Sciptura and used her being Roman Catholic as an excuse for not offering any serious reply. She's the one who turned it into a Protestant vs Catholic argument, not me.
I asked you to give me Biblical proof for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. You ignored my request and started your tirades.
Do show me: Where is the Biblical support for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? If such a doctrine is correct, should it not be founded in Scripture? Otherwise, HOW CAN A DOCTRINE THAT COMPELS A THEOLOGY THAT IS EXCLUSIVELY SCRIPTURAL HAVE CREDIBILITY IF IT HAS NO SUCH FOUNDATION ITSELF? Do you not see the discrepancy?
This is the problem I see with a lot of you Protestants. You're irrational. Your type of Christianity is very closely aligned with Islamism in its failure to use reason in your theology, intolerant provincialism (such as your dismissal of pagan mythology), and rabid hypersenstivity regarding criticism.
I asked you to give me
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sat, 2009-10-17 13:00.
I asked you to give me Biblical proof for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
No, you didn't.
Do show me: Where is the Biblical support for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? If such a doctrine is correct, should it not be founded in Scripture? Otherwise, HOW CAN A DOCTRINE THAT COMPELS A THEOLOGY THAT IS EXCLUSIVELY SCRIPTURAL HAVE CREDIBILITY IF IT HAS NO SUCH FOUNDATION ITSELF? Do you not see the discrepancy?
See Church History 101. No need to yell, by the way. I'm not deaf. I will be after listening to Wagner for too long though.
This is the problem I see with a lot of you Protestants. You're irrational. Your type of Christianity is very closely aligned with Islamism in its failure to use reason in your theology,
Which explains our opposition to:
- 'Marian' apparitions
- papal infallibility,
- reverence of relics
- adoration of images
- 'holy' water
- transubstantiation
among other things, of course.
By the way, all of the Reformers I have read about were learned men who were true polymaths by our standards. And what was the name of that rational Church that opposed Galileo Galilei again?
intolerant provincialism (such as your dismissal of pagan mythology), and rabid hypersenstivity regarding criticism.
Look who's talking. That's why the Romanists burned us heretics at a stake, for sure, and explains why they dug up John Wycliffe's bones and burned them to throw the ashes into the water. After all, the man had translated the Bible into the language of the common people. The horror, the horror!
How rational and scriptural.
Evasion
Submitted by atheling on Sat, 2009-10-17 16:37.
@pale rider:
I see that you are not going to show me where in Scripture there is the directive for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. That's because THERE IS NONE.
I rest my case.
RE: Evasion
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sat, 2009-10-17 19:04.
Talking of evasion, where are those papal bulls I asked you for to prove that the point of view you expressed at the beginning of this thread is official Roman Catholic teaching?
If you think I am not answering your question then it just goes to show your ignorance about Church history. Why would you even want to know whether there's a directive in the Bible that the Word of God is our ultimate authority if you don't believe in Sola Scriptura anyway. Besides, I have already explained to you what we understand by Sola Scriptura. Rather than considering the merit of my argument you took it all down because I happen to be a Protestant believing in Sola Scriptura. Nothing as dangerous as a Protestant quoting Scripture of course.
I did not desire to turn this into a Protestant vs Romanist argument. Your not understanding my earlier arguments would seem to suggest you're ignorant of what the Bible has to say on the nature of the Kingdom of God. Never knew Scripture did not apply to Roman Catholics. Oh well, it's only the revealed Word of God after all.
I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you. You wish to blindly follow the direcives of the Pope, you go ahead. If you can't put up with criticism from a scriptural viewpoint, however, I suggest you stop quoting Scripture and do not defend your own viewpoints based on Scripture. Buy a Latin Vulgate Bible and don't forget to throw away any translations you might have. Back to the good ol' pre-Gutenberg days.
Vale.
Whither the Valkyrie Atheling?
Submitted by Capodistrias on Wed, 2009-10-14 05:56.
Has Pale Rider's Wagnarian posts 'killed the wabbit'?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051189/plotsummary
Atheling, even though others have now joined Pale Rider on stage I was hoping you wouldn't let Pale Rider off so easily. Not only did he upstage your reference to Sola Scriptura, he then sang an entire duet on it, by himself! Impressive.
Of course his anti-American leitmotif was a performance for the ages, i.e. teen, juvenile.
"At the risk of being accused of anti-Americanism, I have to say that your view is stereotypically American and strikes me as very irrational as well."
Classic. And he was just warming up.
I'm afraid most Americans on the TBJ fell asleep after Pale Rider's first or second post. Pity, because while America has slept it appears that another Götterdämmerung is about to spring forth out of the Rhine.
Will the Anglo-Saxons-Jutes be included in Greater West Germania? Will the Boys from Brazil and Argentina be included? Will they be able to recapture the glory of their past performances? Will? Will! Will! Isn't Wagner Vonderfull!
Anti-American?
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Wed, 2009-10-14 17:30.
Of course his anti-American leitmotif was a performance for the ages, i.e. teen, juvenile.
Capodistrias, are you that old that you are suffering from such severe amnesia already?
Although I admit I am a young man, I am not a teenager. What does age mean these days anyway, when I know plenty of 40 and 50 somethings who are as grown-up as a 14 year old teenage girl.
I describe myself in my bio saying I'm "pro-American". What juvenile Western European 'teen' would describe himself openly as being highly respectful of the United States and of the typically Anglo-Saxon principles of limited government and individualism from which the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were ultimately derived?
Moreover, if you have ever read any of my earlier posts, which I am sure you have, then you should know that I am anything but anti-American. My criticism was not against the Constitution or even the Founding Fathers themselves, but at the popular U.S. Conservative notion that the Founders and America and even its very constitution were somehow Biblical and über-Christian. So 'Christian' even that they they seem to equate support of the U.S. Constitution and incompetent GOP fools and neocons supporting big government, to preaching the Gospel.
They tend to interpret the Bible through Jeffersonian glasses and forget that the Gospel message is not about temporal governments of man, individual wealth or 'social justice'. I am willing to admit this is a broad brush but I do have encountered this attitude very frequently in exchanges with America's Christian Right. I am very critical of this attitude of theirs because I believe it is erroneous.
By the way, I hate a lot of popular mainstream American culture just as much as a lot of U.S. Conservatives do. Does that still make me anti-American? Perhaps my disgust at much of modern American culture is due to my love for much of what America produced in the past.
So how you can equate my criticisms of, in this particular topic, popular mainstream U.S. Conservative dogmas to all-out anti-Americanism, I don't know. I find it very narrow-minded of yours to call me anti-American and that you'd dismiss what I say as such due to the fact that I am probably a heck of lot younger than you are (given your amnesia).
I am not dismissing U.S. Conservatism in general, and I do not oppose the U.S. Constitution. I am one of the few people who will defend American conservatives in this country, and one of the few friends the U.S. has left in this part of Europe. So quite frankly I take offense at your thoughtless and juvenile remark.
Restoration No. 3
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2009-10-13 18:17.
RE:
1. As Ayn Rand noted, groups do not make decisions, individuals within them do. Such a re-partitioning will be impossible without a major upheaval. I can't imagine a single instance of an advancement or reform that occurred in the absence of a crisis. I wouldn't venture further than a loose confederation along Swiss (or formerly Swiss) lines, although the deconstruction of nationality in Europe should mitigate resistance to the emergence of new polities.
2. I meant "fools" in a very contemporary sense. The French cultural production is almost without equal, especially in terms of art, cuisine and learning. The Italians are the descendants of the Romans, however, there is no Italian nation as such, given the regional antagonisms and sharp differences that persisted despite the Risorgimento.
3. In terms of my being "racist" insofar as being prejudiced against an individual or group purely based on physical characteristics, this is clearly wrong.
Restoration # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2009-10-13 17:16.
@ Kapitein Andre
1) It is a happy occurrence to find something to agree on, i.e. the desirability of a restoration of the 'Greater-Netherlands' or the 'Low Countries' or the 'Seventeen Provinces', although you would want to see that confederation extended to all "West-Germanic" peoples (which is even more utopic). If Mr Vanderheyden were to respond to your questions, I suspect or predict that it will become clearer to you why I consider the whole subject utopic, and those reasons are essentialy rooted in postmodernism.
2) We also seem to agree on French "ambitions", and I grant you that the French (on the whole, there are many individual exceptions) have few 'equals' in the world in terms of cultural (and political) arrogance. But, I would not go as far as calling them (and the Italians and Walloons) "fools" in the way that you have described them. On the contrary, I think that they have made extremely valuable contributions to Western civilisation. French outsized ambitions are as much the product of the 'foolishnes' of others, than of the 'arrogance' of the French. The desirability of cultural self-determination and of self-government is a 'public good' in itself, and it does not require the denigration of others. It is part and parcel of the moral imperative of self-responsibility for all individuals as well as 'peoples' (in a civic/cultural sense).
3) I do not wish to take up the issue of 'racism' any further now, because your last posting raises far to many extraneous issues. I do accept your correction about the term "gene pool", which I used as a shorthand for 'physical looks' and did not intend to use in a scientific sense. Hence, I should have employed single quotation marks to indicate unusual or loose usage.
To Marc Frans RE: "Racism"
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2009-10-13 15:58.
I never discount the impact of experience and influence on patterns of behavior and values, however, attempts at social engineering have failed miserably, and psychological research has proven that "nature" trumps "nurture". European or Western values have not expanded far beyond ethnic Europeans and their descendants. East Asian societies have never adopted Western values beyond those necessary to compete economically and/or militarily with Western powers. Central and Eastern Europeans have been far more receptive to Western values, and this after decades of Marxist-Leninist rule, than the vast majority of non-European migrants to Europe, North America, Australasia, etc.
Emphasizing genetics here has nothing at all to do with the United States, which has not overcome the problem I noted above. Moreover, a country comprised of peoples of pure or mixed Celtic, Germanic, Mediterraneans and Slavic ancestry, does not have a common gene pool. Europe features ample diversity, and yet harmony also. It is one thing for Western countries to accept non-European migrants as charity, it is quite another to pretend as though these add value, and then encourage it. They don't.
To Marc Frans RE: "Restoration"
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2009-10-13 15:40.
Thank you for clarifying Mr Vanderheyden’s nationality. I never read him discussing his own nationality, but I should have been able to deduce from his surname, the greater probability of his being Flemish rather than Dutch.
I fully agree with your opinions on Dutch-Flemish (re)unification. Indeed, I feel a re-partitioning of Western Europe is in order, mainly with respect to the West Germanic peoples. By West Germanic, I refer to those peoples speaking West Germanic languages, a region that roughly extends from the Manx Sea to the Oder and Neisse Rivers and from Sylt Island to Lake Maggiore. Most European borders are reflective of past confessional and political divisions, and the private good of aristocrats, monarchs, emperors, prince-bishops and popes. However, I have long felt that the West Germanic peoples on the continent have been deliberately constrained by foreign powers, and this despite the fact that these peoples – whether the Austrians, Dutch, English or Germans – have led Western Europe for centuries.
French ambitions have not been dashed by centuries of defeats and economic and military mediocrity. That the Germans were forced to cede ethnically German territories to France, economic independence to the EU, and underwrite the EU while France controls it is intolerable; equally so with the Flemings, who are forced to underwrite the Walloons.
What is needed is a confederation that includes all of the West Germanic peoples, protects their ethnic diversity* and languages, marshals their economic power, and extricates them from the company of fools e.g. the French, Italians and Walloons. By “fools”, I mean in the sense of a total lack of efficiency, industry and organization.
*The West Germanic peoples are not ethnically homogenous or identical to the North Germanic peoples or Scandinavians. They can be roughly divided between those that are mainly Celtic-Germanic (e.g. the Dutch, English, Flemings, Frisians, Luxembourgers, West Germans, etc.), and those that are mainly Alpine-Germanic (e.g. Austrians, South Germans, Swiss Germans, etc.). In the northern regions of Germany, many Germans tend to be identical to the Scandinavians, and many East Germans are in fact Germanized Western Slavs.
Response
Submitted by marcfrans on Tue, 2009-10-13 05:16.
@ KA
Peter Vanderheyden is definitely a Flemish Belgian, a fact of which he does not make a secret and that is readily 'recognisable' to any real Belgian regular reader of TBJ comments sections. Although he is not a "resident of the Netherlands", I wish he were, for I am in favor of the restoration of a confederation of the Northern and Southern 'nether-lands' within Europe. That goal seems rather utopian under current (political and cultural) circumstances and, if it could ever come about, it will likely happen by way of (or through) major 'disturbing' geopolitical developments.
@ pvdh
As you know, "racism" - in the sense of 'making value judgments about specific individuals on the basis of purely physical differences - is anathema to me. I see no evidence of Fjordman engaging in "blatant racist crap". As the Kapitein put it, Fjordman is "definitely Eurocentric and anti-Islamic", but (as I will put it) these terms "Euro" and "Islamic" refer to cultural/civilisational differences not to racial differences. They reflect distinct behavior patterns and values that are the products of distinct historical and geographic factors of 'experience' and tradition, not of innate racial differences. Fjordman expresses strong views and they are certainly uncommon in the European media landscape, but they do not deserve to be mischaracterised by the contemporary all-purpose label of 'racist'.
By contrast, the Kapitein frequently casts his views in terms of "white" and "nonwhite", a practice for which he was in the past criticised by Atheling and myself, as was 'Armor' (remember him?). I believe that KA's 'racism' is partly rooted in his need to believe that the American 'experiment' (of a succesful Republic based on a common civic culture, rather than on a common gene pool) has failed. But, that opinion of mine is neither here nor there, i.e. it is not important in this context. The point is that you are directing your charge at the 'wrong' target.
If you could briefly ignore or overlook his obsession with 'whiteness', it might still be worthwhile to address some of the kapitein's pointed questions. But do ignore the last one, because it was based on the mistaken assumption that you are a 'protestant Northerner'. And, despite your anti-religion stance, we both know (at least I hope you do too) that you are much more a 'catholic' than a 'protestant'. It has nothing to do with skin color, but everything to do with 'history'.
@PR and PVDH
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2009-10-13 00:58.
pale rider,
Full agreement on atheling. Your extensive contributions on Western civilization are debatable, but appreciated.
Peter,
I dislike the term "racist", so I don't use it normally. Fjordman is definitely Euro-centric and anti-Islamic. Ethno-centrism and indeed supremacism is tolerated throughout the non-Western world, and Western social engineering to the contrary has not produced any benefits as individual and group competition continues unabated as it has since time immemorial. Fjordman's focus on Muslims and Africans is due to the unprecedented patterns of migration to Europe since 1945, which on their current trajectories, will define European life for the 21st Century.
I assume that you are Dutch and a resident of the Netherlands. Would you accept a majority non-White Netherlands? One that no longer speaks Dutch? One that has a non-Christian religion as an official religion? One that is renamed in another language? Did you agree with your ancestors fighting a brutal and protracted struggle for independence from Spain and Spanish Catholicism?
Fjordman has laid forth his views. It is time for you to do the same, rather than force other commentators to determine them based on your objections.
Doesn’t this bother you?
Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Mon, 2009-10-12 21:16.
It is time to get this from my chest. I’ve read a lot at the Brussels Journal over the years. A lot of it, I didn’t agree with. But mostly it was debatable. It often had some truth in it; was well thought of. But the most filthy and blatant racist crap I’ve ever read was also at the BJ and of the hand of Fjordman. And I honestly want to know from some valued contributors to the BJ as Marcfrans and the kapitein: Doesn’t this bother you?
different Chhristianities
Submitted by peter vanderheyden on Mon, 2009-10-12 20:53.
"Christianity, which taught people that God had created the universe according rational laws which could to some extent be discovered and described by humans."
We must have studied different Chhristianities...
RE: pride & irrationality
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Mon, 2009-10-12 17:35.
By the way, I am not impressed by your posting of a quote about irrationality and pride in response to what I wrote. Especially when you do not understand half of what I am saying while not being able to provide any serious counter arguments other than more gut feelings, emotions, anti-Protestant sentiments and off-topic diversions about how pagan myths foreshadow Christ. It's a cheap trick and tells me a lot about your own disposition with regard to pride and irrationality.
@ Atheling
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Mon, 2009-10-12 17:19.
Oh, so Protestants are Christians after all? Perhaps you should learn to argue with fact and scripture instead of attacking my views as Protestant only to then claim you consider Protestants to be Christians as well.
If I had known I would have referred to the Han Dynasty in China instead of the British Empire. However, the fact that Britain was Christian does not at all convince me that nations adopting Christianity will inevitably become prosperous and mighty nations. Britain fell and so did the Spanish Inquisiteurs due to their flawed monetary policies, while remaining as Roman Catholic as ever. Then again, what's the use in arguing with someone who so passionately believes in her own delusions being scriptural and claims that China's rise is attributable to a rise in Christians! It seems whatever historical cases and examples from Scripture I present to you will not convince you that your view is biblically unsound. And at the end of the day I am only one of those excommunicated heretics anyway.
You talk about the Trinity being a doctrine we have established based on reason when it is derived entirely from Scripture. What you essentially are saying is that we can comprehend God and His divine and mysterious nature thanks to the reason of us fallible and sinful human beings. You are so blinded by belief in extrabiblical revelation that you ascribe the doctrine of the Trinity to human reason instead of what has been revealed to us in Scripture through the Spirit. That is what I call irrational.
You more or less implied in an earlier message that I were a Deist. I wrote that my worldview is Augustinian only to clarify that I am not in any way a Deist. If you think the Biblical concept of election is heretical (I'm not even talking of the Calvinist doctrine on election here) then feel free to write your own Bible like Jefferson (who was a Deist) did. Be sure to throw out the letters of St Paul to the Ephesians and Romans and the letters of St Peter, among others. But that is not what the topic was about anyway.
Talking of Deists, most prominent Founding Fathers were Deists, Freemasons, heretical 'heretics' (e.g. Universalists) and your average Protestant 'heretic' (e.g. Episcopalians, Presbyterians). Thomas Paine was not a Christian at all. Along with Jefferson and others, he passionately defended the radical French revolution. The U.S. did not become a major world power until during the early 20th century. So much for that popular U.S. 'conservative' bogus about "Christian system".
Is the U.S. Constitution a God-given recipe for success? Apparently it is according to a lot of conservatives in the U.S. So I have to wonder why these American Chrstians do not include it among the apocrypha in their Bible instead of reducing the Gospel to support a temporal product (albeit a fine one) of fallible men.
How about accepting what the Bible does have to say instead of twisting Scripture to support your own fanciful interpretation of history, even as you think Scripture is insufficient and is not the final authority for a Christian. And if your view is not official Roman Catholic teaching then you better be careful in proclaiming your unorthodox views.
As for your comment on my English, I should be asking you whether you can even read at all. Have you ever bothered checking my bio? I might as well remove it altogether. On a positive note, your sarcastic question seems to imply that you took me for a native English speaker. For that, I truly am grateful.
More Irrationalities
Submitted by atheling on Sat, 2009-10-17 04:38.
Oh, so Protestants are Christians after all? Perhaps you should learn to argue with fact and scripture instead of attacking my views as Protestant only to then claim you consider Protestants to be Christians as well.
Show me where I said that Protestants are not Christians. I never made such a claim.
1. Drawing incorrect and unsubstantiated assertions. Somewhat paranoid and humorless. Check.
What you essentially are saying is that we can comprehend God and His divine and mysterious nature thanks to the reason of us fallible and sinful human beings. You are so blinded by belief in extrabiblical revelation that you ascribe the doctrine of the Trinity to human reason instead of what has been revealed to us in Scripture through the Spirit. That is what I call irrational.
2. Calls that which uses reason "irrational". Does not believe that reason is a necessary component in discerning truth, therefore, God, who is truth, can transcend reason (similar to Muslim belief regarding Allah.) If God can transcend reason, then he can be an unreasonable God. An unreasonable God cannot always be just. But God always is just, therefore, belief in a (possibly) unreasonable God is false theology. Furthermore, God created man in his own image and likeness. One characteristic of man that is unlike that of animals is his possession of reason. Therefore, reason is a faculty which gives man his "image and likeness" to God. Also, sinfulness and fallibility does not mean that one cannot arrive at truth. If truth comes from God, then he can reveal it to anyone, including sinners. (BTW, Saul of Tarsus was a "fallible and sinful human being", yet he managed to have the "scales" fall from his eyes - for someone who adheres to Sola Scriptura, you sure seem ignorant of a lot of what is written there.) Faulty epistemology. Check.
However, the fact that Britain was Christian does not at all convince me that nations adopting Christianity will inevitably become prosperous and mighty nations. Britain fell and so did the Spanish Inquisiteurs due to their flawed monetary policies, while remaining as Roman Catholic as ever. Then again, what's the use in arguing with someone who so passionately believes in her own delusions being scriptural and claims that China's rise is attributable to a rise in Christians!
3. The rise of something does not always mean that it will continue its ascension, or maintain it forever. Britain's loss of empire in the 20th century coincides with the rise of atheism in the West. Indeed, Europe's decline in the 20th century parallels a rise in atheistic socialism. Also, you mixed apples and oranges by invoking "nations" and using the "Spanish Inquisitors" as an example for your argument. Non sequitor. Check.
I don't have the desire to quote all the other illogical statements made by this person, but the one about my disbelief of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura means that I am not permitted to quote Scripture exemplifies another illogical syllogism. Contra Sola Scriptura does not equal Non Scriptura. More faulty reasoning.
Your thinking, pale rider, is fraught with illogical conclusions, non sequitors, and paranoid assertions.
You sure you're not a Muslim?
RE: More Irrationalities
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sat, 2009-10-17 12:49.
Show me where I said that Protestants are not Christians. I never made such a claim.
Your remarks about predestination, perhaps. And your replies in which you debunked what I wrote saying you are opposed to Sola Scriptura and that the Roman church teaches that we arrive at truth through reason and scripture. I sensed a certain ambiguity in your remarks which left me wondering whether you think it is necessary for Roman Catholicism to spread in order for a nation to prosper. I asked you about that but you never answered the question. You also never considered my points in the second part of my earlier response in which I made a reference to the temptation of Jesus by Satan while fasting in the desert. Not familiar with the story or no desire to think about it? I don't know why you even wrote this response because it borders on a personal attack more than anything else.
1. Drawing incorrect and unsubstantiated assertions. Somewhat paranoid and humorless. Check.
Clearly you haven't gotten the slightest gist of my argument that your or the Roman Church's invocation of "reason" is illogical. That said I give up because I'm not going to repeat myself over. Besides, I never meant to attack you being a Roman Catholic. I did not even know you were Roman Catholic until you wrote in a response that your view cannot possibly be heretical since, after all, you're Roman Catholic, and only Protestants would be guilty of proclaiming heresies like the prosperity Gospel... duuuh!
2. Calls that which uses reason "irrational". Does not believe that reason is a necessary component in discerning truth, therefore, God, who is truth, can transcend reason (similar to Muslim belief regarding Allah.) If God can transcend reason, then he can be an unreasonable God. An unreasonable God cannot always be just. But God always is just, therefore, belief in a (possibly) unreasonable God is false theology. Furthermore, God created man in his own image and likeness. One characteristic of man that is unlike that of animals is his possession of reason. [...]
We all are endowed with reason and we can discern. But your claim was that the Trinity can be known through reason, while the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from Scriptures through the gift of discernment and has been defended, taught and preserved in the Church by God's grace. The way you put it nullifies the role of Scripture. Reason in itself, unless guided by the Holy Spirit and based on Scripture, might just as well lead to Unitarianism. Indeed there are many well-written and well-thought out arguments against the Trinity, all quoting Scripture and invoking Reason.
We know only as much about the Trinity as is revealed in Scripture, and nobody truly comprehends the Trinity because it does transcend our human reason. The very reason why God revealed Himself in the flesh and through Scriptures is the fact that we cannot know Him by our own reasoning.
The rise of something does not always mean that it will continue its ascension, or maintain it forever. Britain's loss of empire in the 20th century coincides with the rise of atheism in the West. Indeed, Europe's decline in the 20th century parallels [..]
Still claiming to understand the dynamics of the world, huh? The Spanish Inquisition was instituted by the staunchly Roman Catholic Habsburg rulers in my homeland of Flanders. Your beloved Church, my dear, backed the Inquisition. Perhaps you should be grateful to those Protestant heretics because without them there would never have been such a strong impulse toward limited government and the principle that the ruler himself is subject to God's law and therefore not supreme. The Reformation also lead to the decrease in secular power held by the Roman Church and its clergy, which at various points was more of a tyranny than anything else.
As you indicated in your response to Kapitein Andre, you believe the crusades were an example of a muscular Christianity. It would seem you would like a return to those days when the bishop of Rome was the head of the Western Church and assumed worldly power to fight Muslim infidels. You're entitled to those views, of course, but I for one do not agree with that line of thinking.
The Reformers were all out against Islam and did not oppose the secular powers keeping out Islam. They did not, however, oppose the evangelization of the Muslims and neither did they proclaim it to be the mission of the Church to forcibly convert and subject Muslims to Papist rule or otherwise annihilate them. The Christian's true Sword is the Word of God. The idea of a Christian "Holy War" and forgiveness of sin by participation in such a war, is absurd.
Also, I am not a Mohammedan, thank you very much. I do, however, submit myself to the sovereign God who is my Sustainer and my ultimate Authority in life.
More False Assertions
Submitted by atheling on Sat, 2009-10-17 17:31.
Section one of your response is a non answer to the statement you quote from me. Again, you have drawn conclusions that are not based on fact, nor can be extrapolated from what I said. As a matter of fact, you are entering the realm of dishonesty here. No wonder Kapitein Andre agrees with you. You both are flip sides of the same coin.
Section two is a non sequitor. I do not nullify Scripture when I say that one should use BOTH REASON AND SCRIPTURE. Why is it "either or" with you? That demonstrates an inflexible and irrational approach in your thinking. Again, you are drawing incorrect conclusions. Also, your assertion that we can know about the Trinity only through Scripture while having no Scriptural support for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is false reasoning. You have no substantiation for it. Tell me this: WHERE DID SCRIPTURE COME FROM? And when was it written? If the truth about God can come only from Scripture, then how did the early Christians know anything since THEY HAD NO SCRIPTURE FOR AT LEAST A CENTURY? Do please answer without evasions.
As you indicated in your response to Kapitein Andre, you believe the crusades were an example of a muscular Christianity. It would seem you would like a return to those days when the bishop of Rome was the head of the Western Church and assumed worldly power to fight Muslim infidels.
Again you are drawing conclusions with no basis. I'm beginning to think you are mentally ill.
Technically, you may not be a Muslim. But you certainly "reason" like one. I must find that article I read where someone wrote up an analysis on the similarities between Islamism and Calvinism.
@ atheling again
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sat, 2009-10-17 19:52.
Tell me this: WHERE DID SCRIPTURE COME FROM? And when was it written? If the truth about God can come only from Scripture, then how did the early Christians know anything since THEY HAD NO SCRIPTURE FOR AT LEAST A CENTURY? Do please answer without evasions.
That was the Apostolic age during which the Apostles themselves as well as direct eye witnesses of Christ testified of the Word. Protestants do not deny that during the time that the New Testament had not been fully produced and the Bible did not yet exist as we know it today, the Spirit testified of the truth and God mercifully worked through the Church to assemble the books that were divinely inspired. Now that we have the Word of God, which, as in the days of the Israelites is to be the ultimately authority, we have no excuse for condoning unbiblical practices or doctrines that add to Scripture or diminish it. Christ Himself said He is the fulfillment of the Law (i.e. Torah) and not a letter was to be removed before the end of days (see here). He preached against the traditions an explanations of men (i.e. the Sadducee view that there is no resurrection of the body, or the hypocrisy regarding Sabbath day and the prejudices toward handicapped people) that were unscriptural. He explained the Torah to the Pharisees at the age of 12 and taught from the Scrolls in Synagogues to the people during His ministry on earth.
RE: More Personal Attacks
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sat, 2009-10-17 19:26.
I have already explained Sola Scriptura as well as why I believe your claim about using reason and Scripture is erroneous and I am not going to repeat myself over and over.
Technically, you may not be a Muslim. But you certainly "reason" like one. I must find that article I read where someone wrote up an analysis on the similarities between Islamism and Calvinism.
Your arrogance is showing. And never mind that it was the Pope who perverted the Church to support the unchristian and unbliblical notion of a Holy War against infidels, similar to the concept of the Jihad that is inherently Islamic. If you like to believe Protestant theologians are idiots who are ignorant of history and ancient Greco-Roman philosophy, that's fine, but you are being intellectually dishonest.
Whereas I do not see individual Roman Catholics as my enemy, you consider us heretical Calvinists to be crypto-Muslims! I do agree we are a threat to the Roman Catholic established order though, albeit in a spiritual way.
You must have been raised by Jesuits to be so ignorant about the fact that before the 16th century Reformation, a lot of theologians held soteriological views that were very similar to conservative Lutherans and Calvinists. Never mind the Thomists, Augustinians and Dominicans. You equate the word Catholic to Roman Catholic, but you are quite mistaken in doing so. As an orthodox Protestant, I am dedicated to the principle of Catholicity.
You see the world as one in which man determines his own destiny. And whether men or nations accept Christianity or not will positively or negatively affect the world. If I understand you correctly, the entire world may potentially become Christian in your view. My worldview is one where God has foreordained all things and in which we are blinded and ignorant of the grand scheme of things. There are no truly Christian nations, the Kingdom of God consists of those who are adopted as sons through Christ, and this heavenly Kingdom transcends worldly divisions.
There is nothing even inherently Protestant about this view, it is a view that has been held by a lot of Christians throughout Church history, based not on human reasoning but on Scriptures. Any educated and intellectually honest Roman Catholic will acknowledge this.
A Flemish-American Interlude
Submitted by Capodistrias on Mon, 2009-10-12 07:03.
St. Damien of Molokai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Damien
In a Flemish-American contretemps.
On Irrationality and Pride
Submitted by atheling on Mon, 2009-10-12 06:12.
"Pride consists in a man making his personality the only test, instead of making truth the test. The sceptic feels himself too large to measure life by the largest things; and ends by measuring it by the smallest thing of all." - G.K. Chesterton
More Inconsistencies
Submitted by atheling on Mon, 2009-10-12 05:21.
Second, there are hundreds of examples of prosperous and mighty nations that existed after Christ, many of which were not Christian. I do not know if in your view a nation must adopt Roman Catholicism to prosper, but the British Empire happened to be non-Catholic.
Do you see the non sequitor of what you say here? You claim that many "prosperous nations existed that were not Christian", then use the BRITISH EMPIRE as an example because they were not Catholic. You have made a logical fallacy there. The British Empire WAS CHRISTIAN.
I can see that this is a fruitless conversation, as you seem unable to use any logical consistency in your statements.
Adios.
@ Atheling [2]
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sun, 2009-10-11 22:53.
But back on topic:
First, no such concept as a correlation between national prosperity and the adoption of Christianity is found in Scripture. Satan still has free reign in this world even as Christ reigns over His people as King from heaven. Remember what Satan promised to give Christ during his 40 day fast in the desert? I wouldn't be surprised if the house of Habsburg was among the human kingdoms he offered (but yes, I admit that's not in Scripture).
Second, there are hundreds of examples of prosperous and mighty nations that existed after Christ, many of which were not Christian. I do not know if in your view a nation must adopt Roman Catholicism to prosper, but the British Empire happened to be non-Catholic. God can surely use both officially 'Christian' nations and non-Christian nations to support His own divine plan. That is why some 'Christian' nations became very powerful, while other 'Christian' nations were subjected to Islam, or never became very prosperous at all, while He allowed certain pagan nations to become powerful and prosperous.
Third, since you do not believe in sola scriptura, I must admit I have never heard of any such concept as you believe in being officially taught by the Roman Catholic Church. And I do take my information about Catholic doctrine from Roman Catholic sources also. So if this view of yours is somehow an official Roman Catholic position, which I doubt, then please provide me some links to papal bulls as proof. Then at least I will be able to examine exactly what the RCC teaches on this issue, even if I will not be able to convince you otherwise given the infallibility of the Pope on doctrinal matters (according to the RCC).
Fourth, personal 'foreknowledge' based on human reason is not foreknowledge. What you are talking about is conjecture. Only God has the ability to foresee the future. Anything God wished to share with mankind about the future is revealed to us in Scripture. Proverbs 3:5 - 'Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.'
As for myths foreshadowing Christ, that is all very interesting but what is written about Christ in Scripture suffices for me. There we have the real story. And as I said before, I am not getting into this. The topic might be relevant to you but it adds nothing to this topic.
@ Atheling [1]
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Sun, 2009-10-11 22:50.
At the risk of being accused of anti-Americanism, I have to say that your view is stereotypically American and strikes me as very irrational as well. There is not even such thing as God-given unalienable rights in the Bible to begin with. The Founding Fathers were not the first to support limited government. Other nations or empires prospered in their own historical and religious contexts, without being Roman Catholic or even without being Christian. When Christ was born, the Roman Empire was all-powerful, omniscient, and persecuted Christians for centuries. Why did Rome fall not too long after it adopted Christianity as the official State religion? God evidently had other plans. Also, last time I checked, this world was still in a sinful state. The United States was founded as a nation without official religion, and history shows that even if a nation officially adopts Christianity as its religion, this does not lead to some kind of utopia in which everyone lives freely, happily and under limited government. Far from it, in fact, as the corruptions of the Church (for instance) during the Middle Ages show.
As for the Trinity, do you seriously claim to understand the very nature of God? If so, do you realize what you are saying? No man has ever seen God but through the Word Incarnate, so how could you or anyone of us possibly comprehend Him? I believe in the Trinity because it is what I and many others infer from Scriptures regarding the nature of God. So did the Church Fathers, who did not yet have 'Holy Tradition' to tell them. It takes genuine God-given faith to accept the mystery of the Trinity, because the concept in its entirety is incomprehensible to us. Even if it seems reasonable to us now, may I remind you of the fact that the Trinity was one of the most controversial issues in early Church history, dividing the Body of believers for centuries? Islam was and remains an all out attack against the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Islam's rejection of the Trinity seems perfectly reasonable and logical to a Muslim. Just check the endless number of websites and documents that debate the Trinity. Ultimately it comes down to what we choose to believe - that the Bible is the Word of God and contains the truth or not. If we knew the Trinity by our own reasoning, then man would not even need Scripture as he would be his own source of truth.
To counter what I said with the fact that you do not believe in Sola Scriptura is really a non-argument. You believe in Holy Tradition or the authority of the Church, well, so do I. Sola Scriptura does not imply that all tradition is wrong, and neither does it mean the Church has no authority. The Reformers did not want to abolish the Church. Unfortunately they were excommunicated, giving rise to various sects. Sola Sciptura holds that the ultimate source of truth and infallible authority is the Word of God. Hence, any forced practices and traditions of men or dogma in the Church that are not scriptural or diminish Scipture, are to be rejected.
Ironically, you apply Scripture (i.e. your interpretation of 'be fruitful and multiply') in a way that reminds me of a lot of Evangelicals who do invoke Sola Scriptura in an attempt at 'proving' their latest fanciful doctrines and conjecture about the fulfillment of the book of Revelation, among other things, as if everyone's individual interpretation was equally valid. To me that is a perversion of Sola Sciptura. Like those 'Protestants', perhaps you should try to read Scripture in its context. The quotes seem to suggest that you pick whatever you want to support a view that to my knowledge is considered heterodox by virtually all denominations, and then invoke your opposition to Sola Scriptura when this view is questioned on scriptural grounds. Don't you see the flaw in your thinking?
@pale rider
Submitted by atheling on Mon, 2009-10-12 05:17.
I won't continue this conversation as your comments make little sense to me and you are putting words into my mouth. You have taken what I have said out of context, created strawmen, and made some rather wild accusations. Accusing me of some kind of hubristic "understanding the very nature of God" when I used the example of the Trinity to prove that Scripture does not explicitly speak of the Trinity, yet many of those who invoke Sola Scriptura believe in the Trinity doctrine is a complete misunderstanding of my meaning. Talk about misconstruing! Is English your first language?
One More Point...
Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2009-10-11 20:20.
It's clear that Christianity in Europe is dying. It is also in decline in America (though I fervently hope and pray that there is a renaissance in my own country). Would God allow his visible kingdom on earth to wither away? Would he permit the Gospel to fade into obscurity?
Soon after Benedict's ascendency to the papacy, I read an interesting article that the Holy See is "preparing" for a "contraction" of the faith in Europe (the west), and a "renewal" in the east.
I find another metaphor there: the faith, like the sun, sets in the west, but rises in the east at a new dawn.
Can't help but see that sometimes there is more truth in poesy than in science! :)
@ pale rider Part 2
Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2009-10-11 19:31.
Relatively speaking, there really are not all that much Christians in China.
And there were only 12 apostles of Christ, and a small bunch of ragtag followers in the beginning. Remember the parable of the mustard seed?
India is also a rising power and there are relatively few Christians. Brazil's religiosity is on the decline and yet it is also set to become an important world player in the 21st century. Japan is still one of the most prosperous nations on earth and yet only about 1% to 2% (at most) of its citizens describe themselves as Christians.
Japan is dying. Their demographics are just as dismal as Europe's. Whether India and Brazil will continue to grow and become a "superpower" remains to be seen, as becoming a “superpower” will rely just as much on societal constructs as well as on economic ones. It could be a house of cards come tumbling down if there is no solid foundation, i.e., the stability of the family, work ethics, etc… Again, what I am saying is that if China continues its trajectory of economic growth coupled with a surging Christian population, it will be a force to be reckoned with, just as America was, based on the same Christian model.
Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, being the perfect atoning sacrifice to God and the true High priest. I believe firmly that although we are not under the Law, the moral laws of God remain applicable and have not been done away with.
I find it a bit confusing. When you say “Law”, are you referring to the Mosaic Law, particularly with food? Yes, I agree with you in that respect.
Your comment on Latin America actually reflect my own thoughts, in that we as mere human beings cannot possibly foreknow what God has in store, unless it is revealed in sciptures
Again, Sola Scriptura. I do not agree that we cannot "foreknow" things unless it is based on Scripture. The faculty of reason must be utilized. There is nothing in Scripture that speaks of the Trinity, yet reason can extrapolate that there exists three persons in one God.
I don't think I can agree about pagan myths being a foreshadowing of Christ though. I could think of examples from Egyptian mythology but, if anything, I believe those are perversions of the truth rather than foreshadowings. But that is off-topic and rather irrelevant to the discussion.
Let me explain what "foreshadowment" actually is. You say that it does not apply because the pagan myths are "perversions". I'm not sure that's an accurate term. But first, let us examine what a "shadow" is. It gives us a vague shape, but has no substance. It is not real, but is merely an outline of the actual thing. Therefore, myths can accurately be called "shadows" of the truth. So the myth of Odin or of Athena (or other pagan myths such as Egyptian ones) truly do render an early vision, or "shadow" of Christ. They offer us inaccurate renderings of Christology, but should not be dismissed. Indeed, one can say that the fact that myths exist in early man demonstrates the truth that man's psyche is wired for Christ. I do not find that "irrelevant". I find it awesome and it gives me a deeper appreciation for God and his creation. As a matter of fact, C.S. Lewis was converted from atheism as a result of this explanation of mythology as presented to him by G.K. Chesterton. It certainly helped me with some questions of faith too.
As I stated earlier, the poet or artist uses "foreshadowment" in his works to render an impending "revelation". Other tools include the use of metaphor to help the reader better grasp the nature of something, i.e., Shakespeare's use of the rose to describe the nature of love. Is it not reasonable to believe that God, who is an artist, would utilize the same tools to help us understand the unfolding truth or revelation about him, our relationship with him, and of his creation?
Are Tristan and Isolde done yet?
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Fri, 2009-10-09 12:57.
Sure we are. ;)
A Common Idiot III
Submitted by Capodistrias on Wed, 2009-10-07 22:05.
I second KO's seconding of me!
A Common Idiot's not so Swift Response
Submitted by Capodistrias on Wed, 2009-10-07 16:50.
Are Tristan and Isolde done yet? Or is the Ring cycle about to begin? PR? Atheling?
Now that I have succesfully gotten Atlanticist to run off with Kappert, any suitors for Kapitein Andre? Atheling?
Pale Rider next time you ride past one of us common idiots, do stop, not all of our idiocy is self-inflicted, well maybe in my case, but I'm sure most of the common idiots you'll pass in life could use a good Samaritan.
A Common Idiot 2
Submitted by KO on Wed, 2009-10-07 19:19.
I join in Capo's applause for PR's and atheling's duet of orthodoxy, and congratulate them on their fine religious education!
More @ pale rider
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2009-10-07 00:44.
And it would seem that a lot of East Asians fancy intellectual and sophisticated, technical music and pride themselves in showing off their six year old son playing Eine Kleine Nachtmusik as if he were demon-possessed, rather than actually enjoying and contemplating the music and getting to the depth or the heart of the music.
You sure seem certain of the mind and intents of many East Asian classical musicians. How many do you know of?
It's also interesting that you accuse them of doing exactly what Herr Mozart was accused of with his child prodigy.
@ Atheling
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Tue, 2009-10-06 21:19.
Au contraire, it is because of Christianity that China will continue to gain power. There are now more Christians in China than there are Communists. Christian persecution is easing; the government has just started promoting larger families. China's growing affluence and power coincides with its conversion to Christianity, just as Europe's did.
Because of Christianity? I beg to differ. How is that when orthodox practicing Christians are being actively persecuted, do not have freedom of assembly, when the government demands that churches be registered and submit to the Chinese state, not allowing Christians to openly proclaim the Gospel? Last time I checked, religion was only legally allowed from age 18 onward. I'm not aware of any recent changes in this policy. The official and registered protestant church in China is mostly a parade. I once read that in some of these churches they do not even have Christmas services. The 'Catholic' church is not in communion with the Vatican. The Three-Self Patriotic movement attempted to prove that a national church can be loyal to the state, but what they essentially did is betray the foundational truth that the Church is universal and that our Christian duties transcend those of the nation, especially if the nation (or State, rather) actively seeks to counter the essence of Christianity, which is Christ being the Son of God and the true Redeemer of mankind, not Mao and other Communist charlatans. Our "Comrades" are first and foremost our brothers and sisters in Christ, for what communion hath light with darkness? That is not to suggest that we ought to neglect other duties and forsake our own people, but the communion of the Saints is 'universal' or 'catholic' in that God's Kingdom is not of this fallen world.
Now to return to the topic, I am also very optimistic about the appreciation many East Asians show toward Western classical music, but how do they really look at it? In the past, the violin was forbidden in the People's Republic of China as it was deemed to be an imperialist instrument. Yet now that it is allowed and compositions of Bach and Mozart are conducted, I do not get the impression that the Chinese - or most East Asians, for that matter - actually understand the very inspiration of a lot of Western classical compositions, much less do they seem to grasp the spiritual soul of Western civilization. What good are the Matthew Passion by Bach or Messiah by Händel when you have no idea whom they are actually about, and do not have the faintest idea what the Scriptures quoted in these oratorios actually mean? Indeed, when somehow the Johannes Passion is allowed to be conducted but public adoration of Christ is punishable by sentence to labor camps - death, basically (I'm talking specifically of the PRC and the DPRK here)? That's what I call hypocrisy! You might as well do away with much of classical music, since all you are left with after stripping down the content of the music and taking the music out of its historical context, is technicality.
And it would seem that a lot of East Asians fancy intellectual and sophisticated, technical music and pride themselves in showing off their six year old son playing Eine Kleine Nachtmusik as if he were demon-possessed, rather than actually enjoying and contemplating the music and getting to the depth or the heart of the music. Is that good? It's better than kids emulating 50 Cent, perhaps, but all in all what does it actually contribute to their society? Does it change their mindset? I very much doubt it. The PRC is still the PRC, and the Communist party is still Marxist, no matter how much it has diverted from Maoism. Ant-like obedience to the Marxist Saviors of the Chinese people is the norm. Serving any Lord other than the Comrade Leader is heresy.
Essentially what I fear is that Western classical music is being transformed from something technical though also organic and often deeply spiritual, into a mechanical, abstract and robotic display of intellectual achievement, an idolatry of self. Art for the sake of technicality only is not art, it does injustice to the composer. I would seriously like to know whether Handel, Bach, Haydn, Mendelssohn and others are comfortable having their music being studied and promoted out of delusions of grandeur and snobbery instead of worship and enjoyment of the Creator (or at least, an appreciation of this aspect of their music), which, on the whole, is hardly existent in much of modern East Asia (though there are exceptions).
Best regards.
@pale rider
Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2009-10-06 22:21.
You forget how the early European Christians were persecuted by the powers that be - a dying Roman Empire. And how did that turn out?
Don't you remember your Old Testament Scripture? Whenever the Hebrews remained faithful to God, they flourished and prospered. When they turned away from him, they became slaves to another people.
The same held for Europe. Europe's rise and decline also coincides with its embrace and rejection of Christianity.
From the Scripture I quoted earlier, can you not see the pattern and the promise?
RE: @pale rider
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Tue, 2009-10-06 23:06.
"From the Scripture I quoted earlier, can you not see the pattern and the promise?"
That sounds almost like the prosperity gospel. The promise to Christians is not one of riches on earth. We have no assurance that China will eventually adopt Christianity as the Roman Empire did in the 4th century A.D. We do not know whether that is indeed God's will for China. Today, Latin America is probably one of the most openly Christian places on earth (at least on the surface). Just how prosperous and free is Latin America today, relatively speaking? Why is not Latin America the new Western civilization? Has Chile prospered because of a sudden embrace of or a re-dedication to Christianity, or because of the Chicago Boys' market reforms in the 80s? Did staunchly Catholic Spain thank its glory, power and riches to Christianity or to colonialism? Spain remained a very Catholic nation long after the steady decline of its empire, due to her government's mismanagement. So honestly I don't see how any of this correlates to religion. Black Africans have some of the most faithful Christians on earth among them, and yet their countries remain in deep poverty and ethnic and religious strife continues. As for China, there are many sects emerging there due to the fact that very immature converts are put in charge of a congregation, while lacking even in basic doctrinal matters and sometimes not even having the entire Bible at their disposal. People who are openly Christian are repressed in the economic sphere. So frankly I think you are confusing things here. Christians are God's people, but the Church, unlike ancient Israel, is not an ethnic group or an earthly nation. It is the brotherhood of the elect from all the nations, hence the principle of 'catholicity' or universalness. The Church does not need OT prophets and revelations because God revealed himself through Christ and we have everything in Scripture. Christ is our King. Prosperity and blessings may be bestowed upon the faithful but we have no assurance that this is always true. God sends the rain on both the just and the unjust, and often it is those who are evil at heart that will prosper most in this life. The promise we have is one of eternal life in Christ, not an earthly paradise, which is what the Jews thought the Messiah was going to establish upon His coming. You're of course free to disagree, this is just to clarify my position.
Best regards.
@ pale rider again
Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2009-10-06 23:50.
I do not subscribe to the prosperity gospel. That is a Protestant belief and I am Roman Catholic. Nor am I saying that prosperity is nation or race-based, but I can't help but see a pattern with Christian faith and the prosperity of nations. How can Christianity flourish and spread if there is no economic growth? The people must survive economically if the faith is to spread. If you read G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man you might find some interesting thoughts about the Punic Wars and how they set up Rome to be the "super power" of the known world, and eventually become the seat of Christendom. I am not a deist. I believe that God is involved in the lives of men and nations, though I can't say to what end or why he does or does not "interfere" in some cases.
Your bringing up Latin America is an interesting point. Who knows what will happen in the future with North and South America? If the United States continues its economic decline (and note that this decline coincides with a decrease in faith among Americans), perhaps South America will supercede North America. But I know many, many Latin Americans who are not Christian. They too suffer the same spiritual malaise that infects the West. It seems that Christianity flourishes best where there is persecution, as it did for the early Christians of Rome. Does not the scripture quote say that the "Father" will "prune" the branches where he sees potential growth? Pruning involves resection and sacrifice, and it appears that the greatest Christian persecution is in China and North Korea, where it is driven underground.
I would not be too eager to dismiss the Old Testament and its lessons. In it we see many examples of foreshadowment (Joseph being sold for pieces of silver into slavery by his brothers, the aborted sacrifice of Isaac, the covenant between God and the Israelites and the New Covenant with Christ, etc...) that help us understand and ponder mysteries. Indeed, even pagan mythology contains foreshadowment of Christ, i.e., Odin hanging from a tree, Athena springing forth from the mind of Jove. Jung tells us that myths are universal truths found in man's psyche. Just as foreshadowment is a tool of the poet or writer, does it not seem reasonable to think that God, the supreme artist, uses it as a tool for his own story telling?
RE: @ pale rider again
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Wed, 2009-10-07 00:59.
I'm not a Deist either, quite the opposite in fact. Perhaps what I wrote struck you as being Deistic, but my worldview is probably best described as an Augustinian one. I believe everything has been foreordained, but we cannot comprehend the fullness of all things due to the limitations of our minds. Since you are a Roman Catholic, I suppose that you are familiar with St Augustine's "City of God".
What I was saying is that we do not know exactly what plans God has for various nations, and that therefore I cannot agree that China's rise as a superpower is attributable to a rise or acceptance of Christianity among Chinese people. It is not taught in Scripture that an increase in Christian faith leads to national prosperity, and such earthly promises are not part of the covenant God has with believers. If you believe there is a correlation your views are not that different from what proponents of the prosperity gospel claim, like it or not. It's not a matter of whether you're a Protestant or not.
Relatively speaking, there really are not all that much Christians in China. India is also a rising power and there are relatively few Christians. Brazil's religiosity is on the decline and yet it is also set to become an important world player in the 21st century. Japan is still one of the most prosperous nations on earth and yet only about 1% to 2% (at most) of its citizens describe themselves as Christians.
Your comment on Latin America actually reflect my own thoughts, in that we as mere human beings cannot possibly foreknow what God has in store, unless it is revealed in sciptures. As for the OT, I'd be the last person to dismiss the OT. Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, being the perfect atoning sacrifice to God and the true High priest. I believe firmly that although we are not under the Law, the moral laws of God remain applicable and have not been done away with. I don't think I can agree about pagan myths being a foreshadowing of Christ though. I could think of examples from Egyptian mythology but, if anything, I believe those are perversions of the truth rather than foreshadowings. But that is off-topic and rather irrelevant to the discussion.
It seems that Christianity flourishes best where there is persecution, as it did for the early Christians of Rome.
Agreed.
You sure seem certain of the mind and intents of many East Asian classical musicians. How many do you know of?
It's also interesting that you accuse them of doing exactly what Herr Mozart was accused of with his child prodigy.
Wow! Apparently you have taken the adjective "demon-possessed" very literally as if I were claiming that there's something wrong with child prodigies. I hope I have not offended mister Mozart...
Seriously, the issue I raised is a philosophical one. I must not have managed to get that across. Classical music in itself does not necessarily have a healing effect on society. It's one thing to be fond of Classical music, but it's another matter entirely to actually appreciate the contents of the music, the inspiration of the composer. I don't know about you but I know of a lot of people who like to send their kids to violin classes to brag about it. Well, what do you think is happening in China where it is virtually forbidden to be an orthodox Christian but it's perfectly alright to conduct the Messiah oratorio. They accept Western classical music but denounce its inspiration and the historical context. Where's the redeeming factor in all this, please? There is none. So it's all nice to see the attention they're giving to classical music, but it's lamentable that they cannot and will not fully appreciate the intentions of the composers or the actual content of a lot of compositions. But that is of course true of a lot of other peoples as well. I hope you get the point.
Good night.
PR
@ pale rider... again Pt. 1
Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2009-10-11 19:16.
I believe everything has been foreordained, but we cannot comprehend the fullness of all things due to the limitations of our minds. Since you are a Roman Catholic, I suppose that you are familiar with St Augustine's "City of God".
I am reluctant to regard "everything" as foreordained as that smacks too much of Calvinism and predestination, and being RC, you know we regard that as a heresy! ;) I believe in free will and that God is omniscient. I must confess that I am more familiar with Augustine's Confessions than I am with his City of God and even the former was read many, many years ago. Too many books, too little time, alas.
What I was saying is that we do not know exactly what plans God has for various nations, and that therefore I cannot agree that China's rise as a superpower is attributable to a rise or acceptance of Christianity among Chinese people.
I agree with you that we do not know EXACTLY what God's plans are for nations. But I also think that throughout man's history, as delineated in Scripture, God has always had a relationship with a group of people whether it be the Israelites of the Old Testament or the followers of Christ in the New. I also note that those people with whom he is connected experience a growth in number ("Be fruitful and multiply"), strength (Remember how the Hebrews, when faithful to Yahweh, conquered their enemies and flourished? And look at Europe's ascendency while it was called "Christendom"), and power. The US was established on the creed that all men are created equal, and that man's rights come from divine law, not one of men or nations. And look at how the US became a superpower. My point is that in order for the Gospel to spread, there must be a correlating economic prosperity and growth, otherwise, just as a seedling will not grow in poor, untended and infertile conditions, the faith cannot be spread unless there are avenues by which it can travel and a people strong enough to proseltyze it. This is not about "reward", as the protestant concept of "prosperity gospel" preaches, but it is about the practical necessities which must be in place in order for God's Word to be known throughout the world, as Christ commanded.
It is not taught in Scripture that an increase in Christian faith leads to national prosperity, and such earthly promises are not part of the covenant God has with believers. If you believe there is a correlation your views are not that different from what proponents of the prosperity gospel claim, like it or not. It's not a matter of whether you're a Protestant or not.
Well, you know that as an RC, I do not subscribe to the theory of Sola Scriptura. As a matter of fact, the concept itself is unfounded, as there are no directives in Scripture to do so, ironically enough. The Catholic Church teaches that the doctrines of the faith come through reason and Scripture, and that reason, which is a singular faculty found only in man, must also be used to extrapolate truth.
Possessed by demons
Submitted by Bob Doney on Tue, 2009-10-06 21:38.
pale_rider:
And it would seem that a lot of East Asians fancy intellectual and sophisticated, technical music and pride themselves in showing off their six year old son playing Eine Kleine Nachtmusik as if he were demon-possessed, rather than actually enjoying and contemplating the music and getting to the depth or the heart of the music.
And, it has to be said, the increasing number of classical music competitions and awards ceremonies in the West add to this demon-possession. A pox on them all!
Bob Doney
A Swift(-ish) response to a common idiot
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2009-10-06 20:51.
Sorry, but no can do. Kappert and myself have decided to elope from this island to Lilliput, where the giant Bonobo pygmy chimp is king and where we intend to spend the rest of our lives together happily googling Yahoos and calculating the maximum number of umlauts and diphthongs we can find in the words "Umlaut", "Yahoo" and "Diphthong".
Inquiry from a Common Idiot
Submitted by Capodistrias on Tue, 2009-10-06 19:19.
@Pale Rider
"This leads me to conclude that the common man is dead, having been devoured by the common idiot."
Is this a line from the Fine Young Cannibals' song: Bono Petit(e)?
@Atlanticist
A note in a bottle:
I will cease and desist only if you send Kappert over to serve me a White Russian, preferably one that looks like the ad that is now floating above our inane comments.
Sincerely,
Capodistrias, since no man is an island.
The common man? What is that?
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Tue, 2009-10-06 18:31.
Quote:
"A flaw frequently pointed out in the democratic system is that the “common man” is on average not smart enough to run a country, but when it comes to promoting Multiculturalism and mass immigration of alien and often hostile peoples it is in every single Western country the political, economic and academic elites who are pushing for this. Resistance to these suicidal policies comes from the common man. Another problem is that in the post-Enlightenment ideological environment, especially after Marxism, there is a tendency among some educated elites to view the common man as a guinea pig for their social experiments. "
--
I agree with a lot of what you said in the article but I have to admit I cannot agree with you on this point. See ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, specifically in Ireland? Sure, the EU is pushing its own agenda down people's throats, but apparently the common man, who supposedly is opposed to the EU's foolish policies, is too dumb to stop electing the same politicians who have sold their national sovereignty to the EU over and over again. The common man blindly accepts media support for moral debauchery and political 'progressivism', and cheerfully embraces whatever a bunch of silly rockstars like that guy from U2 (I forgot his name but I think he's named after an apeman, or whatever) have to say on issues like climate change. If the common man were that common then we would never have gotten ourselves in this mess in the first place. So frankly I don't believe there is such a thing as the common man who is morally upright and thinks rationally. People not only deserve the government they want, they also deserve whatever government they allow to exist. Of course the people really means that the majority gets to decide who will rule over the people as a whole, including the minorities that disagree. This leads me to conclude that the common man is dead, having been devoured by the common idiot.
Not U2 (2) ?
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2009-10-06 14:24.
@ Kappert
Friday doesn't get to choose (his or) her favourite musical pieces. (Read the book). And, after careful consideration, perhaps (in your case) "She drives me crazy" by the British group Fine Young Cannibals should be top of my play list, should it not? (Don't worry, it isn't). Now where's that strawberry daiquiri I ordered?
Western civilization
Submitted by pale_rider (not verified) on Tue, 2009-10-06 13:05.
As for "Judaeo-Christian", I am not that bothered by this usage myself. I do have to admit that I dislike the manner in which some use this compound in an apparent effort to appease liberal Jews and claim that Western civilization is somehow greatly indebted to 'post-Jesus' rabbinical Judaism, which is simply not true.
Nonetheless, Jews have lived in the West for centuries and they have been an integral part of our civilization. The Christian religion has Jewish roots and Christ was a Jew no matter what some people claim. No New Testament without the Old Testament, no Messiah without the Torah and the OT prophets. Religious Jews and practicing Christians do share the same outlook on traditional values. The Ten Commandments come to mind.
However, I do think that it is a mistake to claim that our civilization is both Jewish and Christian. The true Jew is the one who is one inwardly, as St. Paul wrote, and in Christ there is neither Jew or Greek. Haredi Jews and conservative Christians will therefore find themselves at odds. Christians may be bound by the moral law, but they are by no means subject to dietary and ceremonial laws, for instance. Our Temple and our High priest is Christ.
To me, the "Judaeo" part is about acknowledging the roots of the Christian faith. I think that to include "Judaeo" is not a mistake when we are referring to the moral values of Western civilization. Where Islamic law orders that raped women be executed, the Torah orders that the rapist be executed.
In addition, I believe that to include "Judaeo" in the present day may be an appropriate way to express our respect toward Jews on a personal level in order to distance ourselves of the way the Church has, at various times, behaved toward them, as well as to demonstrate that Jews and Christians can live peacefully together whereas in Islam the Jews are - strictly speaking (i.e. in Islamic scriptures) - inferior and infidels.
Not so with Christianity. All of the Apostles were ethnic Jews, and virtually every Church Father and Reformer I have heard of, studied Hebrew.
Nonetheless, I think that if we truly wanted to describe our civilization in its entirety with regard to both morality or civil society and government, and give due credit to all main 'contributers', we might have to put it this way: Judaeo-Hellenistic-Christian civilization. After all, nobody can deny that without the Greeks and Romans, Western civilization would not have been what it is. In my view, it is this bizarre and seemingly impossible blend of Greco-Roman thought and a religion with Jewish, Semitic and Middle-Eastern roots that makes Western civilization so unique.
Judeo-Christian Quiz #1
Submitted by Capodistrias on Tue, 2009-10-06 12:37.
Which hyphenated term does not belong with the other two?
A) Canaanite–Judaic” B) “Catholic–Anglican” C) "Judeo-Christian
Not U2?
Submitted by Capodistrias on Tue, 2009-10-06 12:20.
@Kappert
I was sure you would also include Jim Croce. Oh well, at least you picked up the tempo a bit.
The Kappert Isle, folks, not just smoke on the water.
island invitation
Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2009-10-06 09:29.
Stranded on an island deserves really good music; so here are my absolute musts: Aida Nadeem, Deep Purple, Egberto Gismonti, Ekseption, Fairouz, Frank Zappa, Jan Garbarek, Jon Lord, Khaled, Pink Floyd, Sergey Rachmaninov, Wim Mertens, Xutos & Pontapés.
Not Jacobinism?
Submitted by Capodistrias on Tue, 2009-10-06 06:32.
@K.A.
I think it is; therefore, it is. Coercion and deportation has a wonderful Jacobin edge to it, whereas, conversion, and some coercion in self-defense, has a nice Christian ring to it. Don't you think?
The Jabberwocky translation engine is still working on the rest of your response to my post it will be ready sometime yesterday. Is it very tiring to say very silly things in a very serious manner? I'm still enjoying immensely your Bronze Age commentary that since all Ages speak and forewarn of catastrophic collapse it is almost certain that catastrophic collapse did not take place in the Bronze Age.
"Judeo" Part III - Replies to Capo & marcfrans
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Tue, 2009-10-06 03:07.
Capodistrias,
I take issue with misleading emphasis that attempts to revise history. An equally misleading emphasis might be “Canaanite–Judaic” or “Catholic–Anglican”.
And no, what I hint is not Jacobinism. However, effecting the deportation of Muslims from Europe will require coercion, which is impossible without coercive measures that would be considered extraordinary by democratic governments.
Marcfrans,
European or Western civilization is complex and far from monolithic or centralized. As I noted in my prior comments, Christianity is inseparable from Judaism insofar as its origins and context are concerned. However, Christianity is distinct from Judaism, just as Judaism is distinct from its Near Eastern and Eastern Mediterranean predecessors and influences.
Persecution and exclusion of the Jews by Christians in Europe was commonplace until relatively recently, and neither papal apologies nor evangelical sympathies can “revise” the past.
Today, Jews are vigorous opponents of both Islam and Islamification. So too are Russia’s Eastern Orthodox Christians, who face a greater demographic threat than any country in Western Europe. However, even if political differences and national interests were set aside and Russia united with the West against Islam, this could not change centuries of conflict and distance between Eastern Orthodox societies and Western Catholic and Protestant ones.
As far as European/Western “values” are concerned, you cannot ignore the major contributions of the Hellenic city–states, the Roman Empire and Germanic tribes, or the lesser ones of the Celts and others. The Judaic contribution – outside of Christianity – pales in comparison.
Judeo # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2009-10-05 23:52.
Europeans have been persecuting Europeans since the beginnings of history. Does that mean that there is no such thing as European (Western) civilisation? I think not.
The values that have shaped Western civilisation (in Europe and later in its diaspora as well) are properly called "judeo-christian" ones. And, the relevant question is whether they will continue to be characteristic of the populations concerned, or not. In the latter case, that civilisation will not survive everywhere in its current geographic space.
Nothing to Sneeze At
Submitted by Capodistrias on Mon, 2009-10-05 23:34.
Judeo-Christian
"God Bless You"
Christian
"Bless You"
Judeo-Christian
"God Bless You"
Christian
"Bless You"
Don't let it get to you K.A., it's simply a matter of emphasis, not necessarily redundancy.
Now if we want to discuss disingenuos, we could discuss how one might assert that there is no need to emphaize the Judeo-Christian tradition while there is a need to emphasize:
"Christians of all denominations have persecuted Jews for centuries and to a large degree excluded them from Christian society."
Or, we could return to discussing redundancy if one insists:
K.A. said:
"We need an intellectual revolution: one that holds ethnic self–determination, the nation–state, liberalism and civilizational security as inviolate."
That would be called the French Revolution, a redundancy of epoch proportions, which has attempted to wash away in blood the Judeo-Christian, or simply Christian Soul of Western Civilization for centuries. Keep trying K.A., flail away; here's a little background music.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XId7e3IoNk
On "Judeo"
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Mon, 2009-10-05 19:18.
"Judeo" is not a "dirty word", at least not to me. However, there is no need to hyphenate Christianity. Every religion or philosophy is derived and borrows from others, yet each is distinct. Anyone attempting to extricate Chriatianity from its origins in Judaism is on a fool's errand. By the same token, it is equally ridiculous to refer to European civilization as "Judeo-Christian". Christians of all denominations have persecuted Jews for centuries and to a large degree excluded them from Christian society.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth absorbed Muslim Turkic nomads, who were permitted to settle and practice Islam freely. It even became a haven for Jews fleeing oppression in the rest of Europe. However, the religious facet of Polish culture is not Judeo-Christian, Islamo-Christian or any combination thereof; it is Christian, specifically Catholic.
Re: On "Judeo"
Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2009-10-06 04:29.
@KA:
By the same token, it is equally ridiculous to refer to European civilization as "Judeo-Christian". Christians of all denominations have persecuted Jews for centuries and to a large degree excluded them from Christian society.
I find the second sentence a complete non sequitor, and it does not justify separating the term "Judeo Christian".
Examples of Judeo Christian influence in Western culture:
"The writing on the wall"... "Philistine"... "David and Goliath"... "Parting the Red Sea"... "Paradise Lost"...
Those terms have very deep roots in the West's psyche. Clearly Christian Europe, in its literature and thought, has been greatly influenced by those themes, which are clearly Judaic.
Vox Humana # 2
Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2009-10-05 17:10.
@ Atheling
"The Barcarolle" floors me too. Don't know why.
Also, your "Not so Fast" was spot on. 'Judeo' remains a dirty word in certain European quarters, which they share with the 'muslims'.
Vox Humana # 3
Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2009-10-06 04:51.
@marcfrans:
I think that part of the appeal of The Barcarolle (apart from its lovely melody) is its brevity and understatedness.
Always leaves one wanting more.
Atlanticist's Travels
Submitted by Capodistrias on Mon, 2009-10-05 14:37.
If Kappert accompanies you to your desert isle does that make her a fellow traveler?
And does that leave me alone, stranded on Kappert Isle?
And if there is no Kappert on Kappert Isle, does that mean I am just a Capo d'Istria?
What say you Traveller?
A recapitulation of your inquiry to mpresley:
"What the f..k are you talking about?" is probably appropriate here. : :-)
@mpresley
'final cause / ultimate goal, purpose'
I really thought you were on to something sublime, pity, maybe Kappert can chirp in after she's done fanning Atlanticist?
@Fjordam
"Alexander Boot has a deeply Christian way of seeing the world,..."
Not if it ends in death.
@ Capodistrias:
Submitted by mpresley on Mon, 2009-10-05 16:20.
Submitted by Capodistrias: I really thought you were on to something sublime, pity, maybe Kappert can chirp in after she's done fanning Atlanticist?
First, looking for something worthy of adoration, or awe inspiring from my writing is probably not advised. Nothing I write is unique to me, but is at best a synthesis of others who have more insight, and more intelligence than I in these matters. Thus, my failure should not be viewed as a pity in any sense. However, I try to be as clear and succinct as I can, and will respond to any particular questions or requests for clarifications that you might have. I'm not sure why you defer to another if you have a question or comment, though. Also, I appreciate any sensible comments and/or criticisms, but frankly admit to not knowing exactly your meaning in the above highlighted quote.
Sat under a palm tree...
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2009-10-05 12:23.
On a desert island:
1 A copy of Swift's Gulliver's Travels in one hand...
2 Listening to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSxiqOPnW84&NR=1
3 Kappert as my personal (wo)man Friday.
Re: Girl Friday
Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2009-10-06 04:14.
@A911:
Well if you get a girl Friday, I get a boy Friday. I will opt for the thinking woman's luxury model: Damian Lewis. ;)
Rise and Fall
Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Mon, 2009-10-05 04:12.
I concur with Ali Sina, and note his description of Western culture as “Helleno–Christian”. It is refreshing not to see Judeo–Christian as the former’s contribution is implicit in the latter, making its inclusion redundant. To my mind, Western culture broadly consists of Greco–Roman, Germanic and Christian intellectual traditions. Moreover, by “Western” Christianity, I refer to Catholicism and Protestantism not “Eastern” Orthodoxy, as the latter evolved independently of and in opposition to the Western sects.
Both Fjordman and Ohmyrus betray an ignorance of democracy, and an Aristotelian mistrust. The alternatives to democracy tend to stratify divisions of ethnicity, race and class. The Han Chinese are content to subjugate the Manchurians, Tibetans and Uighurs, and whilst upper and middle classes flourish in the coastal conurbations, the hinterlands remain impoverished and undeveloped. The 19th Century British Empire was based on divisions of class and ethnicity or race. Forget returning power to monarchs and nobles; Aristotle’s virtuous dictatorship remains the ideal form of government, even if we have yet to make it work.
Today, the West is dismissive of its own intellectual traditions. Academics appeal to notions of liberty and equality, conveniently ignoring that these products of the Enlightenment would have been impossible without Christianity. My former history professor remarked that the last man who believed in the greatness of Rome, “was a Goth”. The last man who will believe in the greatness of Europe, or the West or “whiteness” will no doubt be an East Asian.
I agree that on the face of it, Christianity is not the answer. Yet I am reminded of Justinian’s campaigning in the West, the Crusades, the persecution of the Albigensians and Huguenots, the Thirty Years War, the Troubles, et al. It seems incredible that the National Socialists needed to launch “Positive Christianity”, when the original had worked for both the Austrian and Swedish bids for supremacy in Europe.
We need an intellectual revolution: one that holds ethnic self–determination, the nation–state, liberalism and civilizational security as inviolate. On the one hand, white nationalism is more suited to white “settler societies”; on the other, ethnic English, Germans and others must cooperate to reclaim their ancestral homelands. Unfortunately, as the problem is international or transnational, so too will its solution.
@KA again...
Submitted by atheling on Mon, 2009-10-05 04:34.
The last man who will believe in the greatness of Europe, or the West or “whiteness” will no doubt be an East Asian.
Probably Chinese.
I agree that on the face of it, Christianity is not the answer.
Au contraire, it is because of Christianity that China will continue to gain power. There are now more Christians in China than there are Communists. Christian persecution is easing; the government has just started promoting larger families. China's growing affluence and power coincides with its conversion to Christianity, just as Europe's did.
I am the true Vine and my Father is the vine grower. He takes away every branch in me that does not bear fruit, and every one that does, he prunes so that it bears more fruit. Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch that cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing. Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into the fire and they will be burned". (John 15: 1-7)
not related to the topic, but a comment just the same:
Submitted by mpresley on Mon, 2009-10-05 16:58.
atheling writes: ...Au contraire, it is because of Christianity that China will continue to gain power. There are now more Christians in China than there are Communists. Christian persecution is easing; the government has just started promoting larger families. China's growing affluence and power coincides with its conversion to Christianity, just as Europe's did.
I just want to point out that because two events happen together does not mean they are causally related. It is true that China is gaining "power," and it is true that the nation is transitioning from a developing country into a fully industrialized nation. But it is also true that many other factors are likely more responsible than a nascent Chinese Christian community.
For instance, if you travel to the Shenzhen special economic zone, or neighboring Guangzhou, you will see manufacturing processes (factories and their support infrastructure) the likes of which God has not seen. What you will not see (and what is striking for a Westerner) are Christian churches, or, for that matter, any outward signs of Christianity. It is possible to be "awakened" at lunch by the sound of a ringing bell from a saffron robed Buddhist monk, but that's about it.
My experience is that the Chinese are capitalists first (at least those who are able to navigate business practices--and that is most of them), Chinese nationalists second, and anything else a distant third. This does not mean that Christianity will not become a larger influence, however, like capitalism (i.e., Socialism with Chinese Characteristics) it will probably evolve into a distinctly recognizable Chinese iteration. But your guess is as good as mine, or anyone else for that matter.
[As an aside, the Chinese are very superstitious, and in almost all businesses and even many homes you'll find a small shrine to the appropriate deity. Never saw a hanging Jesus, or Mary, Queen of the Universe shrine, though.]
As far as persecution goes, my impression is the CCP doesn't really care what you do, as long as you do it out in the open so they can watch. Like any totalitarian regime, they are very worried about subversion, and suspect groups of harboring political motivations. This is really why the Chinese government is hostile to Falun Dafa (Gong). They see them more as a political organization and only ostensibly religious.
@mpresley
Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2009-10-06 04:41.
You may disagree with my evaluation of why China is rising. However, I look at it with a particular lens that you do not. Your argument does not dissuade me from my opinion.
Also, there may be no visible Christian churches in China because they are underground, much like the catacombs in which the early European Christians used to practice their faith when under persecution.
another off topic reply (sorry)
Submitted by mpresley on Tue, 2009-10-06 23:00.
atheling on Tue, 2009-10-06 05:41. Also, there may be no visible Christian churches in China because they are underground, much like the catacombs in which the early European Christians used to practice their faith when under persecution.
I know (second hand) some mainland Chinese Christians. They are regular Chinese, and appear to be open about it. I am not an expert in this by any means, but would question the extent of their "underground" status. It could be, but from a practical standpoint it's likely better to be open with the Chinese regime in these matters. Better to go to church than secretly meet. That way, you will probably not be suspected of sedition. Also, I've seen Christian books in Chinese bookstores, but, as you can imagine, they are no use if you do not read Chinese. At the same time, if a Westerner brings in a suitcase of bibles, expect trouble; the government will suspect that you are engaging in visa fraud.
I also imagine that there is enough "underground" movement of goods that anyone wanting forbidden material can get it pretty easily. For instance, in Hong Kong one can buy the Chang-Halliday bio of Mao, although it is not allowed in mainland stores. But I've never seen any cars searched as they drive through Shenzhen border customs, therefore I believe it would be easy enough to bring pretty much whatever you wanted into the mainland, if you thought it was worth the risk.
@ mpresley
Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2009-10-06 23:55.
I'm not sure what your point is, but believe me, there are underground Christian churches in China. Many Catholic clergy are held in prisons by the Chinese government, while their flock meet secretly.
However, I read an article (I think it was in The Economist - I wish I can find it right now) about how Christianity is starting to become more open in China. That is also where I read that there are now more Christians than Communists there. The article had some interesting quotes from Chinese Christians who are also businessmen. They claim that eventually Christianity will be the dominant force in China, along with its growing capitalistic economy. If this is the case, they will be a force to reckon with. The fact that China owns most of the US's debt is another interesting factor. Passing the torch?
A General Clarification
Submitted by mpresley on Wed, 2009-10-07 21:48.
Submitted by atheling: The fact that China owns most of the US's debt is another interesting factor.
Just to clarify, the vast majority of the US debt is held by the Federal Reserve and US based institutions/individuals. About 30% of the debt is held by foreign entities, with China/HK being the largest, followed closely by Japan.