Christians under siege throughout the world

Regardless of who is found to be responsible, there can be no doubt that incitement to destroy the patrimony of the West – intellectual, moral and material – has been mainstreamed by the political left and the media.

 
They will lament the ‘cultural tragedy’ of the fires but continue to stoke the hate that fuelled them. Christianity is now the only genuine counter-culture there is. Everyone else is working for The Man.

This entry was posted in Culture Wars, Terrorism, Western Civilsation. Bookmark the permalink.

94 Responses to Christians under siege throughout the world

  1. I’d say Falun Gong are counter cultural.

  2. What did we expect with this current Pope. And don’t get me started on that Anglical son of a bitch.
    No leadership. The enemy smell blood.

  3. Iain Russell

    Revanche? La Révocation de l’édit de Nantes?

  4. miltonf

    The media becomes more and more loathsome each.

  5. miltonf

    The media becomes more and more loathsome each day. Cultural marxist ideologues who haven’t done an honest day’s work in their despicable lives and they speak so nacely on the BBC.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle

    The Left increasingly hates the patrimony of the West because it reminds them that the West is built on Christianity. They hate Christianity because the morality of the Bible is absolute, and they refuse it.

    Unfortunately there is no successful nation which is not built upon western culture in some form, and therefore on the foundation of the Bible. Certainly no socialist or totalitarian nation has ever succeeded. So in choosing to reject and persecute Christian cultural structures and edifices they are also condemning themselves to misery.

  7. notafan

    Christus Rex.

    Not a book.

  8. Biota

    The essence of Christianity is sin, guilt, grace and salvation. The anti-Christians are blocked at guilt which they attempt to solve by destroying Christianity. The irony is that the outcome is an environment of far greater guilt and no salvation. As is evident by today’s internicine virtue wars.

  9. duncanm

    They will lament the ‘cultural tragedy’ of the fires

    only in as much as a touristy edifice was damaged. The religious significance, not so much.

  10. Rex Anger

    Furthermore Biota, the grace and salvation bits are granted wholly and solely by God himself. You cannot earn, create or just have them without Him.

    Every other religious or socio-political system in the world teaches or attempts to teach salvation through one’s own works, or through the system ‘improving’ them. Key examples.are National Socialism, the fascism it was inspired by, and Marxism. All teach tht Man is inherently ‘good (or at least not evil, cos religion is bad and God is not true, says Marx…)’ and just needs to be ‘improved’ with suitable ‘guidance.’

    Some religions don’t even bother with giving an assurance of salvation. ROmPers ROmP precisely because there is no assurance of salvation for merely living a good life or following the set-down rules. The only assured entry into Paradise is to die in the process of wiping out non-believers.

  11. Astrid van den Akker-Luttmer

    How do we turn this around???

  12. John Brumble

    At the bottom of a number of articles, they reference additional fires that have occurred “during construction”. The media seem remarkably uninterested in discovering why there have been so many fires “during construction” in the last decade, versus very very few in the preceding decades. You would have expected electrical and worker safety to have increased over the years, not decreased and there are certainly additional devices included in powered equipment, on the network and at each termination point to protect from surges and unexpected flow which otherwise have dramatically decreased the number of fires.

  13. Cassie of Sydney

    “How do we turn this around???”

    Well….perhaps some leadership from western church leaders would help….at the moment all you get from the likes of Pope Frank and other western church leaders is dhimmitude. Eastern (Orthodox) church leaders, I suspect, are a little more forthright.

  14. mh

    ‘We’ve seen this happening all over the country’: Statue of Jesus BEHEADED inside Florida church in alleged hate crime

    https://www.rt.com/usa/495003-jesus-statue-vandalism-attack/

  15. Roger

    Eastern (Orthodox) church leaders, I suspect, are a little more forthright.

    They generally are but Orthodoxy is beset with its own problems:

    There has been a schism between Moscow and Constantinople since 2018 and the various national churches have been forced to take de facto sides.

    By virtue of their ethnos based polity the Orthodox churches have always been embroiled in geo-politics.

  16. PB

    “How do we turn this around???”

    Name the real enemies out loud? The name that gets you kicked off social media is the real enemy.

  17. Roger

    “How do we turn this around???”

    We don’t turn it around.

    This is a spiritual battle fought with spiritual weapons.

    Read your Bible and pray.

  18. rickw

    “How do we turn this around???”

    We don’t turn it around.

    This is a spiritual battle fought with spiritual weapons.

    Read your Bible and pray.

    +100

  19. Pyrmonter

    Iain Russell
    #3517832, posted on July 19, 2020 at 6:25 am
    Revanche? La Révocation de l’édit de Nantes?

    However tempting, a much simpler explanation is to hand: the French state nationalised the country’s churches at the start of the 20C, undertaking to maintain them at state expense. They receive municipal levels of support – that is, intermittent and desultory. This particular fudge has suited both the anti-religious state secularists of the Left and the Roman hierarchy for the last century; it is unparalleled in western Europe – even where the Church is established (most notably, England) the church is expected to see to the upkeep of the buildings. While the English churches have been the victims of vandalism (the Hereford Screen, Palumbos installation of a camembert-like altar and the removal of a magnificent West painting Devout men taking away the body of St Stephen at St Stephen’s Wallbrook) there is no doubt that those responsible for these moves are within the church.

  20. Crossie

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #3517843, posted on July 19, 2020 at 7:03 am
    Unfortunately there is no successful nation which is not built upon western culture in some form, and therefore on the foundation of the Bible. Certainly no socialist or totalitarian nation has ever succeeded. So in choosing to reject and persecute Christian cultural structures and edifices they are also condemning themselves to misery.

    Today’s media revolutionaries are so ignorant of history that they don’t know that revolutions eat their progeny. They will be eaten along with the rest of us.

  21. Pyrmonter

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #3517843, posted on July 19, 2020 at 7:03 am
    Unfortunately there is no successful nation which is not built upon western culture in some form, and therefore on the foundation of the Bible. Certainly no socialist or totalitarian nation has ever succeeded. So in choosing to reject and persecute Christian cultural structures and edifices they are also condemning themselves to misery.

    Japan? Republic of China (Taiwan)? Republic of Korea? Hong Kong and Singapore (the former, say, pre 2014)?

    This cultural determinist stuff echoes the sort of nonsense the more gullible and virulent Orangemen used to tout of the Lad’s forebears: that Paddy didn’t work hard enough and had too many children: the Protestant Work Ethic nonsense of Weber. It doesn’t stack up.

  22. Beachcomber

    Christians under siege throughout the world

    Indeed. And we need to remember that Mozlems continue to slaughter Christian throughout the world. All unreported by the Ministry of Truth or sometimes even given an understanding nod of approval.

  23. John A

    Roger #3518049, posted on July 19, 2020 at 11:43 am

    “How do we turn this around???”

    We don’t turn it around.

    This is a spiritual battle fought with spiritual weapons.

    Read your Bible and pray.

    Then pass the “ammunition.” Such as Vox Day “SJWs Always Lie”

  24. Bruce of Newcastle

    Japan? Republic of China (Taiwan)? Republic of Korea? Hong Kong and Singapore (the former, say, pre 2014)?

    USA, USA, USA, Britain, Britain.

    Taiwan is the stretchiest but they’ve clearly emulated the Western system, especially Singapore and South Korea. Plus the Americans helped the Nationalists.

    The other four very clearly influenced by Christian cultural and legal systems.

  25. Iampeter

    Regardless of who is found to be responsible, there can be no doubt that incitement to destroy the patrimony of the West – intellectual, moral and material – has been mainstreamed by the political left and the media.

    Christians are the oldest faction of “the political left” and have been destroying the West since their inception.

    Unfortunately there is no successful nation which is not built upon western culture in some form, and therefore on the foundation of the Bible.

    Western culture is not based on the Bible. Only someone who doesn’t understand both Western culture and the Bible could suggest something like that.
    Only things like theocracy and communism are based on the Bible.

    They hate Christianity because the morality of the Bible is absolute, and they refuse it.

    What is morality and where in the Bible is this definition given?

  26. Tim Neilson

    Christians are the oldest faction of “the political left” and have been destroying the West since their inception.

    Perhaps you should set out your definition of “the West”. Would you agree that “the West” includes the artistic, literary, legal and philosophical heritage of European based cultures?

  27. Bruce of Newcastle

    Western culture is not based on the Bible. Only someone who doesn’t understand both Western culture and the Bible could suggest something like that.

    Of course it is. It’s absolutely obvious. The British jurisprudence system is very Biblical. Ten Commandments and all that. Indeed God was invoked in it for a long time, even though that has gone out of fashion recently.

    There was a notable improvement in the Eastern Roman Empire after Constantine embraced Christianity. Gave it another thousand years of oomph.

  28. Tim Neilson

    The British jurisprudence system is very Biblical. Ten Commandments and all that.

    Indeed. FW Maitland, in “The Constitutional History of England” said of the period shortly before the Norman Conquest:
    “Teutonic law (for what is true of England is true also of the continent) when it is first set in writing has already ceased to be primitive; it is already Christian…”.

    Iamashiteater has stated that Maitland is wrong. He’s entitled to argue that of course – the mere fact that Maitland’s “The Constitutional History of England” is universally regarded as a foundational text for understanding the development of English law doesn’t mean that it’s beyond critique.

    But despite repeated requests Iamashiteater has never either addressed any of the evidence that Maitland sets out to justify his assertion (let alone attempting to show that Maitland had misdescribed or misinterpreted that evidence), or produced one iota of evidence to support his claim that Maitland is wrong. It’s all just Iamashiteater’s own ex cathedra say-so.

  29. Pyrmonter

    @ Tim N

    Help me. I’ve turned the pages of my dusty copy of Simpson’s Introduction to the History of the Land Law and between frankalmoin and the development of tenures, socage and continuity of seisin, I can’t see a reference to Paul’s epistles. What am I missing? (Simpson reminds us of course that in England there was no allodial tenure; cf Scotland, Isle of Man and the continent).

  30. Please don’t troll me guys, the Anglo Saxon invasion never happened.

  31. Ed Case

    Gauls, sometimes called Celts, are the native people of England, Wales, Ireland, France, Spain, Belgium.
    Normans came over in 1066 and beat up the Saxons. The Normans took Sicily in 1091.
    Some say they still control England and Sicily, as well as their French territories.
    Anglo Saxons?
    Gone for a Millenium.

  32. Tim Neilson

    Pyrmonter
    #3518344, posted on July 19, 2020 at 4:51 pm

    Read about the Christian influence on pre-Conquest land law in Maitland, e.g.:
    “Before the Conquest the church had introduced the testament or last will, and lands or at all events some lands as well as goods could be given by will. But at the Conquest the will of lands disappears”.
    The post-conquest feudal system to which you refer didn’t contain that element, but of course the statute Quiae Emptores reintroduced the power to dispose of land, thus restoring the Christian based elements of land law.

    PS why does the absence of allodial tenure in England tell one way or another as to Christian origins of English law?

  33. Rex Anger

    @ IamReallyTryingtoPushTheEnvelopePastHyperboleHere:

    Given Christianty predates the popular and even historical perceptions of ‘The West’ by at least 1,000 years, please explain just how those nasty Christianists could possibly undermine something that didn’t exist, while simultaneously creating a suitable environment for its gestation.

    Then for extra credit, IamTheClowns, explain how God’s Word, in the form of the Bible and guidance through revelation by the Holy Spirit, in providing the foundations of the Western ideals and Enlightenment refinements to said ideals of liberty, freedom before God and Man’s laws alike, personal and property rights, and the corresponding remarkable sociopolitical stability these ideals created (including the space to create your beloved ‘Individualism’ and ‘Capitalism’ as actually defined by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Otherwise known as ‘Communism’), counts as ‘destroying’ the West.

    Otherwise, IamCaughtOutInMyLiesYetAgainHowBoring, your trolling is again wasted. Go back to burning cathedrals- Your belchings might be more favourably treated by a fellow-travelling magistrate than they will be here.

  34. Pyrmonter

    @ Tim N

    How is feudalism reconcilable with christian doctrine?

    And, if my recollection of property is right, the ability to bequeath land was suspended (or at least qualified) from the late 11th century until the Wills Act of 1540 … and lingered in the territory of chattels real (leases – which passed as land, even though they weren’t an estate) until at least the 19C (I might be mistaken, but I think there’s a reference to that somewhere in Myer Emporium)

    I’m not trying to say these weren’t christian populations; or that christianity had no influence on institutions – to suggest that everything is instrumental or dictated by the ‘modes of production’ is altogether too marxian – but I’m not sure what is uniquely christian about these systems? I mean, you and I might consider that the individual relationship between the believer and the Lord, but if you could be bothered, I suspect CL could set out a long list of what he would regard as our respective heretical views.

  35. Pyrmonter

    (Oh, the point about allodial ownership is simply to say that all of England was held within the framework of feudalism.)

  36. stackja

    Religious upbringing linked to better health and well-being during early adulthood

    September 13, 2018

    Boston, MA – Participating in spiritual practices during childhood and adolescence may be a protective factor for a range of health and well-being outcomes in early adulthood, according to a new study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Researchers found that people who attended weekly religious services or practiced daily prayer or meditation in their youth reported greater life satisfaction and positivity in their 20s—and were less likely to subsequently have depressive symptoms, smoke, use illicit drugs, or have a sexually transmitted infection—than people raised with less regular spiritual habits.

  37. Lee

    @ IamReallyTryingtoPushTheEnvelopePastHyperboleHere:

    Given Christianty predates the popular and even historical perceptions of ‘The West’ by at least 1,000 years, please explain just how those nasty Christianists could possibly undermine something that didn’t exist, while simultaneously creating a suitable environment for its gestation.

    It’s funny how it is always Christianity and conservatives which are the threat to “the West” as far as IHaven’tGotAClue is concerned, never Marxists, I s l a m i s t s, or the Left (and not the Left defined by him).
    I am becoming more and more convinced he is actually a far left wing troll pretending to be to the right of Attila the Hun, while never actually critical of the Left.

  38. Tim Neilson

    Pyrmonter
    #3518515, posted on July 19, 2020 at 6:57 pm

    Yes, I think you’re right about the Statute of Wills. But the point still stands – inheritance by will was a doctrine introduced to English law by the church, first applicable to goods, also pre-Conquest to land (in some respects) then disappearing and re-emerging.

    What’s not reconcilable between feudalism and Christianity? (Except maybe villeins not being allowed to leave the manor without permission – but I was never suggesting that every detail of English law can be traced to a particular Christian doctrine, only that Christianity became the basis for pre-Conquest law, and its influence continues in many respects.)

  39. Rex Anger

    @ Pyrmonter-

    Unless something is wildly, wildly put of step with Christian thinking and doctrine (Say, if we had a Logan’s Runsituation imposed on everyone over the age of 32), then an attitude of “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s” prevails.

    You will not see mass political activism and disobedience of the sort you see out of other religio-political groups. Conversely, Christians are told to obey their Earthly leaders (Romans 13:1-7), pray for their Godly guidance and blessing (1 Timothy 2:2-4), and bring to God in prayer all the changes they wish to see (Ephesians 6:18).

    Where Believers do speak out, there will not (and certainly should not) be any accompanying violence on their part. For example, many silent vigils outside abortion clinics are characterised by the violence of the counterprotesters. Similarly, the only act of terrorism in the ‘Gay Marriage’ plebiscite period in 2016-17 was committed against the Australian Christian Lobby in Canberra. You see someone invoke Christ, then attack someone or something, be highly suspicious of their motives.

    TL;DR- Christianity is, in one line or less, You having and living a relationship with God, having been reconciled to Him through the death amd resurrection of Jesus. The living out of that relationship by Believers en masse is what makes changes in social and political systems, not planned transformative actions by a group of coordinators and activists, based on belief and written word. That seems to be what scares people about Believers.

  40. C.L.

    Rex, on obeying secular authority, it was pointed out to me by a writer somewhere a week or so ago that Romans 13:1-7 is conditional. Very conditional.

    Cf:

    “…the one in authority is God’s servant for your good.”
    “…the authorities are God’s servants…”
    “…They are God’s servants…”
    Such rulers “hold no terror for those who do right…”

  41. Pyrmonter

    @ Rex Anger, @ Tim N

    Without traversing (or in some cases, agreeing) with you, I can’t see how what you’re saying supports:

    The British jurisprudence system is very Biblical. Ten Commandments and all that.

    Not least, at times that system has:

    – divided the subjects into the clergy (toward the end, the literate) and not, conferring on the latter more liberal justice (essentially, a scheme for first offenders)

    – prohibited foreigners from owning land (hardly ‘among you, there is neither Greek nor Jew’)

    – recognised as valid marriages prohibited by the biblical bounds of consanguinity

    – until the reforms of the 1830s, punished even minor crimes brutally, largely because rates of apprehension were so low that disproportionate penalties were required for deterrence.

    I’m fearful people pick and choose the parts of the law or legal history they like (Somerset’s case (no slavery in England; Constantine’s case – colour bars breached the duties owed by innkeepers to accept the public at large)) but are inclined to ignore the less savoury bits (Gregson v Gilbert – the murder of slaves and claims for general average. No prosecution was brought).

  42. Rex Anger

    @ C.L.

    Conditional on what? The problem we have is obeying where we really would like not to.

    Peter and Paul and the Church chose to obey God above all else. They did not fight the Jews or the Romans nor any group set against them. They chose instead to die for their faith.

    Jesus says there is no greater love than a man who lays down his life for his friends (John 15:13). That does not just mean death. It could well mean choosing to accept ridicule, imprisonment, unpersoning, persecution etc. in the name of Christ.

    In the end, we obey Christ first. However that appears (and as we all know, it can lead.to some strange situations). In this current context, that means obeying the laws of the land. Contradictory and grievous as they are. Where the law conflicts with obedience to Christ, we obey Him first. And accept everything the world chooses to inflict. Remember, we have a moral imperative to follow, and all Eternity to gain!

  43. rickw

    Not least, at times that system has:

    Not being perfectly aligned with Biblical principles through the centuries means that English Law has no Biblical basis?

  44. Tim Neilson

    Pyrmonter
    #3518640, posted on July 19, 2020 at 8:58 pm

    Sure, but as I said, I was never suggesting that every detail of English law can be traced to a particular Christian doctrine, only that Christianity became the basis for pre-Conquest law, and its influence continues in many respects.

    In many cases the Christian influences weren’t things that we’d consider desirable (e.g.forbidding a defendant to testify in his own defence in case he was tempted to commit the sin of lying on oath), but others we would (e.g. jury trials superseding in practice trial by ordeal and trial by battle, largely on the theological ground that the latter were effectively demanding that God perform miracles to order – “Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test”). So I wasn’t putting Maitland’s view forward as some kind of encomium either for Christianity or for English law – I was just stating it as a factual proposition.

  45. Iampeter

    Of course it is. It’s absolutely obvious. The British jurisprudence system is very Biblical. Ten Commandments and all that.

    Well, the West is individualistic and rational, while Christianity is mystical and collectivist. The only thing “obvious” is that they are fundamentally polar opposites.

    Also, what do the ten commandments have to do with the “British jurisprudence system?”
    The Ten Commandments are an authoritarian screed, taking away all your rights, including free speech and freedom of religion. Again, the only obvious thing here is how polar opposite the ten commandments are to anything in the British legal system.

    Notice a pattern?

    “…the one in authority is God’s servant for your good.”
    “…the authorities are God’s servants…”
    “…They are God’s servants…”
    Such rulers “hold no terror for those who do right…”

    Thank god you don’t take any of this seriously. We would have a serious shortage of both planes and skyscrapers otherwise…

  46. Iampeter

    But despite repeated requests Iamashiteater has never either addressed any of the evidence that Maitland sets out to justify his assertion (let alone attempting to show that Maitland had misdescribed or misinterpreted that evidence

    Common law was in britain centuries before Christianity, so obviously Maitland’s writing is typical Christian historic revisionism. It also demonstrates no understanding of either Christianity or common law, because they are polar opposites too.
    Also, you didn’t present any “evidence that Maitland sets out,” you just said “Maitland sez common law comes from Christianity, I reads it in his book, see…”
    This is just an appeal to authority, not an argument. You don’t anything about this stuff, nor how to make any arguments about anything. You know this is true which is why you’re posts are so triggered.

  47. Mother Lode

    The essence of Christianity is sin, guilt, grace and salvation.

    Funny thing is that progressives also believe that man is born in a ‘state of sin’, that he is by nature flawed.

    Salvation comes from above – from government – which tirelessly imposes rule to curb the venal impulses of men. Oh they speak of achieving a higher state where this pervasive control will no longer be needed, but so far the only way to ascend to this higher sphere involves heaping ever more chains upon us.

    In Christianity salvation is based on the individual. No one can impose it from without, no government can enact it, police it, or alter its conditions. (Perhaps most terrifying, nor can they tax it!)

    To progressives this looks like chaos. It looks like it cannot work. There can be no guarantees. It does not take into account the differences between people – their intelligence, their social standing, their experiences etc.

    Yet somehow, such societies are vastly more harmonious, cohesive, and compassionate than anything big government has created.

    Progressives, being ever obsessed with hierarchical explanations, see only churches and think Christians are merely people obeying an authority – and this is in competition with the authority progressives feel entitled to exercise.

    They do not see Christianity or culture as something that goes to people’s hearts, which informs life, and is shared. And there is a shared spirit or consciousness (or whatever) that allows for harmonious interaction in new and unfamiliar situations in the same way you can sense what someone is saying even before they finish speaking or they use the wrong word (and to intuitively know that you have misheard).

    When you nearly bump into a stranger at a door and one of you stands back to let the other through one feels good at having been courteous and the other feels good at being granted that little of kindness.

    A progressive would be taxing their meagre brains trying to discern the power relationships behind it.

  48. Tim Neilson

    Common law was in britain centuries before Christianity, so obviously Maitland’s writing is typical Christian historic revisionism.

    Poor old conceited stupid ignorant Iamashiteater.

    Teutonic culture, from which the common law emerged, only arrived in Britain in any significant way in the early sixth century AD. Christianity had in fact already existed in Britain in a substantial way at least as early as the 4th century AD, and although it initially suffered a substantial decline under the Teutonic cultural influx it continued to exist and began its resurgence at the end of the sixth century.

    In any case, you’re obviously too conceited stupid and ignorant to read what Maitland actually said – “Teutonic law (for what is true of England is true also of the continent) when it is first set in writing has already ceased to be primitive; it is already Christian…”.

    Which part of that don’t you understand? Maitland didn’t deny that Teutonic based law had existed in England before that law developed into Christian based law. Poor old zero comprehension intellectual failure.

    It also demonstrates no understanding of either Christianity or common law, because they are polar opposites too.

    Given that you’re 100% ignorant of Christianity and 100% ignorant of the common law, that statement hardly requires attention. But, as usual you haven’t been able to point to one single piece of actual evidence to support your bloviating, because as usual you’re 100% wrong.

    Also, you didn’t present any “evidence that Maitland sets out,” you just said “Maitland sez common law comes from Christianity, I reads it in his book, see…”

    Poor old conceited stupid ignorant Iamashiteater. On a very thread where Pyrmonter and I have discussed at length some of Maitland’s discussion about that very issue Iamashiteater is still too mentally defective to understand what’s going on.
    It’s also way beyond hypocritical for you to bloviate about lack of evidence – you’ve asserted dogmatically that Maitland was wrong when very obviously you’ve never read the evidence he sets out. I have. I’d also be willing to consider any evidence you put up to support your bloviations, but you’ll never actually advance any because your utter falsehoods simply can’t be supported by evidence which is why you never give any.

  49. Tim Neilson

    This is just an appeal to authority, not an argument.

    Poor old conceited stupid ignorant Iamashiteater. Here’s what I said:

    Iamashiteater has stated that Maitland is wrong. He’s entitled to argue that of course – the mere fact that Maitland’s “The Constitutional History of England” is universally regarded as a foundational text for understanding the development of English law doesn’t mean that it’s beyond critique.

    But despite repeated requests Iamashiteater has never either addressed any of the evidence that Maitland sets out to justify his assertion (let alone attempting to show that Maitland had misdescribed or misinterpreted that evidence), or produced one iota of evidence to support his claim that Maitland is wrong. It’s all just Iamashiteater’s own ex cathedra say-so.

    Poor old intellectual failure is too stupid to understand that a reference to “the evidence that [an author] sets out” in a text isn’t an “argument from [the] authority” of that text – and I couldn’t have made it clearer in what I wrote that I wasn’t asking Iamashiteater to accept Maitland’s word as authoritative. But poor old mentally defective Iamashiteater is far too stupid to understand the real meaning of the philosophical terms (like “argument from authority”) that he tosses around to try to make himself look mentally competent.

    You don’t anything about this stuff, nor how to make any arguments about anything.

    This is howlingly hilarious coming from someone who in that same comment pontificates that the common law was in Britain “centuries before” Christianity! It’s just too side splittingly laughable. Iamashiteater once again blends conceit, stupidity and ignorance into a boffo comic classic.

  50. Iampeter

    Maitland didn’t deny that Teutonic based law had existed in England before that law developed into Christian based law.

    Great. Then he didn’t deny that common law precedes Christianity in Britain.

    But, as usual you haven’t been able to point to one single piece of actual evidence to support your bloviating, because as usual you’re 100% wrong.

    Except like I said, “the West is individualistic and rational, while Christianity is mystical and collectivist.”
    I’ve also explained this obvious fact to you in numerous previous threads.

    It’s the same reason you should be able to easily know that common law, derived from common tribal practices, which in turn ape a lot of ideas from Rome, that precede Christianity and are not theocratic or authoritarian, does not derive from Christianity.

    Your issue isn’t so much a total lack of knowledge, it’s a total lack of even basic thinking skills, so you can’t see the obvious contradictions in your positions.

  51. Iampeter

    Salvation comes from above – from government –

    Gee, I wonder where leftists got that idea from…

    In Christianity salvation is based on the individual.

    This is nonsense, since in Christianity Christ died for OUR sins, not his own. It is the ultimately personification of collectivism.
    The whole “Christianity individual salvation” stuff is a relatively recent development as Christianity tries to remain relevant in the face of the Enlightenment and the rediscovery of pre-Christian values of Western civilization. These are polar opposites of everything Christianity teaches.

  52. Pyrmonter

    Iamp

    Christianity in some forms is collective, and in others, individual. Tim N, if recollection serves, adheres to the sort of Calvinistic interpretation that is deeply individual and focused on a personal relationship with Him. The Lad’s beliefs, if orthodox, are rather less so. Mine manage to straddle both camps, as both reformed and catholic, fwiw.

    My point is that there is frequently a confusion of cause and correlation. The societies that developed liberal institutions – the rule of law, free trade, secure property rights, and which didn’t accord different legal status to different citizens/subjects (the Dutch Republic, Britain) tended to be protestant christian. You don’t need to look too far from them geographically to see other Christians, even other protestant Christians, who laboured under unproductive institutions: across the Rhine, western and northern Germany (then a geographic rather than political description) was, outside the great trading cities, dirt poor. France and Spain were both, ostensibly, deeply religious countries. And had legal institutions that would shame some modern dictatorships.

  53. The Austrian school of economics started in the Salamanca school and 19th century Spain was very liberal.

    Have you not heard of the Tudor (and Stewart) star chamber courts?

    The problem was the divine right of kings doctrine.

    That would have made me republican.

    The Swiss got it right in 1291.

  54. Roger

    Funny thing is that progressives also believe that man is born in a ‘state of sin’, that he is by nature flawed.

    But there’s a profound difference, ML:

    The Anglican theology that informed the development of British democracy did not regard man as perfectible in this life. One could make similar observations about Calvinism and the Dutch, Lutheranism and the NW German states and the influence of various iterations of Protestantism in the US. All of these confessions had a lively apprehension of the impact of original sin on the human condition and this informed them as their democratic polity developed and resulted in checks and balances on power and modest expectations of what government could achieve.

    Progressives & socialists, unbound – at least in their minds – from the dogma of original sin, regard man as perfectible in this life if only the right system of government can be applied to him. As history teaches us, that end, in the end, justifies using any means to attain it.

    These two approaches, broadly described here, represent two fundamentally different conceptions of theological and political (philosophical?) anthropology. They cannot coexist in a society without a severe struggle between them for supremacy.

  55. Rex Anger

    IamClutchingAtStrawsNow

    A collective description of ‘our’ in any language as a shorthand for a group of indivoduals does not mean for a second that Christianity is collectivist. Jesus died for YOUR sins and MINE. Happy?

    Attempting to conflate anything further from there to justify yourself is utter insanity. Ditto ranting about the Ten Commandments taking away all freedoms and rights etc.

    The remarkable thing is, God grants all His creation the complete freedom to choose who they will serve, and to choose to form a relatiobship with Him through the death and resurrection of Jesus. I have made my choice…

    And far from your rants about running out of planes and skyscrapers if Christians took Christianity seriously, a Christian who is firm in his understanding and personal relationship with his Saviour knows he gains Eternal rest with Him when he dies. He dies at the hands of his persecutors with joy in his heart- He is going Home!

    Christians don’t murder to people to secure salvation, IamPeter. But they have no problems with dying for their faith. 1200+ years and counting. Try Foxe’s Book of Martyrs sometime, and note that none of these people murdered others to get into the Kingdom.

  56. Mother Lode

    This is nonsense, since in Christianity Christ died for OUR sins, not his own. It is the ultimately personification of collectivism.

    Poida thinks plurals means collectivism.

    I don’t imagine he himself ever has much cause to say ‘we’ – no one wants to be associated with him.

    I swear I have never seen a single of his posts that has impressed me, but reading them is like fisking in real time.

  57. Tim Neilson

    Then he didn’t deny that common law precedes Christianity in Britain.

    Poor old logic fail.
    “Teutonic law” and “common law” aren’t synonyms, the latter is something that developed in England over a considerable period of time.
    A variety of different Teutonic peoples imported their particular subsets of Teutonic culture, customs and rudimentary law into different parts of England. As they became Christian, the pre-Christian elements in their laws were superseded by the development of Christian based legal systems like those codified by Christian kings like Ine and Alfred. (Hence Maitland’s reference to such legal systems as having “ceased to be primitive”.) Eventually those now Christian based systems merged into the “common” (i.e. shared) law.

    So a mentally competent thinker would understand that saying that there was Teutonic law in England before that law became Christian is not saying that the common law preceded Christianity.

    [That’s not to say that some pre-Christian elements may not have survived even into the common law, to the extent that they were consistent with Christian principles and thus suitable to be part of a Christian based legal system – as St Paul wrote, “the Gentiles are a law unto themselves”.]

    I said But, as usual you haven’t been able to point to one single piece of actual evidence to support your bloviating, because as usual you’re 100% wrong.

    You said Except like I said, “the West is individualistic and rational, while Christianity is mystical and collectivist.”

    Poor old intellectual failure. That’s not “evidence”. That’s unsubstantiated fact free logic free assertion.
    I know that this will be impossible for you to understand Iamashiteater, but the mere fact that you say something isn’t actually evidence that what you say is true.

    And you said I’ve also explained this obvious fact to you in numerous previous threads.

    Poor old intellectual failure. Merely making an assertion, even if you repeat it incessantly, isn’t actually “explaining” the assertion.

    But let’s examine a part of your proposition as an example of your ignorance.
    You now say “the West” is individualistic and rational. You say that in a comment related to the origins of the common law.
    So, unless you are being totally irrational or dissembling, you seem now (contrary to past threads) to be accepting that the common law is an aspect of Western culture. Good, we’re making some progress, albeit glacial.
    (If you don’t accept that the common law is an aspect of Western culture your comment about “the West” becomes totally irrelevant to the discussion of the basis for the common law.)

    But the common law isn’t based on some principle of “individualism”. Protection of some individual rights was no doubt always a feature of the common law, but as an example (as Pyrmonter and I were discussing above) mediaeval land tenure was hardly steeped in doctrines of individual freedom.
    Also, for example, the whole development of the division of law between criminal and civil was based on the idea that the government [i.e., then, the king] has an interest in enforcement of some rules of law – hence the distinction, even before that division was fully developed, between “appeal of felony” and “indictment”. That’s hardly consistent with the idea of the common law as an “individualist” phenomenon. And how do you account for the common law principle of “volenti non fit injuria” if the common law is “individualistic”?

  58. Tim Neilson

    The whole “Christianity individual salvation” stuff is a relatively recent development

    This would have to be the stupidest thing ever stated by a purportedly sentient being.

    To take just one extreme example, whatever one might think about the Stylites, they weren’t criticised by their contemporaries in the Christian community for failing to fulfil some collective duty.

  59. Iampeter

    Christianity in some forms is collective, and in others, individual.

    Christianity, like all religions, is collectivist by definition.
    Religious thinking means going by “they say” instead of “I think.”

    Tim N, if recollection serves, adheres to the sort of Calvinistic interpretation that is deeply individual and focused on a personal relationship with Him.

    Yes. May as well be an atheist. Today’s “Christians” don’t even understand what religious thinking entails let alone take it seriously and lead entirely atheist lives. Thank God for that 🙂
    The only reason people go to the effort of pretending to be religious in the West today is because they are immoral, don’t want to have to think independently and don’t want to deal with the facts of reality. Also, it’s a social activity. Like playing tennis or joining a boating club.

    The societies that developed liberal institutions – the rule of law, free trade, secure property rights, and which didn’t accord different legal status to different citizens/subjects (the Dutch Republic, Britain) tended to be protestant christian.

    Yea, they tended to be Christians that were moving away from serious Christianity. More fundamentally they were re-discoverers of ancient Greek thinking, actual Western culture, which is what was driving our recovery from the Christian caused Dark Ages.
    There’s a good book I was reading recently on this subject that I recommend: Father of Liberty – this guy was a Christian preacher, but more rational than most of today’s so called atheists.
    In short, these people still had the superficial trappings of Christianity, but that wasn’t even remotely what they were about and what they were actually preaching would get them murdered by those who took religion seriously.

    But people like Tim don’t get this because they are not integrated thinkers. They are just cargo cultists.

  60. Iampeter

    “Teutonic law” and “common law” aren’t synonyms, the latter is something that developed in England over a considerable period of time.

    If you didn’t mean “common law” then your responses in this thread don’t even make any sense. As usual.

    Poor old intellectual failure. Merely making an assertion, even if you repeat it incessantly, isn’t actually “explaining” the assertion.

    Hey, if you can explain how a mystical and collectivist ideology created an individualistic and rational culture then I’m sure you would’ve done so by now. Instead you just rant and rave.

    You now say “the West” is individualistic and rational. You say that in a comment related to the origins of the common law.

    No, I said it in relation to the West not being Christian. Only YOU keep bringing up “common law” because you don’t know how to address the subject and don’t know what the West or Christianity are actually about. It’s another one of your random tangents.

    But the common law isn’t based on some principle of “individualism”.

    It’s also not fundamental to this discussion, but you keep bringin it up because you don’t know what IS fundamental. You also don’t know anything about common law.

    Some might see this all as a show-stopping problem, but not a genius like you.

  61. JC

    Christianity in some forms is collective, and in others, individual.

    No it’s not. Collectivism can only be achieved through coercion. If Christianity is a form of collectivism then the word loses all meaning. One is perfectly free to walk away from Christianity any time they wish. An Antique car club could be thought of the same way then. Any association would be a form of collectivism. Voluntary association is not a form of collectivism as the word in understood.

    Collectivism is compulsion, which is not free association.

    This has been highlighted before, but the leftwing zombie (Plodes) continues to peddle this hoax. Plodes needs to get back in his padded cell as it’s evening now.

  62. Tim Neilson

    If you didn’t mean “common law” then your responses in this thread don’t even make any sense. As usual.

    Poor old mental defective. He simply can’t understand how something can develop from its predecessors. Even when it’s set out right in front of his eyes. So simple expositions of how Teutonic law morphed into Christian legal systems (cf Alfred or Ine) and then merged into the common law are just way beyond his comprehension.
    And, as usual, mired in the excrement of his own hopeless self-induced confusion he blames others because he can’t understand a discussion that deals not just with a single thing but with the relation between different things.

    Hey, if you can explain how a mystical and collectivist ideology created an individualistic and rational culture then I’m sure you would’ve done so by now.

    Poor old conceited stupid ignorant self-beclowner. Once again he just expects everyone else to accept uncritically his own cartoon-like binary absolutist dogmatic labels, for which he’s never once in his life provided one iota of evidentiary validation.
    He’s totally unable to understand that “mystical and collective” is hopelessly inadequate as a description of Christianity, and that “individualist and rational” is likewise hopelessly inadequate as a description of Western culture.
    Thus his delusional binary errors prevent him from understanding, e.g., that the statement in the Declaration of Independence that humans are “endowed by their Creator” with various rights is a straightforward development from Christian thinking towards modern liberal democratic political ideas.

    No, I said it in relation to the West not being Christian.

    Poor old logic fail. The self-induced mental confusion is strong in this one. Let’s re-run the tape

    You said It also demonstrates no understanding of either Christianity or common law, because they are polar opposites too.

    I said Given that you’re 100% ignorant of Christianity and 100% ignorant of the common law, that statement hardly requires attention. But, as usual you haven’t been able to point to one single piece of actual evidence to support your bloviating, because as usual you’re 100% wrong.

    You replied Except like I said, “the West is individualistic and rational, while Christianity is mystical and collectivist.”

    Of course I’m perfectly prepared to believe that you just got so hopelessly confused that you introduced a total non-sequitur. So, ok, your purported validation of your antithesis between Christianity and the common law turns out, on your own admission, to have been howlingly irrational.

    It’s also not fundamental to this discussion, but you keep bringin it up because you don’t know what IS fundamental.

    Poor old intellectual failure. He simply can’t understand the concept of validating (or refuting) a generality with specific evidence.

    You also don’t know anything about common law

    Poor old Dunning-Kruger archetype. So says the clown who insisted that Google’s not a “publisher” for defamation law purposes and thus that s.230 type provisions don’t give them any protection, and still can’t understand why the Google v Trkulja litigation proves him totally wrong.

  63. Tim Neilson

    Today’s “Christians” don’t even understand what religious thinking entails let alone take it seriously and lead entirely atheist lives.

    Poor old intellectual failure. He forms his own baseless fact free logic free idiolectic definition of “religious thinking”, deludes himself into believing that all “religions” (including Christianity) must be based on his dogmatic absolutist imaginings, and then falls into the hopeless error of critiquing people’s supposed non-adherence to his utterly specious fake version of Christianity.

    The prime mental deficiency causing him to beclown himself this way is his inability to think except in cartoon-like binary absolutist dogmatic generalisations. For example he sees members of one religion committing terrorist attacks because their sacred text tells them to, and therefore assumes that every “religion” must also mandate violence against non-believers. Thus when Christians in Australia aren’t diligently killing non-Christians he concludes that they aren’t really practising their “religion”.

    Poor old mental defective.

  64. dover_beach

    Yea, they tended to be Christians that were moving away from serious Christianity. More fundamentally they were re-discoverers of ancient Greek thinking, actual Western culture, which is what was driving our recovery from the Christian caused Dark Ages.

    Dear oh dear. IamMengele is still peddling this rubbish, even though I have amply demonstrated before, that Christians preserved classical culture. You just have to read the Church Fathers to understand this, whether it’s St Clement, St Augustine, St Isidore, and so on. You could even try Boethius. Imagine arguing as IamMengele has only to find that, say, Isidore’s Etymologiae is a compendium of classical authors, and that it was in popularity during the early to high middle ages second only to the Bible.

  65. A variety of different Teutonic peoples imported their particular subsets of Teutonic culture, customs and rudimentary law into different parts of England. As they became Christian, the pre-Christian elements in their laws were superseded by the development of Christian based legal systems like those codified by Christian kings like Ine and Alfred. (Hence Maitland’s reference to such legal systems as having “ceased to be primitive”.) Eventually those now Christian based systems merged into the “common” (i.e. shared) law.

    Hmmmmm

    Brits fought the Romans, then became very pro Roman provincials. Constantine was serving there IIRC before he tilted at being dominus. Eventually Christianity became the State religion (whilst he was still alive).

    Now, even if you accept the old fashioned and wrong myth about an Anglo-Saxon invasion, then there was a majority population of Britons who accepted the Anglo Saxon tongue.

    The concepts of weregild, delict and tort are essentially the same thing operating at different levels of seriousness. As for barbarity, the earliest Roman law code (12 tables) still had the concept of…an eye for an eye (the full bible quote is actually a warning about the dangers of such a law…).

    Furthermore, the teutonic law was not truly barbaric. The burden of proof was and that remained well until medieval times. Romans probably ran better trials, but up to 20% of their population were literate.

    The greatest gifts of Christianity to our legal system are the concepts of equity and mercy.

    It would be of great utility if school students learnt as part of their history lessons about the forerunners of our law, from Rome, German tribes, Israel the common law (of course), Roman (“civil”) law after Justinian and Brehionic law and so on.

  66. Rex Anger

    The elder Angers have asked me to mention the importance of Ecclesiastical Law in England, and its direct influence on the development of equity.

    I have not researched the matter myself (at least, not yet), but the laws related to the Church are equally important ancestors and predecessors to the system that has evolved today.

    Sorry, IamDoublingDownSoHardIHaveStakedMyHouseOnThisGambit…

  67. Rex Anger

    It turns out that the separation of Civil and Ecclesiastical law came with the crowning of Wiliam the Conqueror in 1066. Secular and Spiritual matters were thus segregated and heard by the appropriate authorities only. Judges did not sit in Ecclesiastical courts, only Common Law. Henry I tried to reunite the two courts, but this was short-lived.

    Ecclesiastical courts remain to this day, governing the affairs of the Church of England, etc. However, they remain bound to follow the laws of the land.

    Further reading on this matter is HERE. Much of today’s Civil Law (I.E. non-Criminal) is derived from English Ecclesiastical Law. See? Oxford says so!

    (Got some interesting bedtime scholarship coming up. Thanks all!)

  68. Tim Neilson

    common law, derived from common tribal practices, which in turn ape a lot of ideas from Rome, that precede Christianity and are not theocratic or authoritarian, does not derive from Christianity.

    Poor old intellectual failure, totally incapable of learning anything.

    Once again he thinks that spouting a few strident absolutist dogmatic generalised assertions without one iota of supporting evidence somehow constitutes formulating an argument.

    In this case, though, not everything he says is hopelessly wrong – it’s just that he’s totally unable to think logically about it. One may accept that Roman law preceded Christianity and that it influenced tribal law, and that tribal law preceded the Christian based legal systems codified by e.g. Alfred or Ine. And, as I said above, no doubt some aspects of tribal law survived because of their compatibility with Christian based law, and thus contributed to Alfred or Ine’s codes. However, a logical thinker understands that “precedes” and “contributes” don’t mean “totally excludes” or even “substantially excludes”.
    Of course Iamashiteater is running a trillion miles away from dealing with anything real like the “volenti non fit injuria” principle question I asked above – any intrusion of fact is totally unacceptable when there are conceited stupid ignorant anti-Christian falsehoods to be peddled.

  69. Rex Anger

    @ Tim Neilson-

    It’s almost as if IamRejectingYourRealityAndSubstitutingItWithMyOwn (Apologies to Adam Savage…) deliberately ignored this:

    Christians don’t murder to people to secure salvation, IamPeter. But they have no problems with dying for their faith.

    And Try Foxe’s Book of Martyrs sometime, and note that none of these people murdered others to get into the Kingdom.

  70. Tim Neilson

    Rex Anger
    #3519545, posted on July 20, 2020 at 7:43 pm

    Surely someone as intellectually rigorous as Iamashiteater wouldn’t wilfully keep spouting utter nonsense after the refutation was clearly set out for him? Say it ain’t so, Rex!

  71. Tim Neilson

    Religious thinking means going by “they say” instead of “I think.”

    Well, that must be so, because Iamashiteater told us.

    common law, derived from common tribal practices, which in turn ape a lot of ideas from Rome, that precede Christianity and are not theocratic or authoritarian, does not derive from Christianity.

    It’s very impressive that Iamashiteater has studied Latin so rigorously that he can learn the lex canuleia et. al. from archaeologically recovered parchments and tablets, as well as acquainting himself with primary source archaeological records from which he deduces those common tribal practices, and then uses primary historical sources to satisfy himself that the former has influenced the latter…

    But wait… Could it be? Surely not! And yet I think it’s so. Iamashiteater has made a dogmatic statement about tribal customs and Roman law for which he has no authority except what someone else has asserted!

    But that would mean that Iamashiteater’s statement would properly be prefaced by “they [i.e. the secondary sources he’s relied upon] say…”.

    I’m not pointing that out in order to ridicule Iamashiteater. (That comes later.) If Iamashiteater has more mental competence than I’m inclined to credit him with, he may well have read a secondary source, thought about what it said, cross checked with some other material, and then decided that what he’s read is sufficiently plausible to be relied upon.

    But then again, that’s what Christians do when they first form their faith. (Certainly in the Presbyterian church you’re not allowed to join unless an ordained minister is satisfied that you have sufficient understanding of the doctrines and have been sufficiently convinced of their truth – though you’re not required to believe every detail of Presbyterian interpretation of the doctrines.) In fact they don’t look only at secondary sources, but also primary sources (albeit translated into modern languages from the original He6revv and ancient Greek). Then they think about it. The thinking can take quite some time – as recounted by CS Lewis about his own conversion from atheism to Christianity, in “Surprised by Joy”. Then, having formed the view it’s true, they believe it – in the same way that Iamashiteater believes all the dogmatism that he bores us with day after day.

    So if there’s meant to be a distinction between “religious” thinking and Iamashiteater’s own mental activities, that distinction turns out to be substantively illusory.

  72. Iampeter

    Collectivism is compulsion, which is not free association.

    Collectivism begins before compulsion. It starts with not wanting to think for yourself. Like choosing to be religious.
    Not thinking for yourself, if taken seriously enough, then leads to compulsion.
    We’re just lucky Western “religious people” don’t understand nor take religion seriously.

    IamMengele is still peddling this rubbish, even though I have amply demonstrated before, that Christians preserved classical culture.

    You haven’t demonstrated anything. Ever. You make assertions that are based on your cargo cult world view. Utterly misintegrated and contradictory nonsense.
    I mean, why would Christians need to be preserving classic culture? What would they be preserving it from? Who shut down and made illegal Greek schools and philosophy? Why would this obvious problem with what you’re saying even need pointing out?

    Basically saying Christians preserved classic culture, is the same as saying Nazi’s preserved J3w1sh culture and using the out of context and misintegrated example of Schindler to support your position.

  73. Iampeter

    Collectivism is compulsion, which is not free association.

    Collectivism begins before compulsion. It starts with not wanting to think for yourself. Like choosing to be religious.
    Not thinking for yourself, if taken seriously enough, then leads to compulsion.
    We’re just lucky Western “religious people” don’t understand, nor take religion seriously.

    IamMengele is still peddling this rubbish, even though I have amply demonstrated before, that Christians preserved classical culture.

    You haven’t demonstrated anything. Ever. You make assertions that are based on your cargo cult world view. Utterly misintegrated and contradictory nonsense.
    I mean why would Christians need to be preserving classic culture? What would they be preserving it from? Who shut down and made illegal Greek schools and philosophy? Why would this obvious problem with what you’re saying need pointing out?

    Basically saying Christians preserved classic culture, is the same as saying Nazi’s preserved J.3.w culture and using the out of context and misintegrated example of Schindler to support your position.

  74. Rex Anger

    Shit- Doubleposting, Godwin’s Law and inarticulate ad homs.

    IamDesperateToWinThisArgument well and truly jumped the shark!

    I mean why would Christians need to be preserving classic culture? What would they be preserving it from?
    I’ll answer this rhetorical question (poor and screechy as if is) with a dialectic one- Why would you preserve something you value? Your answer to this, IamAVeryBadTroll, is the same logical answer to the actions of your abhorrent Christianists.

    The converse of this logic is equally true for your much-preferred Bamiyan Brigade, Red Guards, Palmyra Pillagers, Anti(But not really)fascists and BLaMmers- No value seen in anything but themselves, so away it goes…

    I think IamNeverGonnaBeAsCoolAsTheFonz needs a dose of the butt salve rather urgently. I can feel his pain from here, and it makes me kinda sad…

  75. Rex Anger

    We’re just lucky Western “religious people” don’t understand, nor take religion seriously.

    Petey, we’ve been through this before.

    Christians don’t murder to people to secure salvation, IamPeter

    Your arguments are weak, repetitive and do not stand up to historical fact or logical scrutiny, IamABamiyanBuddhaBlowerUpper…

  76. Pyrmonter

    @ Tim N

    And when Zwingli sought to blocakde the popish cantons of Switzerland, he engaged in a simple exercise of free will? (Coincidentally, Chadwick also tells us he broke up the organ)

  77. Tim Neilson

    Pyrmonter
    #3519916, posted on July 21, 2020 at 10:47 am

    Sorry, I really don’t get what point you’re making there.

  78. Tim Neilson

    Rex Anger
    #3519911, posted on July 21, 2020 at 10:38 am

    Iamashiteater is typical of dogmatic atheists. He’s utterly convinced that he knows what Christian doctrine is, even though he consistently beclowns himself with howlingly ludicrous wrongology on the subject, then sucks himself off in intense self-adulation for having refuted his own delusions.

    In Iamashiteater’s case it’s because he’s far too stupid to think except in cartoon like binary dogmatic absolutist generalised labels.
    He’s got the label “religion” fixed in his mind, and has attached it to a miscellany of misconceptions and delusions, and he’s not within light years of being able to understand that even if his wrongology was an accurate description of any particular “religion” that wouldn’t make it an accurate description of every religion.

    Thus you’d have more chance of making a pot-plant understand your point than getting Iamashiteater to understand it.

  79. Rex Anger

    Just remember Tim, the harder they campaign and the more hysterical their shouting becomes, the more You Know Who is on their case.

    I, for one, am ecstatic… 🙂

  80. dover_beach

    You haven’t demonstrated anything. Ever. You make assertions that are based on your cargo cult world view. Utterly misintegrated and contradictory nonsense.
    I mean why would Christians need to be preserving classic culture? What would they be preserving it from? Who shut down and made illegal Greek schools and philosophy?

    They are not claims, they are facts. Many of the Church Fathers were neo-Platonists, others promoted Aristotle’s Categories and On Interpretation. Classical authors also figured prominently in Isidore’s Etymologiae. The Arabs were able to translate Aristotle’s works because they received Syriac translations of his work completed by Syriac Christians. Of course, there were Greek versions of his work available in Byzantium all this time. Boethius was as classical as they come and he was also a Christian neo-Platonist. Why would they be preserving classical culture? Heard of the barbarian invasions from the East? No? Thought not. And, no, Greek schools and philosophy were not ‘banned’. Neoplatonists and other Greek philosophers were free to write, publish, and teach. Philosophical schools were operating in Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, and where the latter is concerned under the patronage of the Byzantine Emperor. More info can be found here. But let’s end with this doozy:

    Early Christian emperors recognised the need to preserve the heritage of pagan writing. Constantius II (317-361) founded a new scriptorium in Constantinople and created salaried positions for both Greek and Latin copyists. There is evidence that a slump in literary culture had already started before Christianity became the official religion of the Empire. Constantius reversed this decline by ensuring that many decaying papyrus scrolls were copied into new codices. We also know that the texts used for teaching were all works of pagan literature and that the Christian equivalents never superseded them. Far from banning pagan works, Christian scholars kept them at the heart of the educational syllabus. Building on the start made by Constantius, later Christian Emperors founded a new school in Constantinople. It was this institution, with state support and plenty of funds, that probably did more than anything else to bleed Athens of its scholars. In 425AD, the state provided for no less than 28 professors in Constantinople and raised six of them to the peerage.

    IamMengele’s position is simply unrecoverable.

  81. NoFixedAddress

    When I went into secondary education back in the dim dark ages of the 1960’s both Latin and Ancient Greek were fields of study plus lots of ancient texts that the mad psychopathic marxists have wiped and replaced with gender bender bullshit.

    What did you study IAP?

  82. Iampeter

    They are not claims, they are facts.

    What are the facts? That a mystical and collectivist ideology created an individualistic and rational culture? Or just the random things you’re listing off for some reason that no one is disputing?

    Many of the Church Fathers were neo-Platonists, others promoted Aristotle’s Categories and On Interpretation. Classical authors also figured prominently in Isidore’s Etymologiae. The Arabs were able to translate Aristotle’s works because they received Syriac translations of his work completed by Syriac Christians.

    None of this is addressing anything I’ve said. You’re just dropping random names and events again. You don’t know what either the West or Christianity are fundamentally about, so don’t understand the relationship. Instead you’re using disjointed, contradictory and out of context names and events to rationalize your arbitrary position. This is always going to be the case until you learn how to integrate, resolve contradictions and think in terms of fundamentals.
    You need to learn how to think straight.

    Heard of the barbarian invasions from the East? No?

    Ah yes, the predictable barbarian response. Same question still stands: why did that suddenly become a problem? Rome was sacked by barbarians multiple times without needing civilization to be preserved? What changed? Again, the obvious problem with this shouldn’t need pointing out.

    And, no, Greek schools and philosophy were not ‘banned’.

    Except they were explicitly banned, their books burned and their adherents murdered by Christians.
    Justinian I outlawing Greek schools is what started the Dark Ages in the 500BC’s.

  83. Rex Anger

    OK IamFundamentallyDishonestInMyRhetoricalScreechings, you have conflated the actions of a nominally ‘Christian’ (late) Roman Emperor with a faith much bigger than him and his politics at the time.

    And based on this, combined with the utter ignorance of everything else going on in the Byzantine world at the time, you have decided that them Christianists terk er jerbs! As South Park might describe it.

    And based on all this, you have dogmatically decided that Christianists are as bad as the Evil Bad Orange Man who is Evil and Bad and Evil, and both must be decried at every opportunity.

    How terribly ‘rationalist’ and totally-not-religious of you…

  84. Judge Dredd

    Same question still stands: why did that suddenly become a problem? Rome was sacked by barbarians multiple times without needing civilization to be preserved? What changed?

    You probably should read City Of God by St Augustine, which is his response to the accusation that Christianity caused the downfall of Rome. Written around 412AD it’s a good reference as to why that was not the case. In summary the Roman civilization was always going to fall, as with all civilizations. I believe that all nations, empires and civilizations exists at the will of God, and God also decides when change is needed.
    One interesting thing with the fall of Rome, the barbarian invaders allowed people sanctuary in the holy Christian churches as they sacked Rome and slaughtered its people. The Barbarians gave safe passage to those who fled to the protection of Gods houses, that seems like divine providence to me.

  85. dover_beach

    IamMengele always pretends the relevant facts never address what he is saying when they are on point and expose his ideas as mere verbiage.

    Ah yes, the predictable barbarian response. Same question still stands: why did that suddenly become a problem? Rome was sacked by barbarians multiple times without needing civilization to be preserved? What changed? Again, the obvious problem with this shouldn’t need pointing out.

    LOL. Barbarian invasions that take over large tracts of the Western Roman Empire and led to its disintegration, politically, posed no threat to classical civilization, according to IamMengele. Apparently, Odocer in Rome and

    Except they were explicitly banned, their books burned and their adherents murdered by Christians.
    Justinian I outlawing Greek schools is what started the Dark Ages in the 500BC’s.

    There was no such thing dummy. Justinian didn’t ‘ban’ Greek books or philosophy, nor did he sanction the murder of Neoplatonists and other proponents of Greek philosophies, which is why Boethius could write his Consolations of Philosophy in 524AD, have it published, and his work would become a central part of classical learning throughout the medieval period. Of course, there is also the fact that Greek schools continued to operate in Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, as mentioned above, and to repeat:

    Early Christian emperors recognised the need to preserve the heritage of pagan writing. Constantius II (317-361) founded a new scriptorium in Constantinople and created salaried positions for both Greek and Latin copyists. There is evidence that a slump in literary culture had already started before Christianity became the official religion of the Empire. Constantius reversed this decline by ensuring that many decaying papyrus scrolls were copied into new codices. We also know that the texts used for teaching were all works of pagan literature and that the Christian equivalents never superseded them. Far from banning pagan works, Christian scholars kept them at the heart of the educational syllabus. Building on the start made by Constantius, later Christian Emperors founded a new school in Constantinople. It was this institution, with state support and plenty of funds, that probably did more than anything else to bleed Athens of its scholars. In 425AD, the state provided for no less than 28 professors in Constantinople and raised six of them to the peerage.

    This continued more or less throughout the medieval period where Aristotle’s works, for example, were taught and commentated until the Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453. Of course, the schools in Alexandria and Antioch were extinguished by the Arab conquests of those lands; in other words, by barbarian invasions from the East.

  86. Iampeter

    In summary the Roman civilization was always going to fall, as with all civilizations.

    Why?

    I believe that all nations, empires and civilizations exists at the will of God, and God also decides when change is needed.

    OK. Why?

  87. Iampeter

    IamMengele always pretends the relevant facts never address what he is saying when they are on point and expose his ideas as mere verbiage.

    Wouldn’t it be easier to just directly quote the “relevant point” you made to prove this, instead of projecting your own actions?

    LOL. Barbarian invasions that take over large tracts of the Western Roman Empire and led to its disintegration, politically, posed no threat to classical civilization, according to IamMengele.

    That is not what I said as you can clearly see since you quoted what I actually did say.
    This would be an example of, “pretends the relevant facts never address what he is saying when they are on point and expose his ideas as mere verbiage.”
    You tend to engage in this when you have no more evasions left and can’t answer the straight questions put to you.

    There was no such thing dummy. Justinian didn’t ‘ban’ Greek books or philosophy…

    This is historically incorrect. In 529 AD the Christian emperor, Justinian I, closed all the pagan schools of philosophy and forbade any pagan to teach.
    This effectively ended a millennia of Greek philosophy and Western civilization. This was the point at which the Dark Ages began.
    This hasn’t fully been scrubbed by Christian historic revisionists so you not having a talking point response means you really need to stop pretending to be well read.

    But in any case, as already explained, the historic revisionism doesn’t hold because even a superficial knowledge allows you to see that the West is individualistic and rational, it was derailed by the mystical and collectivist ideas of Christianity, until we threw off Christianity and recovered again.
    That’s what fundamentally happened over the last two thousand years.
    No random, out of context and contradictory technicality is going to change this.
    If you want to argue against this you would have to show what you think the West and Christianity are fundamentally about, contrasting it with what I’ve claimed and then demonstrate the causal relationships of these fundamental ideas, at least in the very basic way that I’ve done.

    You need to make an argument, not rationalize an arbitrary position you have.
    But you can’t do this, because of thinking issues I explained in the previous post.

  88. Rex Anger

    IamRobespierre still blames all Christianists for the alleged actions of one man.

    IamMadameLaGuillotine feels all Christianists should be made to account for (again!) the alleged actions of one man.

    In the same breath, IamTheMinistryOfTruth claims …even a superficial knowledge allows you to see that the West is individualistic and rational, it was derailed by the mystical and collectivist ideas of Christianity, until we threw off Christianity and recovered again.

    Remind me of who the collectivist actually is here, IamTotallyNOTaCollectivistAndYouAreTiggeredByMySuperiorOfEverythinAndY00zPr0jecktunkOnMe!Etc…

  89. Tim Neilson

    even a superficial knowledge

    Well, Iamashiteater is certainly a world class exponent of the “superficial” part.

    He’s staging yet again another example of his mental deficiency – his inability to understand that absolutist statements can be refuted by a single contrary instance. Once again his absolutist “all swans are white” statement has been met by demonstrable “black swan” refutation, and as usual Iamashiteater has gone into a trouser-soiling emotionally incontinent meltdown, spraying around some of his favourite irrelevancies – e.g. insisting that the black swan is “random” (as if that precluded it from refuting his “all swans are white” bullshit).

    But, to be fair, Iamashiteater has for once in his life attempted to respond by referring to specific evidence, i.e. Justinian’s decree of 529. But, unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to help him.

    The operative part of the decree has been translated into English as follows:
    so we permit only those who are of the orthodox faith to teach and accept a public stipend.
    Now I admit my knowledge of ancient Greek is negligible, and if Iamashiteater wants to quote the original ancient Greek and explain that an alternative translation is better he’s at liberty to do so of course.
    But that translation clearly shows that the prohibition wasn’t against pagan teaching, it was against pagan teachers being funded by taxpayers.
    One might argue that that’s “discriminatory” or offends against some other modern “value”, but it clearly isn’t a suppression of pagan thought.

  90. dover_beach

    This is historically incorrect. In 529 AD the Christian emperor, Justinian I, closed all the pagan schools of philosophy and forbade any pagan to teach.

    This effectively ended a millennia of Greek philosophy and Western civilization. This was the point at which the Dark Ages began.
    This hasn’t fully been scrubbed by Christian historic revisionists so you not having a talking point response means you really need to stop pretending to be well read.

    None of this actually happened. As indicated in my previous comment, schools of philosophy were active in Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople post-1529 AD. What happened is that the Academy in Athens likely ceased to receive public monies. Further, we have no evidence that the Academy in Athens even closed:
    Ian Cameron, in his analysis of the decree back in 1969 [NOTE], suggested that the last line of the decree should not be read as a blanket ban on teaching, but rather a ban on non-Christians being paid to teach from the public purse. He notes, for instance, that there is no evidence that there was ever a formal decision to suppress the Alexandrian schools. One of the last pagans to teach there was a man called Olympiodorus who was active in the late sixth century, well after Justinian’s decree. So, according to Cameron, Justinian did not close the Academy in Athens, he just cut off any public funding. I think Malalas makes clear this is wrong and that the decree was intended to close the Athenian schools only. Nowhere, in fact, are we told that the Academy actually did close or whether, as Cameron believes, it might have limped on under its own resources. My own feeling is that the Academy did shut its doors at this point although the significance of this event has been massively overstated. The great schools of Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople remained open, active and well patronised. Only after the city fell to the Arabs in the seventh century did the Alexandrian school loose its influence.

    One thing we can be absolutely sure of is that Justinian did not stop pagan philosophers from writing and publishing. We know this because several works by Damascius, the last head of the Athenian academy, and a large corpus by Simplicius, its leading light, survive to this day. Their contributions to neo-Platonic philosophy were valued enough by Christians to copy them out and later translate much of the material into Latin.
    Moreover, by the sixth century Athens was well and truly a backwater anyway and had been for centuries. So it is no surprise that many an aspiring Greek scholar would be following the money to Constantinople in order to pursue their philosophical interests, whether neoPlatonic or Aristotlean, at the University, under the patronage of the Emperor.

    To repeat, IamMengele’s position is unrecoverable. Brace for more arm-waving, however.

Comments are closed.