Jesus may have been poor, but he was clothed and fed. The poor do not deserve to be poor; that’s the essential message of James concerning riches. In the early Christian society needs were met. In modern society, they are not met. God works through people. In the words of JFK, we are god’s hands and feet on this planet. It’s all to easy to say the poor deserve what they get because of some lack of faith in god. That’s a scapegoat for avoiding societal responsibility.
You did not really answer my question. Why do American protestants think in the way that I described? It was a correct description, was it not?
Bigotry …
Anyone who interprets the Gospel in this way is a cynical aide to the people who create poverty. The cyncism is hardly believable, and shows contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality by one’s actions, and is bitterly or sneeringly distrustful and contemptuous of anyone who could challenge the status quo. It is cowardice and shows a breakdown in moral integrity.
Incidentally, caring for the poor was a little bit easier in days when corporate organisations weren’t controlling everything, even though the Oligarchy of that time were the Ceasars, the Herod’s and other implicated persons. But the Roman Army had rules that they were not to overstep.
How would I know why Am. protestants think in the way that they do? If they think so, they have bought the lie that everyone can prosper with enough hard work.
The legacies of the protestant reformation and the industrial age, the legacy of the enlightenment, foster the notion of rugged individualism–I got mine; you get yours. Rags to riches capitalism. Raise yourself by your own bootstraps. Yes, this is the modern protestant view for the most. It has nothing to do with you are your brother’s keeper. It has nothing to do with love thy neighbor. . .
Where does Jesus fit in there? Purely as a tool to get eternal life?
Christianity, Capitalism, and Socialism all suck equally.
Why does any of this matter again?
It matters for people that want to categorize.
Well, La-di-da…
If we can’t change something, we can at least identify it.
@ Turd Ferguson (Contra-Nietzsche).
You do not know what you are talking about.
I did not deny the fact that other ancient societies had their forms of economy or even capitalism. They had their economy and capiatlism. Of course. If you really want to know what I was talking about, then you have to read my post more carefully than you did. I said that the mix of the Germanic form of economy and the Christian monastic form of economy led to the typical Occidental capitalism - and not the Greek and Roman form of economy. You did not notice that I was talking about forms of economy - because of the opening post of this thread.
I was talking about historical facts every schoolchild knows. It is a historical fact that Christianity was a huge part of the Roman empire’s proletariat during the first 300 years of Christianity; it is also a historical fact that Christianity became powerful after this first 300 years of Christianity; it is also a fact that the Germanic people conquered and settled the Roman empire and that they had a typical kind of economy, especially a typical kind of sea trade (you do not know which typical kind of economy I meant); it is also a fact that Benedict of Nursia (480–547) wrote an important rule which became the typical form of the Occidental monkhood (monasticism):
„ORA ET LABORA“.
I was strictly referring to Ierrellus’ opening post and talking about historical facts every schoolchild knows.
Turd, you do not know what you are talking about. You just make dick jokes here. As usual.
I am not interested in your derailing posts.
Opening post of this thread:
Again (in short):
Unfortunately, Ierrellus.
The gap between rich and poor is widening. It is similar to the situation in the Roman empire of the Late Antiquity. And just as decadent. The only difference between the Roman Empire of the Late Antiquity and the current Dollar empire is the extent: currently the injustice is truly global.
Germans are not Occidental, if the Romans and Greeks were were. Germans (such as the Visigoths and Lombard’s) didn’t institute any substantial reforms, and the rest of Germany was slow to adopt Manorism prior to Feudalism taking full root.
Your the one derailing the conversation by ignorantly introducing ideas from the Comte de Saint-Simon.
Most if the ideas presented in this thread are not ancient, especially your dichotomy Arminius, but date back to his theology from the French Revolution.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Saint-Simon
And it had nothing to do with the Germans, he was French, fought in the American Revolutionary War.
If you want to critic early Christian communalism, you would have to go to a work like the Didache.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
We didn’t mention anything about proletariats in it. The Roman Prolatariate were the lowest voting bloc in Roman society back then, had no property other than children. Jews normally were not considered prolatariate as they were of a conquered province, answerable to a local national magistrate as well as the Roman system. The ideas of St. Simon which you push wouldn’t be advocated for a good 1700-1800 years.
This thread is much less a question about theology as history. Your the one trolling Arminius for insert positioning ideas that have nothing to do with the Christianity of the period, we were structured around Jewish concepts and Cynic and Stouc ideals in our early period, not Utopian Socialism of the Pre-Marxian era. Romans were Occidental, Germans barbarians, until the 11th and 12th centuries when German Monasticism took off, and those monks would have absolutely nothing to do with your absurd ideas. Well, maybe the Sword Brothers or some other heretical order, but not the main stream monastics.
And St. Benedicts Rule (which I’ve read, US Army Basic Training is heavily modeled off it) was never the sole rule, nor the first rule, and many “Occidental” branches of Christianity won’t even allow it.
There isn’t a emphasis in Christianity of eastern or western rites, even the Orthodox churches adapted their liturgy over time, its never 100% archaic. St. Ambrose more or less nailed this:
He said this to St. Augustine, who was confused over the difference if litigurical style from Carthage to Rome. Its where the saying “When in Rome” comes from.
Your racist theories if bad historical techno-cultural lineages have no place in Christianity. We are intentionally NOT a race based religion. We segment into nationality and language based creeds as its much easier to simply embrace the local lingua franca and were less threatening to the local leadership… but I assure you, I can visit a nestorian church in Iran, a Church of the Orthodox in Ethiopia, or in Ireland, and find much the same thing, despite different emphasis on the nature of Christ or Communion. Reason why us because were Christians first. There is neither a west nor east issue, but of the interrelation of man to God and the respective community. Most ancient churches have monastics, and they gave greatly varied on their emphasis of technology and economy.
That first book I listed examines the early Roman church’s theological emphasis in aligning economics and society to the concept if the trinity.
Your ideas Arminius have nothing to do with anything. You just make stuff up, try to sneak it in and hope no one notices. I do, and I say no. Your not going to be allowed to rewrite history to sneak your twisted anti Christian idealism in. We have nothing to do with your sickness.
“Occidental” means “Western”, namely “Western Europe”. Did you know this? Greece is not Occidental. “Occidental” is a geographical and a cultural word. Did you know this? You can find Greece in the South East of Europe - not in the West of Europe. I am sorry, but that is also a fact that you do not want to be true. It is not my “idea” that Greece is in the South East of Europe. The other point is that “Occidental” religiously means the Western part of Christianity, thus the Roman Catholic part of Europe. It is not my “idea” that “Occidental” religiously means the Western part of Christianity.
The frontier/border of Occident and Orient:
During the time I was talking about the said post Germanic peoples settled in the whole Europe; some of them became, for example, Romans which means Rome + Germans = Romans, or they remained Germanic peoples and/or suppressed the peoples of the conquered territories and forced them to speak their language and live according to all their habits, for example in the territory that later was called England. How did they get there? An example:
The fact that you have no idea, Turd, is your own fault - not the fault of anybody else.
I am not interested in your Antigermanic hate - racism. I am merely interested in historical facts - and not in Fixed-Crossed or Turd-Cezared ideologies, idols, false gods, and so on.
Occidental is a 19th century term to differentiate the west from the Oriental, and was used heavily in Greek studies from that era to differentiate Greeks from Persians.
I remember one translation (can’t honestly remember the work, if anyone recognizes it tell me, as I need to source it for a Tajik historian I know) where the Greeks were amazed that the Persians didn’t have markets in their communities, it was emphasized it was a Occidental-Oriental Emphasis.
This is of course true, but largely because most Persians were serfs to a larger hierarchy, and manufactured their own goods, the Satraps and nobles did heavily acquire wealth, and the silk trade route in that era passed through their capitals, including Persepolis, where they maintained a large treasury. The freedom of economic exchange was reduced to a minority, but it did exist, and Persia was if anything more dependent upon trade than the greeks, who fluctuated between trade and piracy as their financial policy.
But using such 19th century, saying anyone is Occidental, is absurd… it was a racist perspective from high imperialism in the 19th century. Its like the translation of Aeneas the Tactician from the 5th/4th century BC trying to say there was a constant battle in every walled community between the prolatariate and the oligarchical forces… it was absurd. Oligarchs did erupt, based on traditional Greek constitutional forms, but there were absolutely no Marxist uprisings in this era, nothing that can fit smoothly into the expectations of Marxist historical change.
The terminology from this era sucks balls.
You are again talking nonsense, Turd. Maybe it is because of the fact that you are a North American, because the fact that you have no inkling and no conception of Europe and especially of the European history is your own fault - and not the fault of anybody else.
Do you actually have anything to contribute to this thread, Turd?
Yes, I have. I’ve given two books already on this threads concept, Giorgio Agamben’s work on this very subject, THIS VERY SUBJECT that the OP underlines, and furthermore, I posted the earliest text used in the Historiography of Christianity, the Didache, which another poster in this thread refers to without naming (there was a early schism in the early church centered around the community this text was written for, they themselves not it in the work).
Your the one posting pictures of Pagan Vikings and German River Systems. That’s heavily off topic. Your the one trying to assert the ideas of Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon, conceived during the French revolution, as early Christianity.
Your purely off topic, and haven’t the slightest clue how to get back on. I offered to supply you with a list of important historians so you can learn properly the craft of history, so you wouldn’t be forced to lie and just make stuff up.
Like, did you know the Benedictine Order wasn’t the major force for developing German capitalism and law, but rather German Princes feeding land to establish municipalities on their land so as to attract settlers and guilds, fortify the positions and tax the living daylights out of it? Had nothing to do with Christianity. The Knights Templars (most certainly NOT Benedictine Monks) pioneered land speculation and banking concepts, parallel to the Jews in this era, something you failed to mention. Both had a major impact on your German Centric conception of Capitalism.
Here is a list of church orders:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Church_Orders
They largely take place in that period of Christianity prior to your oddly favored period between late antiquity and early dark ages.
You have contributed literally nothing but misinformation Arminius. The Benedictine emphasis on ordered living isn’t unique, and other monastic rules, such as St. Basil, is more in line with modern concepts of technological preservation, intellectual exploration, and diversity of options. All monastic orders own property, parcel out land, etc. Nothing happened special in Germany. Trade via river and sea goes back millennia, and we Germans didn’t invent it. We had a role to play in the Hanseatic league, but that’s hardly early Christianity.
And to say I know nothing of European history… that’s impressively ignorant on your part, I’ve likely read more primary texts and academic works on history involving Europe than you simply read books, on any subject. You’ll realize this as time goes by, because I’m going to start paying very close attention to your proclamation on the nature of historical facts. You tried to make up a bunch of bullshit here. I gave you the option to embrace good historical methods. You’ve more or less reject it. There is nothing left than to severely critique your approach from now on like a hawk. I’m not known for being gentle when it comes to unrepentant false historians.
You can philosophically and theologically oppose Christianity, or any theology for that matter, its not the issue… the two books at the very top of the site do just that… but he does it well. He is a good historian, a decent philosopher. Hence why I offered him. But in your case Arminius, you are a horrible historian, and in history, there is no room for bad historians. Its not like in philosophy where you can pull ideas out of your butt and claim tolerance and inclusiveness. Historians are one of the most aggressive and critical branches of intellectual investigation out there, ideas of science and method underline our approach, not this voodoo your doing.
Science and method, very German. Perhaps you should look into it.
This Arminius, is a example of just how far I will go to offer a historian leeway to name and adopt a historical method. He preaches that the Flavian Dynasty invented Christianity, and that Jesus never existed. My name is Onasander in that thread, a name many here can vouch is one of my well known pen names. Its a website that focuses on early European history. Everyone was far more hostile to him than I was. But I’m the one who cracked him:
unrv.com/forum/topic/17475-t … thematics/
Its generally a good idea to know your history really well if your going to post on a site where a skilled debunker of history operates. I’m not gentle, bad theories have to die if they can’t stand up to the facts. Your position fails to do so.
Turd or Contra-Nietzsche, It is not possible here to give you all the informations I have, because the extent is too big for you. And I am sure that you have studied nothing - except turdology. I just provide you some maps, because you have not even a tiny idea of the geography facts of the European history:
Before the conquests.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_ … ire_period .
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period .
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period .
[size=109]Look also for Benedict of Nursia:[/size] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_of_Nursia .
You have to consider the history of the Germanic peoples and of the Christianity in order to understand the Occidental culture - religiously the Roman Catholic and Protestantic Europe, geographically the Central, West, North, Northwest, South, Southwest, and some parts of the East of Europe.
I guess that you were even not born when I finished my study of history at the university. 
And stop making dick jokes here, Turd.
I am not interested in your dick jokes.
There are some differences more, but we are talking about economy, and economically you are right, because economically only the scale has changed:
This time the danger is a global one, not only in an economical sense but also in a military and survival sense. Maybe this time the humans will not survive.
Who survived? The capitalists? The proletarians? Both?
Human cultures can insure that only the strong do not survive.