Salient points here from start to finish. Strength in all of its forms is being co-opted by equivovocation.. Be it moral courage, critical thinking, intellectual honestly, or pursuit of truth, strength in all of its forms and machinations is being sadly sacrificed on the altar of anticipatory surrender to authoritarian ascendance. How do we even fight this in a post truth world where half of the country is dissociated from reality?
I thought about the post. Am wondering your thoughts-->
I have heard a theory that Christianity took a nose dive in the preaching/understanding department at the time of and due to the Black Plague. As the theory goes, the priests would go to give last rites and they themselves became infected and died. So many of these wise old priests who had been trained so thoroughly had died that it left only those who lacked training to be in charge and the keepers of the faith.
Curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.
I cannot dispute that what is being taught may contribute to love of State, but I can say that it is totally outside of my understanding of Christianity. Then again, I do not attend Church for a reason. I prefer sitting in nature, pondering, and reading from those far more well-versed in the subject than I (or in my own experience those I have encountered in a church setting), imho the older the source, the better. (Hence me thinking there may be truth to the theory.)
It sounds like a good folklore/legend lol. I have no idea how true it is or not but it seems to be trying to say that the ability to convey the metaphysics/ontology of christianity died with a "certain" type of priest. I haven't studied Christianity enough to be able to comment further.
1) Meek does not mean weak. Humility is not weak, either. Humility is the opposite of pompous or pretentious. Someone who is humble knows himself and does not feel the need to brag or make a show. It takes an inner strength to show humility and be humble. Meek has taken on some definitions which are negative, the same way as the word "liberal" used to mean open-minded and has been twisted to mean "closed-minded".
2) The Christian view is NOT that a good person is someone who is incapable of harm. No, a good person is one who is quite capable of harm, knows it, and is thus able to control NOT doing the harm. A person who is incapable of harm is incapable of choosing to be good and therefore cannot claim to be so.
3) I do wonder why you focus on Christians. To be blunt, Christians render unto Caesar, but they do not have their religion intertwined with the state as do Jews and Muslims. So, why specifically are you targeting Christians for attack? What full take can one have in the world without acknowledging all of the world's players? No mention of the atheists, per se. Only Christians. Why?
Good and thoughtful counters, thanks. My thoughts:
1. First, Humility is derived of the Latin 'humilitas,' an adjective that was used to describe someone of very low social status. The ancient word did not view 'humilitas' as a "virtue," in fact, this word was often used to describe a slave. The sting of the word did not merely correlate to a lack of wealth either, but to the inability to determine one's fate or to resist another that was imposing on them. I bring this up to emphasize that Christianity inverted many virtues and vices of the ancient world. We are already seeing that in this first point, where a Greek or Roman would not want to be described as "humble," but a Christian would.
2. The logic you are espousing here is exactly the conclusion that I arrived at in this piece. But there is too much scripture, and there are too many sermons that preach an ethic of weakness. The "saving grace" is that the Bible is filled with so many conflicting and contradicting verses that you could technically come away with an ethic of strength if you wanted to . . . but if it's strength in the CLASSICAL sense, that is utterly at odds with the image of christ and the bearing of his life.
3. Lastly, this is attack on the State, and on certain social and ethical norms that promote submissiveness towards the state. I pointed out that their origins are partially in Christianity and in the secular philosophies that followed. This was especially necessary from an etymological point of view; we showed how the negative "humilitas" became positive "humility," and in the article itself I showed how ancient notions of Virtue (the Greek Aretē and Latin Virtus) became a thing that they would view as VICE (modern notions of "Virtue"). I think I was far harsher to postmoderns, secular moralists, NPCs, SJWS but I digress.
I don't think he was God, or accept his ethics, but Christ is a figure I respect.
Thank you for helping give me clarity on your thoughts.
It has been decades since I had Latin and it was taught by a Catholic, so perhaps the connotation of the words were de-emphasized from that perspective. Plus, I used the modern meaning regardless as I am quite protective of those two words in particular. I see your point and find it a fascinating one to contemplate.
I personally am working through reading the Bible cover to cover, starting with Old Testament. I am really struggling to push through it. The Old Testament may be the foundation upon which Christianity was laid, but it is in fact a Jewish foundation and there are a lot of concepts that go against my upbringing. With that said, I am agnostic (meaning I understand that most of the understanding of the workings of God and the universe will never be within my grasp--above my mental paygrade, so to speak). That is not to say that I do not believe. It is to say that I am still in the process of understanding and accept that I may not even be capable of fully understanding.
All that to say, what people interpret says less about Christianity as it does about people. Science could not have existed without Christianity. Submissiveness towards the state is not a Christian ideal. In fact, the Founding Fathers (in US) fought pretty hard to make sure that the State was submissive to the citizenry. I would posit that it is actually Christianity which does not bow to state and that is why Christianity often falls under attack. Christians do have as part of the religion turning the other cheek and loving their neighbor, which does allow for turning the other cheek and taking blame.
That's my understanding, anyway. Would love to hear more of your thoughts.
Salient points here from start to finish. Strength in all of its forms is being co-opted by equivovocation.. Be it moral courage, critical thinking, intellectual honestly, or pursuit of truth, strength in all of its forms and machinations is being sadly sacrificed on the altar of anticipatory surrender to authoritarian ascendance. How do we even fight this in a post truth world where half of the country is dissociated from reality?
I thought about the post. Am wondering your thoughts-->
I have heard a theory that Christianity took a nose dive in the preaching/understanding department at the time of and due to the Black Plague. As the theory goes, the priests would go to give last rites and they themselves became infected and died. So many of these wise old priests who had been trained so thoroughly had died that it left only those who lacked training to be in charge and the keepers of the faith.
Curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.
I cannot dispute that what is being taught may contribute to love of State, but I can say that it is totally outside of my understanding of Christianity. Then again, I do not attend Church for a reason. I prefer sitting in nature, pondering, and reading from those far more well-versed in the subject than I (or in my own experience those I have encountered in a church setting), imho the older the source, the better. (Hence me thinking there may be truth to the theory.)
It sounds like a good folklore/legend lol. I have no idea how true it is or not but it seems to be trying to say that the ability to convey the metaphysics/ontology of christianity died with a "certain" type of priest. I haven't studied Christianity enough to be able to comment further.
You make some very good points.
I will disagree with you on some of the others.
1) Meek does not mean weak. Humility is not weak, either. Humility is the opposite of pompous or pretentious. Someone who is humble knows himself and does not feel the need to brag or make a show. It takes an inner strength to show humility and be humble. Meek has taken on some definitions which are negative, the same way as the word "liberal" used to mean open-minded and has been twisted to mean "closed-minded".
2) The Christian view is NOT that a good person is someone who is incapable of harm. No, a good person is one who is quite capable of harm, knows it, and is thus able to control NOT doing the harm. A person who is incapable of harm is incapable of choosing to be good and therefore cannot claim to be so.
3) I do wonder why you focus on Christians. To be blunt, Christians render unto Caesar, but they do not have their religion intertwined with the state as do Jews and Muslims. So, why specifically are you targeting Christians for attack? What full take can one have in the world without acknowledging all of the world's players? No mention of the atheists, per se. Only Christians. Why?
Curious.
Good and thoughtful counters, thanks. My thoughts:
1. First, Humility is derived of the Latin 'humilitas,' an adjective that was used to describe someone of very low social status. The ancient word did not view 'humilitas' as a "virtue," in fact, this word was often used to describe a slave. The sting of the word did not merely correlate to a lack of wealth either, but to the inability to determine one's fate or to resist another that was imposing on them. I bring this up to emphasize that Christianity inverted many virtues and vices of the ancient world. We are already seeing that in this first point, where a Greek or Roman would not want to be described as "humble," but a Christian would.
2. The logic you are espousing here is exactly the conclusion that I arrived at in this piece. But there is too much scripture, and there are too many sermons that preach an ethic of weakness. The "saving grace" is that the Bible is filled with so many conflicting and contradicting verses that you could technically come away with an ethic of strength if you wanted to . . . but if it's strength in the CLASSICAL sense, that is utterly at odds with the image of christ and the bearing of his life.
3. Lastly, this is attack on the State, and on certain social and ethical norms that promote submissiveness towards the state. I pointed out that their origins are partially in Christianity and in the secular philosophies that followed. This was especially necessary from an etymological point of view; we showed how the negative "humilitas" became positive "humility," and in the article itself I showed how ancient notions of Virtue (the Greek Aretē and Latin Virtus) became a thing that they would view as VICE (modern notions of "Virtue"). I think I was far harsher to postmoderns, secular moralists, NPCs, SJWS but I digress.
I don't think he was God, or accept his ethics, but Christ is a figure I respect.
Thank you for helping give me clarity on your thoughts.
It has been decades since I had Latin and it was taught by a Catholic, so perhaps the connotation of the words were de-emphasized from that perspective. Plus, I used the modern meaning regardless as I am quite protective of those two words in particular. I see your point and find it a fascinating one to contemplate.
I personally am working through reading the Bible cover to cover, starting with Old Testament. I am really struggling to push through it. The Old Testament may be the foundation upon which Christianity was laid, but it is in fact a Jewish foundation and there are a lot of concepts that go against my upbringing. With that said, I am agnostic (meaning I understand that most of the understanding of the workings of God and the universe will never be within my grasp--above my mental paygrade, so to speak). That is not to say that I do not believe. It is to say that I am still in the process of understanding and accept that I may not even be capable of fully understanding.
All that to say, what people interpret says less about Christianity as it does about people. Science could not have existed without Christianity. Submissiveness towards the state is not a Christian ideal. In fact, the Founding Fathers (in US) fought pretty hard to make sure that the State was submissive to the citizenry. I would posit that it is actually Christianity which does not bow to state and that is why Christianity often falls under attack. Christians do have as part of the religion turning the other cheek and loving their neighbor, which does allow for turning the other cheek and taking blame.
That's my understanding, anyway. Would love to hear more of your thoughts.
"Might does not make Right, Might is used in the service of Right"; I won't forget that in a hurry. Nice piece!!