- 12 Feb 2015 14:59
#14524197
Medieval Christianity wasn't real Christianity. Medieval Islam was real Islam.
When ever you try and broach the problem of Islam you are normally countered by one of two arguments.
The less used one, which I actually have some sympathy for. If Western governments want to carry out summary executions of people, if they're going to set up Guantanamo Bay to broadcast to the world that they are torturing and in some cases killing suspect foreigners without even a shred of due process, if they are going to ally with the likes of Saudi And Bahrain then they hardly in a position to complain about the Islamic State. If the united State and Israel can kill innocent people in order to defend themselves, why not the Islamic State. If the West with its immense economic, military, technological and diplomatic power has to resort to these tactics how can you deny the tiny heroic forces of the Islamic State who are fighting this immense powerful array of forces, the right to use what ever methods they deem necessary for their survival.
However there's another argument that is ever more frequently used by those who seem determined to defend Islam at all costs. Many of whom fall under what I call Islamo-feminism. I know for example that Germane Greer has argued that its OK for Muslims to castrate their daughters genitals in order to stop them receiving sexual pleasure. "But what about Medieval Islam?" You've got to give the Muslims another 600 years of rule or maybe another 1600 to level them up with the Jews, else it wouldn't be fair. The problem is that even if we thought it was safe to let the Muslims run amok for another 600 years (and to me it seems bat shit insane), the notion is based on a false analogy.
Look at Medieval Christianity. Look at the vast power, wealth, pomp and privilege of the Medieval Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches of the East. Look at the Medieval Churches cosy symbiotic relationship with the monarchies and aristocracies of Feudal Europe. Then open a New Testament. Where in the Gospels do you find the Medieval Church? Try Acts, the letters of Paul, the other Epistles, there's nothing. Revelation is thinly a disguised, demented rant against Rome, not make yourselves the successors of Rome, the inheritors of Rome as both the Roman and Eastern Churches did. There is a lot scope for interpretation of the meaning of the New testament (assuming it has any cohesive meaning at all), but a blue print for the Medieval Church it is not. That the plain meaning of the text was anathema to the Medieval Church was quite clear to the Medieval Church itself, which was why they went to great pains (or rather inflicted great pains) to make sure people couldn't read it in their native languages. People should only read it after years of indoctrination. And much trouble came as soon as ordinary people did start reading it.
The Medieval Church only lasted because it was the establishment or one could say it was wedded to the establishment. The Church wedded itself to the Roman State power. It became the servant of the emperor and after that it married itself to the tribal Kingdoms that succeeded the Roman empire. It never overthrew Empires like the proto Muslim Arabs did. Once it was gone no one tried to bring it back. No one called to follow the rightly guided Popes. No called to follow the social and political model of Constantine. No Christian wants to bring back the inquisition. In Britain Civil War re-enactments are very popular, and while some may dress up as Round Heads no one really wants to ban Christmas and bring back Cromwell's Presbyterian tyranny. Christianity actually proved remarkably un-adept in establishing Christian theocracies whether Catholic Orthodox, Protestant or any other Christian sect. I don't know if the Ugandan Lord's Army is a theocracy. If it is it has little appeal to young western Christians. I don't think we need to worry about young impressionable Crusaders travelling to Uganda and then returning to blow up our shopping malls, tube trains and chop the heads off our soldiers in the local high street.
When ever you try and broach the problem of Islam you are normally countered by one of two arguments.
The less used one, which I actually have some sympathy for. If Western governments want to carry out summary executions of people, if they're going to set up Guantanamo Bay to broadcast to the world that they are torturing and in some cases killing suspect foreigners without even a shred of due process, if they are going to ally with the likes of Saudi And Bahrain then they hardly in a position to complain about the Islamic State. If the united State and Israel can kill innocent people in order to defend themselves, why not the Islamic State. If the West with its immense economic, military, technological and diplomatic power has to resort to these tactics how can you deny the tiny heroic forces of the Islamic State who are fighting this immense powerful array of forces, the right to use what ever methods they deem necessary for their survival.
However there's another argument that is ever more frequently used by those who seem determined to defend Islam at all costs. Many of whom fall under what I call Islamo-feminism. I know for example that Germane Greer has argued that its OK for Muslims to castrate their daughters genitals in order to stop them receiving sexual pleasure. "But what about Medieval Islam?" You've got to give the Muslims another 600 years of rule or maybe another 1600 to level them up with the Jews, else it wouldn't be fair. The problem is that even if we thought it was safe to let the Muslims run amok for another 600 years (and to me it seems bat shit insane), the notion is based on a false analogy.
Look at Medieval Christianity. Look at the vast power, wealth, pomp and privilege of the Medieval Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches of the East. Look at the Medieval Churches cosy symbiotic relationship with the monarchies and aristocracies of Feudal Europe. Then open a New Testament. Where in the Gospels do you find the Medieval Church? Try Acts, the letters of Paul, the other Epistles, there's nothing. Revelation is thinly a disguised, demented rant against Rome, not make yourselves the successors of Rome, the inheritors of Rome as both the Roman and Eastern Churches did. There is a lot scope for interpretation of the meaning of the New testament (assuming it has any cohesive meaning at all), but a blue print for the Medieval Church it is not. That the plain meaning of the text was anathema to the Medieval Church was quite clear to the Medieval Church itself, which was why they went to great pains (or rather inflicted great pains) to make sure people couldn't read it in their native languages. People should only read it after years of indoctrination. And much trouble came as soon as ordinary people did start reading it.
The Medieval Church only lasted because it was the establishment or one could say it was wedded to the establishment. The Church wedded itself to the Roman State power. It became the servant of the emperor and after that it married itself to the tribal Kingdoms that succeeded the Roman empire. It never overthrew Empires like the proto Muslim Arabs did. Once it was gone no one tried to bring it back. No one called to follow the rightly guided Popes. No called to follow the social and political model of Constantine. No Christian wants to bring back the inquisition. In Britain Civil War re-enactments are very popular, and while some may dress up as Round Heads no one really wants to ban Christmas and bring back Cromwell's Presbyterian tyranny. Christianity actually proved remarkably un-adept in establishing Christian theocracies whether Catholic Orthodox, Protestant or any other Christian sect. I don't know if the Ugandan Lord's Army is a theocracy. If it is it has little appeal to young western Christians. I don't think we need to worry about young impressionable Crusaders travelling to Uganda and then returning to blow up our shopping malls, tube trains and chop the heads off our soldiers in the local high street.
Progressives lie scattered on Woke's highway, Diverse ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.
- By Rich
- By ingliz
- By Unthinking Majority