From his book “The New Jerusalem”, where he contrasts the paradoxes of Christianity, such as the Trinity, which he notes make it complex, as opposed to the simple theology of Islam
>It was exactly because it seemed self-evident, to Moslems as to Bolshevists, that their simple creed was suited to everybody, that they wished in that particular sweeping fashion to impose it on everybody. It was because Islam was broad that Moslems were narrow. And because it was not a hard religion it was a heavy rule. Because it was without a self-correcting complexity, it allowed of those simple and masculine but mostly rather dangerous appetites that show themselves in a chieftain or a lord. As it had the simplest sort of religion, monotheism, so it had the simplest sort of government, monarchy. There was exactly the same direct spirit in its despotism as in its deism. The Code, the Common Law, the give and take of charters and chivalric vows, did not grow in that golden desert. The great sun was in the sky and the great Saladin was in his tent, and he must be obeyed unless he were assassinated. Those who complain of our creeds as elaborate often forget that the elaborate Western creeds have produced the elaborate Western constitutions; and that they are elaborate because they are emancipated.
This is his point that Islam was harmful to freedom and progress. We can say in a way that what defines western values is Christianity, that whatever they are, they are a form of it
>Chesterton
>Ten or twenty years ago, the form of nationalism most closely corresponding to Communism today was political Catholicism. Its most outstanding exponent — though he was perhaps an extreme case rather than a typical one — was G. K. Chesterton. Chesterton was a writer of considerable talent who whose to suppress both his sensibilities and his intellectual honesty in the cause of Roman Catholic propaganda. During the last twenty years or so of his life, his entire output was in reality an endless repetition of the same thing, under its laboured cleverness as simple and boring as ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians.’ Every book that he wrote, every scrap of dialogue, had to demonstrate beyond the possibility of mistake the superiority of the Catholic over the Protestant or the pagan. But Chesterton was not content to think of this superiority as merely intellectual or spiritual: it had to be translated into terms of national prestige and military power, which entailed an ignorant idealisation of the Latin countries, especially France. Chesterton had not lived long in France, and his picture of it — as a land of Catholic peasants incessantly singing the Marseillaise over glasses of red wine — had about as much relation to reality as Chu Chin Chow has to everyday life in Baghdad. And with this went not only an enormous overestimation of French military power (both before and after 1914-18 he maintained that France, by itself, was stronger than Germany), but a silly and vulgar glorification of the actual process of war. Chesterton's battle poems, such as Lepanto or The Ballad of Saint Barbara, make The Charge of the Light Brigade read like a pacifist tract: they are perhaps the most tawdry bits of bombast to be found in our language. The interesting thing is that had the romantic rubbish which he habitually wrote about France and the French army been written by somebody else about Britain and the British army, he would have been the first to jeer. In home politics he was a Little Englander, a true hater of jingoism and imperialism, and according to his lights a true friend of democracy. Yet when he looked outwards into the international field, he could forsake his principles without even noticing he was doing so. Thus, his almost mystical belief in the virtues of democracy did not prevent him from admiring Mussolini. Mussolini had destroyed the representative government and the freedom of the press for which Chesterton had struggled so hard at home, but Mussolini was an Italian and had made Italy strong, and that settled the matter. Nor did Chesterton ever find a word to say about imperialism and the conquest of coloured races when they were practised by Italians or Frenchmen. His hold on reality, his literary taste, and even to some extent his moral sense, were dislocated as soon as his nationalistic loyalties were involved.
I have read a lot of Chesterton and this person is just seething and dishonest
IDK, I've read a-lot of him also(I consider his main novels among the best of the century) but there is definitely something to this critique.
>During the last twenty years or so of his life, his entire output was in reality an endless repetition of the same thing, under its laboured cleverness as simple and boring as ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians.’ Every book that he wrote, every scrap of dialogue, had to demonstrate beyond the possibility of mistake the superiority of the Catholic over the Protestant or the pagan
Thank goodness all the great novels came out before then.
>he was not a Tory
>therefore he was bad
Sounds like a proto chud who is anti-American imperialism but pro Russian imperialism because Russia is "le based white trad or something"
Exactly what I was thinking
This very particular seethe that only anglos can articulate.
>It's Orwell
fricking of course
Think of how much better the world would have turned out if England just sunk into the sea sometime after the norman invasion, never to return. Holy frick, no wonder americans turned out so grotesque.
it is morally permissible to flog adulterers
thread over
no one reply after this
spbp
moron op is literally dancing around saying if I don't like the truth it isn't real
what a fricking moron
it is not morally permissible to /thread your own reply
If you're a tradLARPing Catholic Christcuck like Chesterton, you should know that Aquinas's moral theology is about as archaic as flogging adulterers.
>you should know that Aquinas's moral theology is about as archaic as flogging adulterers.
Uh?
Why is flogging or Aquinas' theology archaic?
I imagine he's saying that it isn't because roleplaying as an early 2000s Evangelical is "counterculture" or something now.
He's saying that Yeshua changed the rules and now you're not supposed to flog adulterers OR kill them, but rather forgive them and give them your stuff.
Aquinas thought a man had the right to beat his wife. He also thought that unnatural sex is worse than rape. So, a man using contraception with his wife is literally worse than him raping an unmarried woman and getting her pregnant.
What he said, and see for more detail here: https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/summa-translation/Part%202-2/st2-2-ques154.pdf
I have respect for Thomists for their historical contributions to the development of rights and his arguments for theism are worth reading, but that doesn't make the archaic parts of Thomas's theology any less archaic.
Does he really? Scripture says some very different things than this supposed Saint
Chesterton was not "larping", moronic zoomer. Not everything is ironic.
We should stone adulterers, not flog them.
If flogging adulterers is wrong, then a fortiori killing adulterers should presumably be wrong as well. Yet the God of the Bible commanded the Israelites to do just that. Since God can't command something that's wrong, well then Christianity must be false as well.
I don't think Cameron thought about this argument for more than five seconds.
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
I don't see how that's a response to my argument.
Because that was literally God saying not to stone adulterers
Pericope Adulterae is an interpolation
Jesus says that, but that's completely irrelevant. That doesn't change the fact that the Mosaic law commanded stoning adulterers. And God can't command something that's morally wrong.
Jesus said that anduslims do not believe in the trinity.
Jesus is God you stupid goat fricker
Not even the oldest Christcucks agreed with that, israelite slave. Check Nestorians for example.
Kys.
Moron
>No argument
You're the moron. Kys, cucked moron.
Also 4 is the number of death in many cultures...
witnessed
Ok, fine. Fine, you're right. AND? The religion did not fall out of the sky like yours. It's a DIFFERENT FRICKING RELIGION. Christianity is not Islam, yet you people insist on criticizing it through a muslim lens, and you come across as completely delusional to everyone except your fellow muslims. You people have so much misplaced arrogance it makes me sick.
Islam is Infinite Consciousness ironic punishment cast upon the abrahamics, not because it is bloodthirsty, but because muslims are dunning kruger brainlets that talk with the exact same arrogance and confidence of "revelation" as christians do, so the christian has to look into one of those mirrors that deforms his own likeness into that of a wormhole-for-brain wojak
Interesting post
>Check Nestorians for example.
Also that's just wrong. have a nice day.
Which is another way to say that nobody is truly innocent. Why did the woman cheat? Because she had a bad husband. Why was the woman raped? Because she was asking for it.
>God can't command something that's wrong
Who are you to limit God's power?
>the God of the Bible commanded the Israelites to do just that
The laws of the Israelites are not universal laws for all places and times.
Islam seeks to impose its moronic laws to all of humanity.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand this simple yet fundamental difference?
Israelites were given a blank check to genocide other peoples for being infidels
NTA but you don't understand the point. I know that the laws of the Old Testament weren't meant for all places and times, but God still commanded the Israelites to kill adulterers, and you believe that's wrong, which means God commanded the Israelites to do something which is wrong. The only way around this is to claim that the things Gid commanded the Israelites to do wasn't wrong.
you can have your "freedom" and your "progress"
I'm a Christian, but the argument on OP's image is awful.
>that's an Italian
Jfc I thought he was a saar in that small profile picture with that lighting
Inshallah the Christians think that God's word can change and they are wrong, they are destined for the eternal fires!
God's Word is literally Jesus you stupid idiot. Jesus Is God's Full and FINAL Revelation. Get it?
>the hill I want to die on in my theocratic argument that Islam is a lie is claiming whites don’t deserve their beating
…well you tried.
>only whites
I am tired of pretending that Christianity and Islam aren't BOTH gay. (They are.)
Al-Tirmidhi (1456), Abu Dawud (4462) and Ibn Majah (2561) narrated that Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.” (Classed as sahih by al-Albani in Sahih al-Tirmidhi)
Please don't actually force me to look for all the gay Arab and Turkish poetry and prose that I was forced to study for my History degree.
You said:
>I am tired of pretending that Christianity and Islam aren't BOTH gay
not "I am tired of pretending that Arabs and Turks aren't BOTH gay". I don't find how this is relevant.
Racist Salafi white convert detected. Either that or Iranian Shia (femboy CIA asset).
I had to go, if I skip uni I am expected to get an actual job. This way I get to read books for years on end.
also anon actually went into debt to study history at uni, just read books bro
And because it was not a hard religion it was a heavy rule. Because it was without a self-correcting complexity, it allowed of those simple and masculine but mostly rather dangerous appetites that show themselves in a chieftain or a lord. As it had the simplest sort of religion, monotheism, so it had the simplest sort of government, monarchy. There was exactly the same direct spirit in its despotism as in its deism. The Code, the Common Law, the give and take of charters and chivalric vows, did not grow in that golden desert.
I think there is some truth to this. Having such a reductive theology makes abstract thought impossible for them. It's why Avicenna caused the total stagnation of philosophy during the middle ages.
It’s a natural process. Just like Socrates caused Greek philosophy to totally stagnate and Aquinas caused Catholic theology to totally stagnate.
>Aquinas caused Catholic theology to totally stagnate.
Avicenna caused all philosophy to stagnate; he is the prime mover that that led to Aquinas. Even the responses in opposition to him him were unable to push things forward because the style he developed is so overwhelming that participating in it in any capacity only works to help maintain the stagnation. I may be sympathetic to Al-Ghazali, but his Incoherence is ultimately a failure for that reason.
Yeah Medieval philosophy was actually flourishing prior to contamination by Ancient Greek though introduced by the Muslims. Most of my favorite philosophers were the countless non-Aristotlean, non-Platonic Medieval philosophers of Western Europe, especially during the early Middle Ages. But even so different periods have to be eclipsed, part of progress
Name 6
name some of these medieval philosophers, like the other anon said
>the style he developed is so overwhelming
wtf are you talking about?
>Avicenna caused all philosophy to stagnate; he is the prime mover that that led to Aquinas. Even the responses in opposition to him him were unable to push things forward because the style he developed is so overwhelming that participating in it in any capacity only works to help maintain the stagnation
Wrong, progress and diverse efforts in philosophy and science were continual. See Hannam's God's Philosophers for a thorough historical perspective. What you're claiming is just a variant of the Protestant dark ages myth used to shore up arguments against Catholicism (atheist, btw, inb4 "you're only saying that because you're emotionally wedded to the church"). What's more, Avicenna's approach isn't any different than that of the ancient Peripatetics in general, nor of the Neo-Platonists nor their precursors, the Neo-Pythagoreans.
>(atheist, btw, inb4 "you're only saying that because you're emotionally wedded to the church")
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
I'm a Nietzschean, I don't win anything by pointing any of this out. The real period of stagnation is mid-6th century to mid-10th century.
That's the thing though, even if you were Catholic it's actually fine to say what you said. But you said so much stuff about how disinterested you are in this that it makes you look weird lol.
No it doesn't, have you never been in a IQfy thread with "inb4"s or "you only say that because you're an x"s?
I know what an inb4 is moron you are just using it in a weird way as if you're gonna get lynched if you don't.
>What's more, Avicenna's approach isn't any different than that of the ancient Peripatetics in general, nor of the Neo-Platonists nor their precursors, the Neo-Pythagoreans.
I don't think highly of them either, especially Plotinus. It's just that fusing it with Abrahamic religion in the way Avicenna did cause stagnation until Descartes rejected it. I am willing to say that these people worked to advance science, mathematics, and logic, but philosophy in every field except logic completely stagnation, and all advancement the field has seen comes from Descartes rejection of their project.
Not a single good thing has come from "progress" or "advancement".
We have a considerably deeper and better understanding of every single aspect of philosophy than scholastic meandering ever could have gotten us. If you think that's a bad thing, I don't know what to tell you.
What I think you're separating out too much is the connection between the philosophy of the period, and the math, medicine, logic, etc. If you mean something like ethics, politics, metaphysics, I don't think it has to do with Avicenna nor even the Peripateticisn they inherited and ran with (and I agree on the Neo-Platonists, btw), but rather the new situation under the character of the kind of monotheistic revelations they had to tiptoe alongside. A careful look at Avicenna's immediate precursor Farabi shows how much caution had to be exercised in expressing something that might depart from the ethical, political, or metaphysical opinions held by the those in charge, since such departures get you noticed quickly. Farabi's commentary on Plato's Laws ends right before the part on theology, and it's hard not to suspect the reasons why (and some of the existing comments by Ibn Tufayl and Averroes on Farabi's commentary on Aristotle's Ethics suggest why: he apparently implied that there's no afterlife). This situation makes the differences between the Middle East's inheritance of the Greeks and Western Europe's inheritance an interesting point of contrast: Islam was a revelation of laws, and Christianity a revelation that left the backdoor for the eventual Enlightenment open by being more theological instead of narrowly political. Some slowness can attributed to having to wait for people to learn Greek and come back from the East with whatever manuscripts they could get copies of, and then wait for those few who could read Greek to translate them into Latin. But I'd still insist that, though metaphysics tended to be slower to change, natural philosophy picked up again in a way it hadn't since the great Islamic philosophers, and that it hadn't before them in turn since Galen. Disagreements on Aristotle's understanding of acceleration were almost immediate, for example, paving the way for Galileo, Descartes, and Huygens.
And also how Hegel caused the Protestant Age to stagnate
I can't figure out what the frick he is trying to say here.
>It was exactly because it seemed self-evident, to Moslems as to Bolshevists, that their simple creed was suited to everybody, that they wished in that particular sweeping fashion to impose it on everybody.
Can't you say the exact same thing about Christianity? Is it not meant for everyone? Haven't they spent the last two millennia trying to impose it on everyone (or spread the good news, if you want to be more charitable)?
>Because it was without a self-correcting complexity,
What does he mean by self-correcting complexity? Is he implying there were no theological disputes in Islam? And that this somehow led to more authoritarianism?
>As it had the simplest sort of religion, monotheism, so it had the simplest sort of government, monarchy. There was exactly the same direct spirit in its despotism as in its deism.
Again, also true of Christianity
>The Code, the Common Law, the give and take of charters and chivalric vows, did not grow in that golden desert.
Common law is an Anglo institution, not something inherent to Christianity as a whole.
Is his argument really that common law developed because Christian doctrine makes so little sense that it required constant litigation?
Those are good points anon. Sadly I have no insights there.
>OP's image
This is why I think Logic is stupid at times
Because you're dumb and don't get it like the guy in the OP?
Just for the record, (2) is not some kind of axiomatically true statement but would actually itself require logical proof.
that screenshot op… I think you would be hard pressed to find any non-muslim who believes against flogging an adulterer.
If Catholicism creates this beautiful complexity why is it only present where there are faustian westerners? How come Catholic Coptic Egypt had none of it, how come Orthodox Georgia had none of it, how come Catholic Black folks, filipinos and indios never got it?
Western countries used to execute people who committed adultery. I'm not surprised that capturing Christianity tweeted this.This is the guy who didn't even know what the old testament tabernacle was and yet runs a christian apologetic channel.
What if I think flogging adulterers is based and moral though?
(1) If Christianity is true, a man rose from the dead.
(2) Men do not rise from the dead.
(3) Christianity is not true
kek, christcucks actually think "it is not morally permissible to flog adulterers" is more certainly true than "men do not rise from the dead." You can't make this shit up.
So far so good. Two down.
(1) If Judaism is true, a bush talked.
(2) Bushes do not talk
(3) Judaism is not true