"What I cannot endure is Christianity and the harm it has done Europe. I detest its system of values, its persecution, its hatred of life (it worships a tortured and expired god), its cult of self-sacrifice and sexual aberrations like sadism, masochism, and chastity…”
(from “Death of a Hero” by Richard Aldington)
I have little different take on this.
The influence of Christianity on Europe is as complex as it is undeniable. However, the Christianity that dominated Europe in the Middle Ages onward was not the Christianity of Jesus Christ and his early followers. In fact, I doubt that early Christians would consider the modern variants as anything but heretics. By the Seventh Century, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches had both moved away from plain meaning to allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Despite efforts to return to its roots, Christianity’s holy book became a set of flexible guidelines. This created “holes” in the fabric of social control that, among other things, allowed a merchant class to emerge.
The Reformation accelerated this by fragmenting Christianity into squabbling cults which, while still powerful enough to suppress heretical thinking, were limited in influence to much smaller regions. Because the various flavors of Christianity only slightly agreed on what was allowed and forbidden, those heretical “natural philosophers” had some latitude to pursue the truth and the process of science was born.
Christianity contributed much to Western Civilization but, perhaps, its greatest contribution was its failure to remain true to its origins.
I certainly agree that Christianity’s contribution to our civilization - the architecture, art, and music - is enormous. Its horrific negative effects, neatly summarized in my quotation, are equally enormous.
linuxhitman: Your account is full of errors. Did you write it, or are you quoting it?
There was no “Christianity of Jesus Christ and his early followers”. Christianity was born after the crucifixion of Jesus, and his followers (as distinct from the followers of St. Paul) did not call themselves “Christians” - nor did anyone else call them that.
The Eastern Orthodox Church only split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 C.E.
No, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches had not “moved away from plain meaning to allegorical interpretation of Scripture” by the seventh century. They did not yet exist as separate churches. And varying interpretations of the Christian “New Testament” documents had nothing to do with the rise of the middle classes.
No such events as you refer to in your third paragraph gave birth to science. The first scientists were in ancient Greece. Thales (7th - 6th century B.C.E.) is called “the Father of Science”.
There were many Christian cults from the 1st. century onwards for hundreds of years until Rome succeeded - for a while - in imposing orthodoxy. The differences of opinion as to what was Christian “truth” led to many schisms, wars, and persecutions from the reign of Constantine to modern times.
And if there is any sense in your last paragraph, it eludes me.
That quote sounds a hell of a lot like Nietzsche. Do you think there’s an influence or connection to Aldington?
Did you write it, or are you quoting it?
I am paraphrasing myself so I guess the best answer is “both”.
There was no “Christianity of Jesus Christ and his early followers”. Christianity was born after the crucifixion of Jesus, and his followers (as distinct from the followers of St. Paul) did not call themselves “Christians” - nor did anyone else call them that.
I admit I have no idea what early “Christians” called themselves. Even if I did, I would use the word because most readers here will know what it means.
The Eastern Orthodox Church only split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 C.E.
The Byzantine and Roman factions had been growing apart since the 5th Century. The “Great Schism” was the divorce but the estrangement began hundreds of years before. Again here, using “Eastern Orthodox” and "Roman Catholic’ in this context was just a shorthand I figured everyone would understand.
No, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches had not “moved away from plain meaning to allegorical interpretation of Scripture” by the seventh century. They did not yet exist as separate churches. And varying interpretations of the Christian “New Testament” documents had nothing to do with the rise of the middle classes.
While the two were not officially separate, there were substantial difference of opinion. IIRC, Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception, and the provenance of the Holy Spirit were some of the biggies.
No such events as you refer to in your third paragraph gave birth to science. The first scientists were in ancient Greece. Thales (7th - 6th century B.C.E.) is called “the Father of Science”.
OK, I’ll give you that point. I am an engineer not a historian and tend to view science through a modern lens. Thales may be called the “Father of Science” but, AFAIK (I am far from a expert on him), he never addressed the problem that incorrect knowledge can survive just as easily as correct knowledge. It wasn’t until the 16th Century that men like Galileo and his contemporaries began seriously questioning the truth of what was passed down and investigated to discover what the real situation was. That’s why, without minimizing earlier contributions, I date the beginning of modern science to the period that also gave rise to the Reformation.
There were many Christian cults from the 1st. century onwards for hundreds of years until Rome succeeded - for a while - in imposing orthodoxy. The differences of opinion as to what was Christian “truth” led to many schisms, wars, and persecutions from the reign of Constantine to modern times.
And if there is any sense in your last paragraph, it eludes me.
A cheerful response!
Yes, modern science did begin in the 16th. century.
No examples of “allegorical interpretations” by the dawning of the seventh century?
No clarifying of your last paragraph, your final statement that I don’t understand?