Ask a Reactionary

[Tahuti]

Well, the US revolution shows undeniable Islamic influence, if the Turks hadn't closed many trade routes to the East the Spanish wouldn't have sailed West and there wouldn't have been English colonies in what is now Unitedstatesia. Right?

I know you're joking. Anyway, we are talking about direct intellectual influence here, not just a vague get together of circumstances.

 

[timtofly]

Well, Judaism was originally polytheist with monotheist tendencies (like most ethnic religions of the time, really) and only became more clearly monotheist when it entered contact with Zoroastrianism from Persia.

Greek and Roman influences should be a no brainer, given that the Holy Land was under Roman control. There was one Jewish writer who fused Judaism with Greek ideas and became an important philosophical precursor to Christianity, though sadly, his name slipped from my mind (maybe Plotinus could help).

If all of this things didn't happen, there would be no Christianity and no Islam. Period.

Then Christianity as a religion as it is today is what you where referring to and not the Bible? Are you also figuring that Noah was modeled after Zarathustra and his name was not just another name for Noah used by the Persians? Because Noah also preached monotheism and was one of the Hebrews in the Jewish genealogy. Abraham and Moses also preached monotheism. Who were they "scripted" after? Even Daniel who was a prisoner of war in Persia, proclaimed that there was one God and it seemed he was only received by the king while others tried to ruin his life. He was talking about the God of his fathers, not the deity known by the Persians. Why would the writers of the OT go so far out of their way to portray a monotheistic view?

 

[Tahuti]

Why would the writers of the OT go so far out of their way to portray a monotheistic view?

The Tanakh may very well have only emerged in its current form after 1 AD. So there could have been all sorts of things in Judaism, including polytheism, that are no longer associated with Judaism today.

Modern Judaism is basically a Christianised version of the ethnic religion of the Hebrews, which had hitherto relied on oral traditions instead of written ones. Although Christianity arguably started a fringe sect within Judaism.

 

[timtofly]

The Tanakh may very well have only emerged in its current form after 1 AD. So there could have been all sorts of things in Judaism, including polytheism, that are no longer associated with Judaism today.

What kind of proof is that? "There could have been"? Pointing out the Canon that was accepted does not negate the point monotheism was accepted before a period 500 years prior, and any additions to the Tanakh at any point does not negate a monotheistic point of view.

Modern Judaism is basically a Christianised version of the ethnic religion of the Hebrews, which had hitherto relied on oral traditions instead of written ones. Although Christianity arguably started a fringe sect within Judaism.

Are you saying that Judaism and Christianity are the twin results of the same event?

 

[Tahuti]

What kind of proof is that? "There could have been"? Pointing out the Canon that was accepted does not negate the point monotheism was accepted before a period 500 years prior, and any additions to the Tanakh at any point does not negate a monotheistic point of view.

I'm saying that was one point of view.

Are you saying that Judaism and Christianity are the twin results of the same event?

Judaism in its modern form? Definitely. Plotinus will confirm.

 

[Plotinus]

Greek and Roman influences should be a no brainer, given that the Holy Land was under Roman control. There was one Jewish writer who fused Judaism with Greek ideas and became an important philosophical precursor to Christianity, though sadly, his name slipped from my mind (maybe Plotinus could help).

You're thinking of Philo of Alexandria, but his writings had no influence on the Bible itself, and of course he wasn't from the Holy Land anyway. He was much more influential on later Christian authors such as Clement and Origen who were also taking ideas from contemporary Platonists.

If all of this things didn't happen, there would be no Christianity and no Islam. Period.

I don't know about that. They would have been different, certainly. But while there is indeed hellenistic influence in parts of the Bible (e.g. the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom) I'm not convinced there's a great deal. Christianity as we know it certainly incorporates a great deal of Greek philosophy, mostly Platonism of one kind or another, but it needn't have done so, and indeed the Middle Eastern churches such as the Church of the East never did particularly much.

There's a case for saying that both Christianity and rabbinic (modern) Judaism were responses to the First Jewish War: the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE forced the end of Judaism as people had known it before, which revolved around the Temple, and encouraged the development of what were effectively two new religions, one of which was more consciously Jewish than the other. That's just one way of looking at it, though, and I don't know nearly enough about Judaism to say any more.

Still, all of this is a bit of a digression from your main point here. In what way is Christianity a precursor of Stalinism or fascism in anything more than a trivial way (it is an intellectual system which encourages certain beliefs and behaviours)? And shouldn't a system be judged on its own merits rather than on the basis of what later things it influenced?

 

[Tahuti]

You're thinking of Philo of Alexandria, but his writings had no influence on the Bible itself, and of course he wasn't from the Holy Land anyway. He was much more influential on later Christian authors such as Clement and Origen who were also taking ideas from contemporary Platonists.



I don't know about that. They would have been different, certainly. But while there is indeed hellenistic influence in parts of the Bible (e.g. the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom) I'm not convinced there's a great deal. Christianity as we know it certainly incorporates a great deal of Greek philosophy, mostly Platonism of one kind or another, but it needn't have done so, and indeed the Middle Eastern churches such as the Church of the East never did particularly much.

There's a case for saying that both Christianity and rabbinic (modern) Judaism were responses to the First Jewish War: the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE forced the end of Judaism as people had known it before, which revolved around the Temple, and encouraged the development of what were effectively two new religions, one of which was more consciously Jewish than the other. That's just one way of looking at it, though, and I don't know nearly enough about Judaism to say any more.

Thank you for this informative response. I think this will help everyone who lurks in this thread a great deal.

Still, all of this is a bit of a digression from your main point here. In what way is Christianity a precursor of Stalinism or fascism in anything more than a trivial way (it is an intellectual system which encourages certain beliefs and behaviours)? And shouldn't a system be judged on its own merits rather than on the basis of what later things it influenced?

Christianity and Islam transcended the ethnic groups they originated from, in such a way that if you were not part of it, you were the enemy or 'someone to be enlightened'. While both Christianity and Islam have their merits by virtue of their spiritual and philosophical origins, the two were arguably the first modern ideologies. Christianity for most part reformed, incorporating pagan elements of host countries as well as undergoing useful intellectual criticism from within the societies the took hold. In a way, Western societies managed to subdue Christianity. Islamic societies are however largely subdued by Islam, and it seems to be harder to turn the tables, though I doubt it's impossible.

However, I suspect that totalitarian ideologies are a product of universalism, and universalism was popularised, if not invented by Christianity. I consider universalism in most cases to be negative trait, a collective failure to live in the minds of others, one that promotes homogenity and attempts to destroy dissent. The Romans tolerated Hellenism, Judaism and other ethnic religions because Roman views were highly anti-universalist.

When judging mystical schools of thought, I distinguish between religion which is public and aimed at giving meaning to secular life and creating social cohesion through public rituals and esotericism, which is private and aimed towards spiritual enlightenment of the individual. Esotericism is a completely private matter. Religion however, should to some degree be controlled by the state, (i.e Caesaropapism) in that no religion may call followers to violate the state's laws.

Sorry for all this philosophical mumbo jumbo. It probably contains a couple of incorrect claims that if corrected may bring down important aspects of this line of thought, so I am continually revising my thought.

 

[Mouthwash]

The Tanakh may very well have only emerged in its current form after 1 AD. So there could have been all sorts of things in Judaism, including polytheism, that are no longer associated with Judaism today.

Modern Judaism is basically a Christianised version of the ethnic religion of the Hebrews, which had hitherto relied on oral traditions instead of written ones. Although Christianity arguably started a fringe sect within Judaism.

Christianized? Where do you think Aquinas got his ideas!?

 

[Tahuti]

Christianized? Where do you think Aquinas got his ideas!?

Maimonides of course.

Who got his ideas from the Talmud. However, the Talmud itself is a latent Christian influence on Judaism and was written like 200 AD.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think that's a bit simplistic - it's a bit like saying that Joyce wrote Ulysses because he'd read the Odyssey, so Ulysses is a Homeric text. There's a lot of Joyce in it too.

 

[Tahuti]

I never made such claim. I rather directly responded to Mouthwash's question.

 

[Flying Pig]

Mouthwash's point was that the 'Christian' influences you detect in modern Judaism in fact work the other way - they're points where Judaism influenced Christianity.

 

[Tahuti]

Mouthwash's point was that the 'Christian' influences you detect in modern Judaism in fact work the other way - they're points where Judaism influenced Christianity.

That's certainly true. However, there is a massive difference between Modern Judaism and Pre-Talmudic Judaism. Pre-Talmudic Judaism influenced Christianity and not the other way around, while for Modern Judaism and Christianity, it worked both ways.

 

[Plotinus]

Who got his ideas from the Talmud. However, the Talmud itself is a latent Christian influence on Judaism and was written like 200 AD.

What's Christian about the Talmud?

 

[Traitorfish]

However, I suspect that totalitarian ideologies are a product of universalism

Fascism is universalist?

 

[Tahuti]

Fascism is universalist?

I believe it is universalist in a moral sense (i.e. the fascist nation will conquer all) though it is strongly particularist at the same time, considering its nationalism. What makes it dangerous it is the way it combines particularist notions with a universalist certainty.

So while we agree that it many points it is the total opposite of universalist, the universalist ideas make fascism aggressive to all external actors who are in its view objectively evil.

What's Christian about the Talmud?

Its dogmatism. Judaism was a much looser religion before the Talmud. What the Talmud did, exactly like Christianity was originally is forming a strict definition of what is Jewish and what not. I believe that is something distinctively Christian in origin.

 

[Traitorfish]

I believe it is universalist in a moral sense (i.e. the fascist nation will conquer all) though it is strongly particularist at the same time, considering its nationalism. What makes it dangerous it is the way it combines particularist notions with a universalist certainty.

So while we agree that it many points it is the total opposite of universalist, the universalist ideas make fascism aggressive to all external actors who are in its view objectively evil.

But that isn't what "universalist" means. It describes a doctrine which is held to be universally true or applicable, not just a claim that refers to a general rather than particular object. Doesn't it?

 

[Tahuti]

But that isn't what "universalist" means. It describes a doctrine which is held to be universally true or applicable, not just a claim that refers to a general rather than particular object. Doesn't it?

That's perhaps why Fascism is inherently contradictory: It makes claims of representing universal truth and applicability in its nationalist particularity.

 

[Flying Pig]

I think you're confusing 'universal' with 'objective' - part of the point of fascism is that the nation in question is somehow special above all others, so one fascist leader couldn't go and eke out a career somewhere else. It's notionally possible to have both a Japanese fascist leader and an Israeli one, but not really for the two to switch places.

 

[Tahuti]

That is true. However, here comes the fun part: They simply externalise their particularness to encompass the entire world. In National Socialism for instance, Germanness is considered the apex of all of humanity. Serving the interests of the Nazism considers the interests of Germans is not only an obligation for every German, but for humanity, in the same way Communism is supposed to be covering humanity one day.

However, unlike Communism, the ideals of Fascism are particular in origin.