GERMANIZATION OF EARLY MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY: 12 POINT SUMMARY James C Russell’s ‘Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation’ (GOEMC) is an excellent study on the evolution of Christianity from a predominantly Mediterranean religion to a northern European one. [1] The book has recently gained popularity on the internet right, and it’s now regarded as a “must read” in some circles. Russell is a conservative historian and theologian who authored another book condemning the role of organized Christianity in the facilitation of mass immigration into the United States and other Western countries. [2] Russell published GOEMC through the Oxford University Press in 1994. SUMMARY In GOEMC’s concluding chapter, Russell summarized his work’s twelve main points. [3] (1) Early Christianity emerged from an urban, heterogeneous, and low social capital society. German society at the time of first contact with Christianity was rural, homogeneous, and high social capital. (2) Early Christianity was “world rejecting” and “salvation” focused. In contrast, the pre-Christian German worldview was world accepting and socio-biological (ethnic and immediate). (3) The first Christian missionaries to Germany accommodated Christianity to the religopolitical and magicoreligous elements of the German worldview. [4] (4) Early efforts to convert Germans to Christ resulted in the reinterpretation of Christianity through the Germanic worldview. (5) Catholic Christianity’s political reliance on Germanic nations, like the Franks, led to the increased influence of their interpretation of Christianity over the Western Church. (6) Some Germanic nations attempted to preserve their unique ethnic identity and independence by adhering to Arianism rather than subjecting themselves to the outside power of Church hierarchy. (7) The “Christianization” of the Germans was very shallow until at least the reign of Charlemagne (768 – 814) because there was no catechumanate system or qualified teachers to finish instruction. The Church prioritized baptism over teaching because they thought the apocalypse was near. The German worldview was too strong to allow full Christianization. (8) Early missionaries to the Germans were as successful as they could have been. If they had not accommodated Christianity to the German worldview they probably would not have found any success. (9) The initial accommodation of Christianity to the German worldview laid the foundation for later indoctrination of Christian worldview and ethics. (10) Christian missionaries misrepresented the extent of disparity between the Germanic and Christian worldview when initially accommodating Christianity to a fresh German audience. (11) Early Christian accommodation left Germans with the impression that Jesus was one among many magicoreligous gods to include in their pantheon. New German converts did not possess doctrinal or ethical concerns. (12) Contributing factors to Christianity’s German spread included: the association of Christianity with Frankish political aims, an imagined causal association of Christianity with Roman grandeur, and a coincidental similarity between German myths and Christian beliefs, rituals, and symbols. This book is in the P reading list. Source: https://cocmillennial.blogspot.com/…/germanization-of-early… (Apologies. I don’t know who sent me this link to me)
Theme: Religion
-
Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: 12 Point Summary
GERMANIZATION OF EARLY MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY: 12 POINT SUMMARY James C Russell’s ‘Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation’ (GOEMC) is an excellent study on the evolution of Christianity from a predominantly Mediterranean religion to a northern European one. [1] The book has recently gained popularity on the internet right, and it’s now regarded as a “must read” in some circles. Russell is a conservative historian and theologian who authored another book condemning the role of organized Christianity in the facilitation of mass immigration into the United States and other Western countries. [2] Russell published GOEMC through the Oxford University Press in 1994. SUMMARY In GOEMC’s concluding chapter, Russell summarized his work’s twelve main points. [3] (1) Early Christianity emerged from an urban, heterogeneous, and low social capital society. German society at the time of first contact with Christianity was rural, homogeneous, and high social capital. (2) Early Christianity was “world rejecting” and “salvation” focused. In contrast, the pre-Christian German worldview was world accepting and socio-biological (ethnic and immediate). (3) The first Christian missionaries to Germany accommodated Christianity to the religopolitical and magicoreligous elements of the German worldview. [4] (4) Early efforts to convert Germans to Christ resulted in the reinterpretation of Christianity through the Germanic worldview. (5) Catholic Christianity’s political reliance on Germanic nations, like the Franks, led to the increased influence of their interpretation of Christianity over the Western Church. (6) Some Germanic nations attempted to preserve their unique ethnic identity and independence by adhering to Arianism rather than subjecting themselves to the outside power of Church hierarchy. (7) The “Christianization” of the Germans was very shallow until at least the reign of Charlemagne (768 – 814) because there was no catechumanate system or qualified teachers to finish instruction. The Church prioritized baptism over teaching because they thought the apocalypse was near. The German worldview was too strong to allow full Christianization. (8) Early missionaries to the Germans were as successful as they could have been. If they had not accommodated Christianity to the German worldview they probably would not have found any success. (9) The initial accommodation of Christianity to the German worldview laid the foundation for later indoctrination of Christian worldview and ethics. (10) Christian missionaries misrepresented the extent of disparity between the Germanic and Christian worldview when initially accommodating Christianity to a fresh German audience. (11) Early Christian accommodation left Germans with the impression that Jesus was one among many magicoreligous gods to include in their pantheon. New German converts did not possess doctrinal or ethical concerns. (12) Contributing factors to Christianity’s German spread included: the association of Christianity with Frankish political aims, an imagined causal association of Christianity with Roman grandeur, and a coincidental similarity between German myths and Christian beliefs, rituals, and symbols. This book is in the P reading list. Source: https://cocmillennial.blogspot.com/…/germanization-of-early… (Apologies. I don’t know who sent me this link to me)
-
The Future of Mankind Is Decided Right Now. This Year, Next Year.
THE FUTURE OF MANKIND IS DECIDED RIGHT NOW. THIS YEAR, NEXT YEAR.
—“So it really is a fight between civicism and religion for supremacy”—
The connection isn’t clear. 1) the people you have (biological, behavioral) and the people you have (knowledge, understanding, values) are not the same criteria. Governing with the people you have (incentives, constant) is a question of possibility, and governing with the people you have (education) is merely a question of costs and externalities. We can continue to kick the can down the road and NOT produce a ‘bible’ of western civilization, that would solve the problem. Or we can solve the problem despite its cost, in a period where there is high demand for the solution to the problem. 2) civicism, localism, nationalism, evolution, competition vs religion, universalism, globalism, devolution, corruption. Al these problems are the same source: easy female dysgenic and boil the frog vs hard male eugenic and transcend. It’s not like we have an infinite amount of time. The frequency of geological events capable of wiping out humans is higher than the frequency of climate variations. The frequency of astronomic events is lower, but it’s still continuous. The future of mankind is decided right now. this year, next year. A few more years and its over. there are no ‘undiscovered countries’ with reserves of human ability remaining. We have exploited the pool of humans as thoroughly as exploiting the world’s resources.
-
The Future of Mankind Is Decided Right Now. This Year, Next Year.
THE FUTURE OF MANKIND IS DECIDED RIGHT NOW. THIS YEAR, NEXT YEAR.
—“So it really is a fight between civicism and religion for supremacy”—
The connection isn’t clear. 1) the people you have (biological, behavioral) and the people you have (knowledge, understanding, values) are not the same criteria. Governing with the people you have (incentives, constant) is a question of possibility, and governing with the people you have (education) is merely a question of costs and externalities. We can continue to kick the can down the road and NOT produce a ‘bible’ of western civilization, that would solve the problem. Or we can solve the problem despite its cost, in a period where there is high demand for the solution to the problem. 2) civicism, localism, nationalism, evolution, competition vs religion, universalism, globalism, devolution, corruption. Al these problems are the same source: easy female dysgenic and boil the frog vs hard male eugenic and transcend. It’s not like we have an infinite amount of time. The frequency of geological events capable of wiping out humans is higher than the frequency of climate variations. The frequency of astronomic events is lower, but it’s still continuous. The future of mankind is decided right now. this year, next year. A few more years and its over. there are no ‘undiscovered countries’ with reserves of human ability remaining. We have exploited the pool of humans as thoroughly as exploiting the world’s resources.
-
THE FUTURE OF MANKIND IS DECIDED RIGHT NOW. THIS YEAR, NEXT YEAR. —“So it real
THE FUTURE OF MANKIND IS DECIDED RIGHT NOW. THIS YEAR, NEXT YEAR.
—“So it really is a fight between civicism and religion for supremacy”—
The connection isn’t clear.
1) the people you have (biological, behavioral) and the people you have (knowledge, understanding, values) are not the same criteria.
Governing with the people you have (incentives, constant) is a question of possibility, and governing with the people you have (education) is merely a question of costs and externalities.
We can continue to kick the can down the road and NOT produce a ‘bible’ of western civilization, that would solve the problem.
Or we can solve the problem despite its cost, in a period where there is high demand for the solution to the problem.
2) civicism, localism, nationalism, evolution, competition vs religion, universalism, globalism, devolution, corruption.
Al these problems are the same source: easy female dysgenic and boil the frog vs hard male eugenic and transcend. It’s not like we have an infinite amount of time.
The frequency of geological events capable of wiping out humans is higher than the frequency of climate variations. The frequency of astronomic events is lower, but it’s still continuous.
The future of mankind is decided right now. this year, next year.
A few more years and its over. there are no ‘undiscovered countries’ with reserves of human ability remaining. We have exploited the pool of humans as thoroughly as exploiting the world’s resources.
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-23 09:32:00 UTC
-
RT @bullfrogboxer: @nataliadashan @curtdoolittle Postmodern Puritans
RT @bullfrogboxer: @nataliadashan @curtdoolittle Postmodern Puritans.
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-23 01:58:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1286118365183057920
-
RT @bullfrogboxer: @nataliadashan @curtdoolittle Postmodern Puritans
RT @bullfrogboxer: @nataliadashan @curtdoolittle Postmodern Puritans.
-
Religion is a Technology. We Don’t Need to Prove It’s True. Just Judge Its Effects (good and Bad)
RELIGION IS A TECHNOLOGY. WE DONT NEED TO PROVE IT”S TRUE. JUST JUDGE ITS EFFECTS (GOOD AND BAD) by Frey Harman (edited for clarity) What we need to do is disprove this idea of needing to prove things. [CD: Or claim religion is ‘true’ rather than effective and quite possibly necessary.] Religion is a technology. Technology either works or it doesn’t. Science can’t do anything to technology except explain it. If we demarcate science from technology, science seeks general rules of the universe – to understand. Technology is usually developed by trial and error to serve a purpose – to act. And, [psychlogial and social] technology isn’t even based on science, nor informed by science. Often, technology outpaces science. I’m not sure why philosophy would have any more to say about the matter of religion as a technology than science does: regardless of whether it’s true or what general rules religions follow, the technology works or doesn’t, and works beneficially or harmfully. Nassim Taleb was somewhat influential in snapping me out of the false dichotomy between atheism and monotheistic fundamentalism – making me realize they’re two sides of the same coin; two interpretations derived ultimately from the same error. The error of taking things too literally. —“When someone discusses religious beliefs, he does not necessarily mean belief in the epistemic sense, and the relevance of the epistemic sense of the term decreases the further back ones goes in the fixation of the creed. Rather, such notions are rather closer to the root of “belief”: beloved, a sense of commitment, something related to the notion of trust. It is not coincidental that “credere” is related to letter of credit or financial transactions that entail trust (see Armstrong 1994; Boyer 2001). …. Accordingly it is an extremely naive interpretation to think that religious ‘beliefs’ map to the ‘justified true belief’ standards of modern epistemology (see Ichikawa and Steup 2014); it is naive to examine the supernatural aspect of religion as anything but epiphenomenal. One needs to think of religious ‘belief’ as closer to a form of trusting, as a form of action, or a willingness to take action, and, most crucially of all, as a set of interdicts upon action. Further, religion establishes a categorical demarcation between sacred and profane, and one that cannot be violated (see Eliade 1959). The sacred is not open to ‘rationalization’ what we don’t understand is not necessarily irrational, and it might have reasons that can be probed only across generations of experience and experimentation.”— Taleb
By CurtD Great quote. This is correct. I state the same thing in economic language: by Belief (love, trust, respect, submission of self), religion (debt performance, oath), and anthropomorphisms (systems of measurement, choice, in payment of debt, in exchange for love and respect) provide the most intuitive system of behavior manageable by man. So as usual, Taleb is less ‘scientific’ and more ‘literary’ than I am.
-
Religion is a Technology. We Don’t Need to Prove It’s True. Just Judge Its Effects (good and Bad)
RELIGION IS A TECHNOLOGY. WE DONT NEED TO PROVE IT”S TRUE. JUST JUDGE ITS EFFECTS (GOOD AND BAD) by Frey Harman (edited for clarity) What we need to do is disprove this idea of needing to prove things. [CD: Or claim religion is ‘true’ rather than effective and quite possibly necessary.] Religion is a technology. Technology either works or it doesn’t. Science can’t do anything to technology except explain it. If we demarcate science from technology, science seeks general rules of the universe – to understand. Technology is usually developed by trial and error to serve a purpose – to act. And, [psychlogial and social] technology isn’t even based on science, nor informed by science. Often, technology outpaces science. I’m not sure why philosophy would have any more to say about the matter of religion as a technology than science does: regardless of whether it’s true or what general rules religions follow, the technology works or doesn’t, and works beneficially or harmfully. Nassim Taleb was somewhat influential in snapping me out of the false dichotomy between atheism and monotheistic fundamentalism – making me realize they’re two sides of the same coin; two interpretations derived ultimately from the same error. The error of taking things too literally. —“When someone discusses religious beliefs, he does not necessarily mean belief in the epistemic sense, and the relevance of the epistemic sense of the term decreases the further back ones goes in the fixation of the creed. Rather, such notions are rather closer to the root of “belief”: beloved, a sense of commitment, something related to the notion of trust. It is not coincidental that “credere” is related to letter of credit or financial transactions that entail trust (see Armstrong 1994; Boyer 2001). …. Accordingly it is an extremely naive interpretation to think that religious ‘beliefs’ map to the ‘justified true belief’ standards of modern epistemology (see Ichikawa and Steup 2014); it is naive to examine the supernatural aspect of religion as anything but epiphenomenal. One needs to think of religious ‘belief’ as closer to a form of trusting, as a form of action, or a willingness to take action, and, most crucially of all, as a set of interdicts upon action. Further, religion establishes a categorical demarcation between sacred and profane, and one that cannot be violated (see Eliade 1959). The sacred is not open to ‘rationalization’ what we don’t understand is not necessarily irrational, and it might have reasons that can be probed only across generations of experience and experimentation.”— Taleb
By CurtD Great quote. This is correct. I state the same thing in economic language: by Belief (love, trust, respect, submission of self), religion (debt performance, oath), and anthropomorphisms (systems of measurement, choice, in payment of debt, in exchange for love and respect) provide the most intuitive system of behavior manageable by man. So as usual, Taleb is less ‘scientific’ and more ‘literary’ than I am.
-
GERMANIZATION OF EARLY MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY: 12 POINT SUMMARY James C Russell’s
GERMANIZATION OF EARLY MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY: 12 POINT SUMMARY
James C Russell’s ‘Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation’ (GOEMC) is an excellent study on the evolution of Christianity from a predominantly Mediterranean religion to a northern European one. [1] The book has recently gained popularity on the internet right, and it’s now regarded as a “must read” in some circles.
Russell is a conservative historian and theologian who authored another book condemning the role of organized Christianity in the facilitation of mass immigration into the United States and other Western countries. [2] Russell published GOEMC through the Oxford University Press in 1994.
SUMMARY
In GOEMC’s concluding chapter, Russell summarized his work’s twelve main points. [3]
(1) Early Christianity emerged from an urban, heterogeneous, and low social capital society. German society at the time of first contact with Christianity was rural, homogeneous, and high social capital.
(2) Early Christianity was “world rejecting” and “salvation” focused. In contrast, the pre-Christian German worldview was world accepting and socio-biological (ethnic and immediate).
(3) The first Christian missionaries to Germany accommodated Christianity to the religopolitical and magicoreligous elements of the German worldview. [4]
(4) Early efforts to convert Germans to Christ resulted in the reinterpretation of Christianity through the Germanic worldview.
(5) Catholic Christianity’s political reliance on Germanic nations, like the Franks, led to the increased influence of their interpretation of Christianity over the Western Church.
(6) Some Germanic nations attempted to preserve their unique ethnic identity and independence by adhering to Arianism rather than subjecting themselves to the outside power of Church hierarchy.
(7) The “Christianization” of the Germans was very shallow until at least the reign of Charlemagne (768 – 814) because there was no catechumanate system or qualified teachers to finish instruction. The Church prioritized baptism over teaching because they thought the apocalypse was near. The German worldview was too strong to allow full Christianization.
(8) Early missionaries to the Germans were as successful as they could have been. If they had not accommodated Christianity to the German worldview they probably would not have found any success.
(9) The initial accommodation of Christianity to the German worldview laid the foundation for later indoctrination of Christian worldview and ethics.
(10) Christian missionaries misrepresented the extent of disparity between the Germanic and Christian worldview when initially accommodating Christianity to a fresh German audience.
(11) Early Christian accommodation left Germans with the impression that Jesus was one among many magicoreligous gods to include in their pantheon. New German converts did not possess doctrinal or ethical concerns.
(12) Contributing factors to Christianity’s German spread included: the association of Christianity with Frankish political aims, an imagined causal association of Christianity with Roman grandeur, and a coincidental similarity between German myths and Christian beliefs, rituals, and symbols.
This book is in the P reading list.
Source: https://cocmillennial.blogspot.com/2016/11/germanization-of-early-medieval-christianity-review.html
(Apologies. I don’t know who sent me this link to me)
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-22 13:45:00 UTC