Why I was kicked (Protestantism/Christianity > other religions)

[fi11222]

As Calbear remarked in his last message kicking me, I was kicked 3 times in the last 13 months.

I believe that this is the result of over-hasty judgment on the part of the moderators and I wish to explain myself before it happens again. I am not overly optimistic about my ability to get my point of view across but I will try nonetheless. This thread is being started in the "before 1900" section because it is directly related to a TL I published here. Also, I almost exclusively publish in this section so it is also where the people who know me are.

The reasons invoked for my latest kicking were "Religious bigotry and some Eurocentric nationalism/racism, all in one pithy post." I have also been called a "troll" multiple times and so I wish to explain why all these labels are wide off the mark as far as I am concerned.

• I am not a "Troll": I never publish anything for the purpose of offending people. Of course, some of what I say or have said may have offended some but it was never my intention. Also, looking at my likes record (303 likes for 460 posts), it seems that quite a lot of people like what I say.
• I am not a religious bigot. First of all, I am not Christian and I do not support any established religion. Where I come from (France) religion has long become irrelevant (80% respond to polls that they do not believe in God, let alone attend Church) and you can say pretty much anything about religion without raising an eyebrow. In fact, nobody cares. Of course this is very different from Cold Civil War America where using the words "Christianity" or "Protestantism" automatically brands you a Trump supporter, with all the attendant assumptions. As a result, I was always surprised when I was kicked. In all three cases, I assumed that what I said was either non-controversial or sufficiently carefully worded to avoid any misunderstanding. Obviously, I was wrong.
• I am not even a conservative. I do not believe there is anything to "conserve". Civilization only moves forward and generally not under conscious human control. So for example "saving Western civilization" is certainly not something I believe in.
• I am not a "Eurocentrist" or "White Supremacist": The whole point of the TL I published here (which is stalled for the moment) was to explore a scenario in which Christianity spreads East instead of West and therefore produces the same effects in China/Japan that Europe experienced IOTL (Industrial revolution, etc).

Because I do believe that Christianity was superior to other religion in terms of its societal effects. Does that make me a racist or bigot? I do not believe so. The judgment I am making about Christianity, I do in the same spirit as a biologist would say that mammals are superior to reptiles. To me, Christianity is a natural artefact, a product of natural evolution, like the rest of human culture. The point I am making is that Christianity seems to have displayed better evolutionary fitness compared to other religions and I am trying to explain what I mean by that (please refer to my various posts for more details).

If one takes the long view (this is why I always publish in the "pre-1900" section), it becomes pretty obvious that Christianity is not a European religion. Its roots are firmly in the Middle-East (especially in Mesopotamian culture) and most of its key developments took place in Egypt, Syria and Anatolia (modern Turkey) between 100 AD and 600 AD. For most of this period, Europe was a poor, cold, violent backwater which played little part in religious or cultural evolution. What happened later on is that, no one being a prophet in his own country, Christianity was wiped out from the Middle-East and eventually bore fruit, in its protestant incarnation, in far away Europe; the unlikeliest of places.

Again, I am making no metaphysical claim here. I am just saying that Christianity was a mental discipline, like Yoga or Buddhism, and that it has very strong effects, both psychological and social. My claim is that what we call "modernity" is the result of these effects.

Will I be kicked again if I keep arguing in favor of this position, either through TL writing or comments ?

 

[HammerofWar]

80% huh? Interesting.

 

[Schnozzberry]

Not going to lie, I'm going to put my money on another kicking. But, good luck.

 

[Isfendil]

You probably got kicked for identifying correlation as fact without supplying concrete evidence of causation. It doesn't look like this has changed.

 

[fi11222]

You probably got kicked for identifying correlation as fact without supplying concrete evidence of causation. It doesn't look like this has changed.

You think that "identifying correlation as fact without supplying concrete evidence of causation" is sufficient reason for kicking ?

 

[Deleted member 97083]

You think that "identifying correlation as fact without supplying concrete evidence of causation" is sufficient reason for kicking ?

There's a correlation for it. I can't prove causation however.

 

[PhilippeO]

the problem is you can't give reason why Christianity give superior social effect.

1. Christianity
2. ???
3. Better / Modern Society

people reading would perceive that Religious Supremacism, arguing one own religion better for supernatural reason. which why not bannable is suspicious enough for close scrutiny.

- - -

the reason might not be Christianity itself, but cosanguinity laws. there are arguments that preventing cousin marriage cause disapppearance of clans/tribes within Hajnal line thus causing better society / state. Curiously Irish and Slavic states while Christian is outside Hajnal line. Another argument might be Manorialism economic system.

 

[fi11222]

There's a correlation for it. I can't prove causation however.

Can anybody prove causation in the humanities ?

 

[Minchandre]

Just so you know, in general making threads about why you were kicked (and basically trying to explain why this was unjust) is generally a bad idea.

If you have specific questions about threads you want to make that you think might lead to trouble, you should PM Ian.

 

[fi11222]

the problem is you can't give reason why Christianity give superior social effect.

I can. And indeed I have, in a number of previous posts.

Before I try to argue my position again, I would like assurances from the moderators that I will not be kicked right in the middle of it before I have finished presenting my case.

people reading would perceive that Religious Supremacism, arguing one own religion better for supernatural reason. which why not bannable is suspicious enough for close scrutiny.

That is why I started this thread: to set the record straight. In future, whenever discussing the topic, I will refer people to this thread in order to avoid misunderstandings.

Once again Christianity is not my religion. Indeed, I believe it is now dead. What I am arguing about is what it did in the past.

 

[fi11222]

Just so you know, in general making threads about why you were kicked (and basically trying to explain why this was unjust) is generally a bad idea.

If you have specific questions about threads you want to make that you think might lead to trouble, you should PM Ian.

I do not believe I will get a fair hearing. I prefer the court of public opinion. I understand very well that it will not endear me to the moderators. But at least I will get their attention. Otherwise, do you think they will read with all the care required a longish message in which I explain my position?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

As Calbear remarked in his last message kicking me, I was kicked 3 times in the last 13 months.

I believe that this is the result of over-hasty judgment on the part of the moderators and I wish to explain myself before it happens again. I am not overly optimistic about my ability to get my point of view across but I will try nonetheless. This thread is being started in the "before 1900" section because it is directly related to a TL I published here. Also, I almost exclusively publish in this section so it is also where the people who know me are.

The reasons invoked for my latest kicking were "Religious bigotry and some Eurocentric nationalism/racism, all in one pithy post." I have also been called a "troll" multiple times and so I wish to explain why all these labels are wide off the mark as far as I am concerned.

• I am not a "Troll": I never publish anything for the purpose of offending people. Of course, some of what I say or have said may have offended some but it was never my intention. Also, looking at my likes record (303 likes for 460 posts), it seems that quite a lot of people like what I say.
• I am not a religious bigot. First of all, I am not Christian and I do not support any established religion. Where I come from (France) religion has long become irrelevant (80% respond to polls that they do not believe in God, let alone attend Church) and you can say pretty much anything about religion without raising an eyebrow. In fact, nobody cares. Of course this is very different from Cold Civil War America where using the words "Christianity" or "Protestantism" automatically brands you a Trump supporter, with all the attendant assumptions. As a result, I was always surprised when I was kicked. In all three cases, I assumed that what I said was either non-controversial or sufficiently carefully worded to avoid any misunderstanding. Obviously, I was wrong.
• I am not even a conservative. I do not believe there is anything to "conserve". Civilization only moves forward and generally not under conscious human control. So for example "saving Western civilization" is certainly not something I believe in.
• I am not a "Eurocentrist" or "White Supremacist": The whole point of the TL I published here (which is stalled for the moment) was to explore a scenario in which Christianity spreads East instead of West and therefore produces the same effects in China/Japan that Europe experienced IOTL (Industrial revolution, etc).

Because I do believe that Christianity was superior to other religion in terms of its societal effects. Does that make me a racist or bigot? I do not believe so. The judgment I am making about Christianity, I do in the same spirit as a biologist would say that mammals are superior to reptiles. To me, Christianity is a natural artefact, a product of natural evolution, like the rest of human culture. The point I am making is that Christianity seems to have displayed better evolutionary fitness compared to other religions and I am trying to explain what I mean by that (please refer to my various posts for more details).

If one takes the long view (this is why I always publish in the "pre-1900" section), it becomes pretty obvious that Christianity is not a European religion. Its roots are firmly in the Middle-East (especially in Mesopotamian culture) and most of its key developments took place in Egypt, Syria and Anatolia (modern Turkey) between 100 AD and 600 AD. For most of this period, Europe was a poor, cold, violent backwater which played little part in religious or cultural evolution. What happened later on is that, no one being a prophet in his own country, Christianity was wiped out from the Middle-East and eventually bore fruit, in its protestant incarnation, in far away Europe; the unlikeliest of places.

Again, I am making no metaphysical claim here. I am just saying that Christianity was a mental discipline, like Yoga or Buddhism, and that it has very strong effects, both psychological and social. My claim is that what we call "modernity" is the result of these effects.

Will I be kicked again if I keep arguing in favor of this position, either through TL writing or comments ?

Let's see what you got kicked for.

One word: Protestantism, i.e. "real" Christianity (as opposed to semi-pagan Catholicism).

Basically, the ethos of protestantism is that the whole society becomes one giant monastery. That is why there are no more monks in protestantism. Everybody is a monk.

It is like in the Middle-Ages, when the monasteries were always the most prosperous economic actors; if you apply the monastic principles to a whole nation, then prosperity and innovation on a national scale will inevitably ensue. Examining the psycho-religious reasons why this is the case is an enormous (and enormously contentious) debate. Max Weber said all this long ago and there are even more evidence today to believe he was right.

Disclaimer: I am not a Christian, except by heritage.

So you're commenting on somethings and making it abundantly clear that you have next to no understanding of any of them, and then throwing out "trust me I'm an atheist" at the end as if that makes your claims any more credible.

I don't think this warranted a kick, but I don't think you're exactly the victim you're trying to paint yourself as here, especially if you do this often.

edit: and as a "semi-pagan Catholic" care to explain how Belgium industrialized before the Neatherlands, or why the traditionally Catholic Rhineland was Germany's most productive region?

 

[pompejus]

I have a simple question. Do you like this forum? If the answer is yes, obey the rules, even if you disagree with them. If you get kicked multiple times for something, stop doing it or you will get banned. It realy doesn't matter how right you are, or how right you think you are. If you like this forum, obey its rules and the rules of the moderators.

 

[Danishbro]

I do not believe I will get a fair hearing. I prefer the court of public opinion. I understand very well that it will not endear me to the moderators. But at least I will get their attention. Otherwise, do you think they will read with all the care required a longish message in which I explain my position?

I understand your point, but pre1900 isn't the right forum for this post. I personally understand your reasoning for posting here, but the people who'll read this can give you the same opinions as the people in Help and Rules (which is where I think this should have gone [maybe Chat?]) could have given. There's nothing special about the pre1900 forum members.

At any rate, I looked at your most recent post that got you banned: I can see why Calbear responded to it. On the surface you can see what appears to be anti-Catholic bigotry (having read your explanations here I assume you were referring to Catholic history, and the way Catholicism is portrayed by Protestant Christians?)
But that isn't 100% clear in your post.

Instead of saying

One word: Protestantism, i.e. "real" Christianity (as opposed to semi-pagan Catholicism).

Something like

One word: Protestantism, i.e. "real" Christianity (as Protestant Ministers would call it; as opposed to what those ministers would call 'semi-pagan Catholicism').

Still maybe not perfect, but now instead of YOU saying: Protestant Christianity=Real Christianity, Catholicism=semi-paganism, you're attributing those beliefs to a different group. The idea is you can't say, for example, "Canadians are dumb." This is bigotry. You could say "Some Americans think Canadians are dumb." That's just a fact. Obviously you can't just use this to go around spouting whatever awful stuff you want, but I don't think that's what you want to do. I think it's just a communication error, and you need to be more intentional and aware in the future, especially when discussing sensitive topics like race or religion.

 

[PhilippeO]

the second quote is still 'bannable' i think. you should never any religion is less 'True' or 'real' than other religion even if you use other people voice.

 

[fi11222]

@Danishbro. I understand that you are trying to help me and I appreciate it.

The problem with this particular issue is that I believe protestants are right. I do not agree with them on their fundamental metaphysical claims (existence of God, salvation, etc). But I do believe that they are right in calling Catholicism "pagan" or, as I do here "semi-pagan".

Let me explain. Catholicism was formed during late antiquity when Christianity had gained the political support of the Empire but Christians were still a minority in a sea of pagans (I use this term as a shorthand although I know it is not fully satisfactory of course). There is ample evidence in the Church Fathers and from archeology that the Church sought to avoid conflict withy the majority by adopting a large number of pagan practices, cult locations, vocabulary. It is clear, for example, that the cult of the Virgin Mary and of Saint George, for example, have clear pagan antecedents (Magna Mater/Isis, Marduk). While the wisdom of these compromises can be discussed ad infinitum, there is little doubt that they are compromises between strict monotheism (which is theoretically Christianity's position) and pagan influences. So when Protestants attacked the Church hierarchy during the reform by calling them "pagans", they obviously had a point. It is hard to deny it.

Am I not allowed to say that ?

I know it will offend Catholics but it is a point which is very important to my overall argument. How am I to make a convincing case if I distance myself from one of the key issues?

 

[fi11222]

you should never any religion is less 'True' or 'real' than other religion even if you use other people voice.

I am not saying any such thing.

What I said is that I personnally do not believe in any religion and thus treat them as human constructs (for me, none of them is "true" or "real"). It seems to me that there is a long and illustrious tradition along these lines in Western Thought.

Then, what I do say is that one religion, Protestantism, was superior to other religions in terms of its societal effects. This is like saying that you will get bonus points in a certain area if you choose a certain religion in Civilization VI. I do not think this is a particularly new or outlandish idea.

 

[Danishbro]

Am I not allowed to say that ?

I know it will offend Catholics but it is a point which is very important to my overall argument. How am I to make a convincing case if I distance myself from one of the key issues?

Yeeesh, that's a hard topic to discuss civilly.

I think any well-reasoned argument can be made on these forums, but bigotry isn't allowed. What you're describing isn't bigotry, but in only small servings, or without the full framework of your explanation, can come across as such.

Religion comes up often, its a huge part of pre1900 history. If we're going to discuss something controversial, it must be done very carefully. Even in the explanation you gave it's more accurate to call Catholicism 'pagan-influenced' than pagan or semi-pagan. After all pagan traditions only influenced the church. It's not like Catholic's worship (now or ever) Pagan Gods.


So yes you can argue your points, but you need to do so carefully.

@Danishbro. I understand that you are trying to help me and I appreciate it.

Thanks!

 

[Sasalele]

 

[Danishbro]

the second quote is still 'bannable' i think. you should never any religion is less 'True' or 'real' than other religion even if you use other people voice.

I completely disagree. You're saying it's not permissible to say: "Muslims don't think Buddhism is true."

Obviously you can't use another voice to hide behind your own flawed beliefs, but stating factual details about what people believe is okay.