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

[Admiral A. Kolchak]

@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?

As an Orthodox Christian, I am not only quite angered by your total bypassing of my faith (a very common mistake, unfortunately), but I am also perplexed by why you think “pagan influence” (which does not always involve compromising between monotheism and polytheism) is a bad thing.It makes perfect sense for the pre-schism Church to so so. Additionally, you also make the claim that these “cults” are obviously pagan, since you notably have no sources.

The Protestants used the term “pagan” like people today use “communist”; it’s not an actual criticism but really a snarl word. Furthermore, saying that the majority of Christians are “semi-pagan” is patently ludicrous, and definitely prejudiced enough to get you banned.

 

[Aphrodite]

To be honest, I think you've been unnecessarily abrasive in making some arguments.

take for example:

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

If your core argument was that "Protestantism taught .... and therefore in Protestant cultures .... happened while Catholicism taught ... and therefore in Catholic countries ... happened" , fine. Nothing wrong with making such an argument. You might be right, you might be wrong but there's nothing wrong with making your case

Instead, the post becomes an attack on Catholicism and Catholics. You offer no support for calling Protestantism "real" Christianity and Catholicism "semi pagan" but just toss it out Given that Catholicisms core belief is that it is the true Church its a serious charge. The lack of any supporting evidence and perjorative labels discredits any disavowal

 

[Aphrodite]

As an Orthodox Christian, I am not only quite angered by your total bypassing of my faith (a very common mistake, unfortunately), but I am also perplexed by why you think “pagan influence” (which does not always involve compromising between monotheism and polytheism) is a bad thing.It makes perfect sense for the pre-schism Church to so so. Additionally, you also make the claim that these “cults” are obviously pagan, since you notably have no sources.

The Protestants used the term “pagan” like people today use “communist”; it’s not an actual criticism but really a snarl word. Furthermore, saying that the majority of Christians are “semi-pagan” is patently ludicrous, and definitely prejudiced enough to get you banned.

As a fellow Orthodox Christian, I agree. I'm not sure if it is because of prejudice or ignorance though so not completely comfortable with calling it bannable

 

[darthfanta]

I've read what OP wrote.I also don't think he should be banned.I don't think he's a particular malicious person as well,it's just that I think a lot of his beliefs are plain misguided and a bit awkward.

 

[fi11222]

As an Orthodox Christian, I am not only quite angered by your total bypassing of my faith (a very common mistake, unfortunately)

Actually, I did not intend to do so. As you may have read above, I said that the decisive formative phase of the Church was between the IInd and the VIth centuries in Anatolia, Egypt and Syria, i.e. in the Greek speaking area of the Church (which was by far the most numerous and thus the most influential at that time). This area/period contains the roots of the Orthodox Church even more than those of the Latin Speaking Catholic Church.

but I am also perplexed by why you think “pagan influence” (which does not always involve compromising between monotheism and polytheism) is a bad thing.It makes perfect sense for the pre-schism Church to so so. Additionally, you also make the claim that these “cults” are obviously pagan, since you notably have no sources.

I do not whish to go into detail now But I do have indeed many sources that I could quote (like the narration of the pilgrimage Saint Helena, the mother of Constantine, did to Jerusalem). Again. I do not want this thread to become a discussion about the issue itself.

The Protestants used the term “pagan” like people today use “communist”;

That is slander. Did you read Calvin and Luther on the subject ? Their criticism is very detailed and meticulously argued.

saying that the majority of Christians are “semi-pagan” is patently ludicrous, and definitely prejudiced enough to get you banned.

This is the key point of our disagreement. Here, we probably have irreconcilable differences. And I understand that my position is deeply offensive to you. But what is debate if we are not allowed to say things we believe in just because they offend a sizeable section of the population? If we apply this principle, there is soon nothing we can openly say.

I do believe that the majority of Christians were "semi-pagans", in the XVIIth century say, and that the protestant's assertions in that regard were basically correct. I understand you vehemently disagree, but I do not believe that this is sufficient grounds to silence such an opinion.

 

[fi11222]

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

If your core argument was that "Protestantism taught .... and therefore in Protestant cultures .... happened while Catholicism taught ... and therefore in Catholic countries ... happened" , fine. Nothing wrong with making such an argument. You might be right, you might be wrong but there's nothing wrong with making your case

Do you notice how much longer your sentence is compared to mine, even though it is not fully spelled out?

The longer a sentence is, the more obscure it becomes.

I understand what you are saying about being "unnecessary abrasive". This is the reason why I started this thread. In the future, if the moderation agrees, I plan to use it in my signature as a sort of warning along the lines of "I understand I am saying things may seem offensive to some. For clarification on what I mean and where I come from, please refer to this thread [Link to here]"

That way, I can still use short statements for the sake of clarity while avoiding the risk of being misunderstood.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

Do you notice how much longer your sentence is compared to mine, even though it is not fully spelled out?

The longer a sentence is, the more obscure it becomes.

This sort of comments isn't helping.

 

[fi11222]

This sort of comments isn't helping.

But it is true.

We are on a forum here. The shorter the sentence the higher the chance that it will be read, let alone understood.

 

[The Professor]

Do you notice how much longer your sentence is compared to mine, even though it is not fully spelled out?

The longer a sentence is, the more obscure it becomes.

Shorter =/= more concise.
While I am a big fan of avoiding too many words one must also write exactly what one means and this often means including definitions. You did not do that which is why your shorter sentence lacked the clarity a longer more exact one would have supplied.

I understand what you are saying about being "unnecessary abrasive". This is the reason why I started this thread. In the future, if the moderation agrees, I plan to use it in my signature as a sort of warning along the lines of "I understand I am saying things may seem offensive to some. For clarification on what I mean and where I come from, please refer to this thread [Link to here]"

That way, I can still use short statements for the sake of clarity while avoiding the risk of being misunderstood.

It won't work. Far easier to say exactly what you mean in each post than risk misunderstanding; especially if it risks becoming actionable.
Remember these forums are based on enabling civil discussion so if someone can't be civil or provokes incivility then the mods can intervene and remove them.

Btw since this thread is more Chat than pre 1900 I think you should know I've requested it be moved on that basis.

 

[Pischinovski]

But it is true.

We are on a forum here. The shorter the sentence the higher the chance that it will be read, let alone understood.

You made a whole thread about how you were misunderstood. Do you sence the irony in that?

 

[fi11222]

You made a whole thread about how you were misunderstood. Do you sence the irony in that?

No. No irony at all.

I am trying a preventive approach here. Again, If what I propose is accepted by the moderation, I will include this thread in my signature. That way, people will have a way to clarify and avoid misunderstanding if they so wish, without having to carry cumbersome explanatory baggage along with every word.

@The Professor: As you probably know, it is impossible to "write exactly what one means". Words are polysemic and interpretation is always open. I know what I mean but is my reader going to understand my words the same way I intended? If we have sufficiently different backgrounds, it is unlikely. Therefore civil discussion requires that people do not immediately jump to the worst possible interpretation and instead, when they think something objectionable is being said, ask questions like "You said: 'XXXX'., What exactly did you mean by that ?".

 

[Broek]

But it is true.

We are on a forum here. The shorter the sentence the higher the chance that it will be read, let alone understood.

It is good to keep answers short, but that also holds the danger of post being considered blunt or abrasive.
I will have to look at your posts in detail to see if i agree with the arguments as i perceive them, but looking at the short examples displayed here your style can easily be considered blunt, abrasive or even offensive.

 

[Pischinovski]

No. No irony at all.

I am trying a preventive approach here. Again, If what I propose is accepted by the moderation, I will include this thread in my signature. That way, people will have a way to clarify and avoid misunderstanding if they so wish, without having to carry cumbersome explanatory baggage along with every word.

It is not the burden of the reader to figure out what the heck you mean. I also don't see how your thread would be of any help in furthering understandment, as you only continue babling on about how Christianity is superior, without ever citing any sources.

 

[Neptune]

How could you have possibly thought it a good idea to take on the entire subforum?

 

[Salvador79]

I think your tenets are wrong, but that`s not the point of your getting banned, I suppose. I suspect it has something to do with the question of INSULT.

Now you may think you never insulted anyone.
Thing is, like many aspects of verbal communication, insults are not so straightforward. They`re a cultural matter.
Obviously, there is the case where A intended to insult B and B took it as an insult.
But there are also the cases where A didn`t intend to insult, yet B was insulted, and where A intended to insult but failed to produce that effect on B.
Like it nor not, I think the moderators attempted to tell you, by kicking you as a warning, several times!, that what you say is taken by some B as an insult.
You can be flabbergasted about that the first time. Now it happened to you a couple of times - you should perhaps attempt to understand where other people see the problem, and even if you don`t, then at least attempt not to provoke the same situation over and over again, if you want to stay in the same community with them.

 

[fi11222]

@ Salvador79: Exactly. This is why I started this thread.

 

[Admiral A. Kolchak]

Actually, I did not intend to do so. As you may have read above, I said that the decisive formative phase of the Church was between the IInd and the VIth centuries in Anatolia, Egypt and Syria, i.e. in the Greek speaking area of the Church (which was by far the most numerous and thus the most influential at that time). This area/period contains the roots of the Orthodox Church even more than those of the Latin Speaking Catholic Church.


I do not whish to go into detail now But I do have indeed many sources that I could quote (like the narration of the pilgrimage Saint Helena, the mother of Constantine, to Jerusalem). Again. I do not want this thread to become a discussion about the issue itself.


That is slander. Did you read Calvin and Luther on the subject ? Their criticism is very detailed and meticulously argued.


This is the key point of our disagreement. Here, we probably have irreconcilable differences. And I understand that my position is deeply offensive to you. But what is debate if we are not allowed to say things we believe in just because they offend a sizeable section of the population? If we apply this principle, there is soon nothing we can openly say.

I do believe that the majority of Christians were "semi-pagans", in the XVIIth century say, and that the protestant's assertions in that regard were basically correct. I understand you vehemently disagree, but I do not believe that this is sufficient grounds to silence such an opinion.

I meant that you seem to think Orthodoxy died out in the early Middle Ages and moved westward, when in fact one of the Mongol tribes that joined Temüjin’s Mongol State was Orthodox. You also called the church during the time of the Ecumenical Councils “Catholic”, when in fact Catholics split off from the Orthodox Church in a broadly similar way to the way the Protestants did.

I agree.

Luther and Calvin argued to label the Catholic Church as pagan to discredit it after breaking from the Pope, originally Luther said that the Catholics were not pagan but rather going down the wrong path of Christianity.

Christianity is to paganism as Hitler was to Stalin: they could share views on certain things but in the end mistaking one for the other was absurd, since they are of course opposites. I think that citing the founder of a faith to prove that the faith said founder created is the only non–pagan form of Christianity demonstrates a lack of knowledge, effort, and open mind on your part. If people can be banned for doing the same thing to prove that Jews are an inferior race, I think the same logic can be extended to your argument.

No. No irony at all.

I am trying a preventive approach here. Again, If what I propose is accepted by the moderation, I will include this thread in my signature. That way, people will have a way to clarify and avoid misunderstanding if they so wish, without having to carry cumbersome explanatory baggage along with every word.

@The Professor: As you probably know, it is impossible to "write exactly what one means". Words are polysemic and interpretation is always open. I know what I mean but is my reader going to understand my words the same way I intended? If we have sufficiently different backgrounds, it is unlikely. Therefore civil discussion requires that people do not immediately jump to the worst possible interpretation and instead, when they think something objectionable is being said, ask questions like "You said: 'XXXX'., What exactly did you mean by that ?".

I orginally supported your position when I read the initial thread post, but I then saw your arguments consist of the usual mash up of skewed statistics, unsourced assertions, and intolerance.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I mean, calling Protestants the only "real" Christians is pretty straightforward religious bigotry.

 

[BBadolato]

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

• 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.
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.

Yes, because of ignorance, you cannot contribute the societal effects of Christianity, to solely Christianity itself, religion is very much something that changes with the times, not something that completely changes the times. Trying to justify the "protestant work ethic" by using history doesn't work, the success of Protestant states did not hinge on Protestantism at all. The only reason why some protestant nations managed to become world powers was more location and circumstance over say their religious views. Why most non-Christian did not do was again not due to religious vies but government and society. Let me guess you would be the kind the person to take Galileo as an example of the anti-science views of Catholicism, yes?

 

[Roland Traveler]

Reported. You cannot make a claim that someone is racist if he explicitly does not make any claim about race. If you do then it is defamation and I believe it is legally actionable.

Again I have said that Christianity is a non-European religion which would have produced pretty much the same results anywhere (e.g. in China/Japan). Where is the Racialist/Eurocentric element in this statement?

Not even getting into how this argument is some of the worst I've seen, it's considered bad form to say you've reported someone.