/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16341660]

Read "Protestantism and Catholicity compared in their Effects on the Civilization of Europe" by Fr. Jaime Balmes.

[Anonymous No.16341663]

>>16341660
Did he believe in the divine right of kings?

[Anonymous No.16341668]

>>16341663
I don't know. I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.16341676]

>>16341668
Wait, so what did he say? Give me a qrd and I'll check him out.

[Anonymous No.16341690]

>>16341660
....Well? Are you going to tell me about it or...?

I could just post the title of a book I read and not said anything about it, but i would feel that is a wasted post.

>"Look this is a book"
is all you said. at least give a paragraph about it.

[Anonymous No.16341733]

>>16341676
He analyzes what has Catholicism contributed to Europe in contrast with what Protestantism has done in 300 years (the book was written in the XIX century). He concludes that Catholicism has built the European sense of morality, even the Protestant one, while the core aspects of Protestantism have been a dissolvent force against Protestantism and civilization itself.

[Anonymous No.16341743]

>>16341733
catholicism has*

[Anonymous No.16342025]

>>16341733
I can see that, but I feel that someone like Carlyle provides an equally valid argument, wherein they must be considered mutual critiques. Are you familiar with him?

[Anonymous No.16342033]

>>16341733
>built the European sense of morality, even the Protestant one
isnt that kinda self evident desu? seeing as most protestant branches came from catholisism and are to varying degrees reformed catholisism?

[Anonymous No.16342043]

>>16341660
>Catholicity

[Anonymous No.16342046]

Protestantism inevitably leads to Atheism. When everyone who disagrees with doctrine can just make his own equally valid church, truth becomes subjective, and it's not long before people wonder why we need church at all.

[Anonymous No.16342058]

>>16341660
Christianity doesn't exist to preserve any particular civilization. Scripture tells you this directly doesn't it? The world hates God and his people. Any Christianity that becomes merged with the world cannot be true Christianity. It's impossible for it to be so.
>John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
>19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

[Anonymous No.16342059]

>>16342046
You never heard of Theology and Philosophy being the same thing in Eriugena?

[Anonymous No.16342064]

>>16341660
>>16342058
On the relation between Christianity and Nationalism:

>The Christian religion belongs to no specific national stock: the Christian dogma addresses purely - human nature. Only in so far as it has seized in all its purity this content common to all men, can a people call itself Christian in truth. However, a people can make nothing fully its own but what becomes possible for it to grasp with its inborn feeling, and to grasp in such a fashion that in the New it finds its own familiar self again. Upon the realm of aesthetics and philosophic Criticism it may be demonstrated, almost palpably, that it was predestined for the German spirit to seize and assimilate the Foreign, the primarily remote from it, in utmost purity and objectivity of intuition (in höchster objektiver Reinheit der Anschauung). One may aver, without exaggeration, that the Antique would have stayed unknown, in its now universal world-significance, had the German spirit not recognised and expounded it. The Italian made as much of the Antique his own, as he could copy and remodel; the Frenchman borrowed from this remodelling, in his turn, whatever caressed his national sense for elegance of Form: the German was the first to apprehend its purely-human originality, to seize therein a meaning quite aloof from usefulness, but therefore of the only use for rendering the Purely-human. Through its inmost understanding of the Antique, the German spirit arrived at the capability of restoring the Purely-human itself to its pristine freedom; not employing [156] the antique form to display a certain given 'stuff,' but moulding the necessary new form itself through an employment of the antique conception of the world. (02) To recognise this plainly, let anyone compare Goethe's Iphigenia with that of Euripides. One may say that the true idea of the Antique has existed only since the middle of the eighteenth century, since Winckelmann and Lessing.

[Anonymous No.16342070]

>>16342046
People could already do this in the past (and did so, even in the NT era), you know? The only difference is that there was a period after the conversion of Rome, during which the state would suppress it, and you have made this normative in your mind.

[Anonymous No.16342079]

>>16342064
See, this goes very quickly from talking about Christianity to a bunch of babble about antiquity in the abstract. Because what was adopted by these civilizations was not Christianity. It's impossible for Christianity to be merged with the world. There is no scriptural conception of a Christian civilization, and the concept is contrary to everything stated there about the relation of the Christian to the secular world.

[Anonymous No.16342105]

>>16342079
>Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Apart from very obvious statements like these, it is in the entire spirit of Christianity to help people you utter moron. No Christian should be mere without a state, no Bach or Goethe could arise out of a France or England, or not in a state of Christian civilisation. I really don't understand what you're getting at other than a misunderstanding of what the duty is of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.16342124]

Based and Donoso Cortés pilled

[Anonymous No.16342131]

>>16342105
>Apart from very obvious statements like these,
Christ's kingdom does not come before the eschaton. Trying to bring such things into existence now is a great error.
>it is in the entire spirit of Christianity to help people you utter moron.
Sure, help people. You aren't helping people by forcing them into an idolatrous statist mutation of Christianity.
>No Christian should be mere without a state, no Bach or Goethe could arise out of a France or England, or not in a state of Christian civilisation.
God forbid we don't have Bach or Goethe. Christianity does not exist to provide you with such things. If you think it does you've missed the point entirely.
>I really don't understand what you're getting at other than a misunderstanding of what the duty is of Christianity.
Laughable.

[Anonymous No.16342148]

>>16342131
evangelical schizo garbage

[Anonymous No.16342199]

>>16342148
When Christ says that his followers are not of the world, and that the world will hate them, what does that mean? How does that apply in a context in which an entire civilization is Christian?

[Anonymous No.16342281]

>>16342131
No anon, your conception of Christianity is not strong in belief of dogma but idolatrous to the true nature of Christianity. To call that quote an error,

>Sure, help people. You aren't helping people by forcing them into an idolatrous statist mutation of Christianity.
It is not "by law" idolatrous, as far as I know Christ told men to render unto Caesar what is his, but you seem to wish that men would live in Sodom and Gomorrah than under a Cromwell. The fact is here, you only pervert Christianity to a repugnant simplicity. Reductivity.

>God forbid we don't have Bach or Goethe. Christianity does not exist to provide you with such things. If you think it does you've missed the point entirely.
Ahh yes, Christianity exists but for death, neither life or the resurrection of it. You seem to think the grand purpose of God's world lie in the end without a test, any reckoning of a judgement at all. We sit like limp fish where we do not hurt and this is the makings of a good Christian. Great men of the world are the God-sent revelations of it, if we had no Bach's or Goethe's, or Charlemagne's, there would be not a single Christian left on this world and what charity that shows.

>>16342199
Not the guy you are replying to, but what does it mean that he is telling US that the world hated him first? Oh anon you did not forget that the world actually has Christians in it, or that they are not the only lives that matter?

[Anonymous No.16342312]

>>16342131
>Christ's kingdom does not come before the eschaton.
Furthermore, he again tells US, we who are in this world, to make it. He does not speak of eschaton here. And to complete the unfinished sentence in the previous post, to call that quote an error, is to call the Bible an error.

[Anonymous No.16342324]

>>16342281
>It is not "by law" idolatrous, as far as I know Christ told men to render unto Caesar what is his, but you seem to wish that men would live in Sodom and Gomorrah than under a Cromwell.
I am objecting to your determination that the state itself can become a Christian entity. Christ tells you to render unto Caesar because of the natural opposition between the world and the Christian. You literally believe that "the world" can be Christian in this current life, which is contrary to everything said about it by Christ and the Apostles.
>if we had no Bach's or Goethe's, or Charlemagne's, there would be not a single Christian left on this world and what charity that shows.
This is idolatry. Christianity exists because God will it to be so. It is not dependent upon this or that man. If a Christian makes art, that is well and good. I don't have an opposition to art. But you are making the claim that the production of art is evidence that statist Christianity is theologically valid. This is ridiculous and leads you to the nonsense like you just stated.
>but what does it mean that he is telling US that the world hated him first? Oh anon you did not forget that the world actually has Christians in it, or that they are not the only lives that matter?
I don't have the faintest clue what you are implying here so feel free to explicate it.
>>16342312
>Furthermore, he again tells US, we who are in this world, to make it.
Not in the Lord's Prayer he doesn't.

[Anonymous No.16342336]

>Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Nah bro it's actually the entirety of Europe, get it straight okay??? We have Goethe you know?

[Anonymous No.16342454]

>>16342324
>I am objecting to your determination that the state itself can become a Christian entity.
Which it can, as any man can. My guess would be that you enjoy thinking you have some strength in fighting a world where "everything" is evil. But you did not answer my point, that you'd seem to think Christianity in a state would somehow make it worse.

>You literally believe that "the world" can be Christian in this current life, which is contrary to everything said about it by Christ and the Apostles.
Not what I said, and I have never once raised that question. But to think the world is irreducibly evil without any good is deny the Christenhood of any man, as you think a state of Christians, a collective, is an impossibility. A Christian folk is insane to you apparently? How is a state idolatrous? It has a leader, a king, an "able-man" as it translates from the German? And a doing man is an evil thing, oh and a much more evil thing when he is a Christian according to you.

>Christianity exists because God will it to be so.
Yes you flat headed mong, that's why I said "God-sent", will you insist on being disingenuous behind your evangelical mask of honesty? Furthermore, we have free-will, self-movers as Plato said. Such a fundamental reality to the Christian religion and morality you willingly ignore.

>It is not dependent upon this or that man.
I suppose you think God does not have effect through man or would have a purpose of doing in this world without anything living.

>But you are making the claim that the production of art is evidence that statist Christianity is theologically valid.
Strictly that is not what I said either and you are being disingenuous again. But I should point out, you view art as an equivalent to playing donkey kong if he were to wear a cross and fight satan, no goal in itself, by no means more important an endeavour than baking a cake. Never could you imagine art to be a purpose of Christianity. Because as I said which you routinely ignored, you are a limp fish, you think being a good Christian is sitting down making nothing of life only so it can be resurrected when you never valued life in the first place.

>Not in the Lord's Prayer he doesn't.
Quite literally it does.


But we will only go in circles from this point on because 1. You actually haven't replied to my post and have replied so much with a liars heart, such as the very sentence after a specific quoting of me by you there is an explanation of your critique. And this was quite common throughout. And 2. You are entirely disingenuous. If you but had that much honour in something that was noble least you would agree that what I say has fact, in argument or a friendly conversation. You have already been refuted in my first reply to you.

[Anonymous No.16342472]

>>16342324
But what one point which I do wish to press you on to hear a reply, is how charitable you are that Christianity may end on this Earth for those few of Heaven but not any other man for the next whatsoever thousand years.

>I have no moral responsibility, it's just up to God
Very Christian aren't you.

>>16342336
Only a fool lies, and all this is an attempt to put words in my mouth and slander me. It has no relation to my argument, I said none of this.

[Anonymous No.16342532]

>>16342454
>Which it can, as any man can. ... But you did not answer my point, that you'd seem to think Christianity in a state would somehow make it worse.
It can't, and I've stated why. Whether it would be better or worse is irrelevant because it's impossible.
>Not what I said, and I have never once raised that question. But to think the world is irreducibly evil without any good is deny the Christenhood of any man, as you think a state of Christians, a collective, is an impossibility.
It's impossible because Christ has described the relation of Christians to the world, and his words preclude it. That's the only thing I've appealed to and it's the only thing necessary.
>Furthermore, we have free-will, self-movers as Plato said.
We do not have free will.
>I suppose you think God does not have effect through man or would have a purpose of doing in this world without anything living.
He can use men as his means, but the outcome is not dependent upon the means. I think this is rather simple.
>Art
As far as I can tell you think one of the chief values of Christianity is its production of wordly goods. You can try to mask it philosophically but you are appealing to the existence of art as evidence of a theological interpretation being correct.
>>Not in the Lord's Prayer he doesn't.
>Quite literally it does.
The Lord's Prayer is addressed to God, not you.
>*Now I'll continue insulting you as I have been doing this entire time while taking the high ground and calling you disingenuous*
Okay.

[Anonymous No.16342555]

>>16342472
>But what one point which I do wish to press you on to hear a reply, is how charitable you are that Christianity may end on this Earth for those few of Heaven but not any other man for the next whatsoever thousand years.
No clue what you're getting at here.
>It has no relation to my argument
You are the side claiming that entire states and civilizations can become Christian entities. I've asked how this squares with the exclusivity described by Christ, with the opposition between the Christian and the world, and there has been no answer. And of course that's because there isn't an answer because this statist fusion is in direct contradiction to Christ and Scripture. It's a non-Christian philosophical structure being imposed on Christianity to the exclusion of Christ's own teaching.

[Anonymous No.16342577]

>>16342046
that's one of the arguments in the book
>>16342033
Not as evident. Balmes criticizes that Protestants aren't usually consistent with their morals and their teachings. For example, the belief in predestination would have influenced the way we see criminals and criminal law. But instead, when protestants apply their doctrine they suspend the conclusions that would arise from them and recover Catholic orthopraxis.

[Anonymous No.16342584]

>>16342577
>For example, the belief in predestination would have influenced the way we see criminals and criminal law.
You mean we would think that they aren't actually responsible and thus not punish them, even though we know that God holds them responsible and punishes them? Lol.

[Anonymous No.16342586]

>>16342058
It doesn't, but it has helped to develop what we call today the Western civilization. It's the outcome of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.16342621]

>>16342584
That's correct. You can laugh all you want, but you wouldn't punish an animal for murdering another. Why? Because animals are determined by their impulses. If people are predestined to do X by God, there's no reason to punish them since they don't have a responsibility, it's totally absurd. However, no Protestant has ever thought about this incoherence, sad!

The book is full of rebuttals and it's very well documented. I encourage you to read it even with a narrow mind.

[Anonymous No.16342648]

>>16342532
>It can't, and I've stated why. Whether it would be better or worse is irrelevant because it's impossible.
Firstly you haven't stated why and secondly I lay on you all the condemnation of which Sodom and Gomorrah are guilty of for you would rather a Christian, or not, nevertheless an innocent man, live in that than under a Charlemagne. What a dreadful dead technicality you enjoy feeding your pride on, you exist in a state of life-death, you use Christianity as a cope and pervert it, and never valued life enough in the first place for resurrection to be meaningful at all in your conception. Your aim is death, what is prior to, and after which, is not your concern; for we will only here the usual gag one of which "it is up to God, I have no moral responsibility, or soul of my own at all"!

>That's the only thing I've appealed to and it's the only thing necessary.
Wrong again, you appealed for example to the idea that I was saying this world can be redeemed before the final redemption, judged before the final judgement; something I did not say which obviously spins the visage of this conversation in your favour dishonestly and yet you claim "I am a pious Christian, I have merely been repeating the vowels of God". And you did not answer me either, the world has both good and evil, you would think Christ sent his apostles travelling for no reason whatsoever. As if mans action matters not at all, that is a truly degenerate thought. This is not what Christ said.

>We do not have free will.
Lmao okay, your worldview is no better than a cowardly escape into the mechanistic one of the Enlightenment. "All is mechanism, I have no responsibility". All words of Christ about action, and belief, they mean nothing to the individual in your mind then.

>the outcome is not dependent upon the means.
Are you retarded? Nevertheless great men themselves I never said were means alone, and your idea of God's end being no different from a toddler's, as if he does not have a will complex enough for great men, great things, to be the end and the means themselves in many ways. You lack all creativity of conception.

>art is a worldly good
By your logic everything that exists in the world is tainted by that word "worldly' and as a result evil. Don't you see that by the same logic of calling art a worldly good instead of a spiritual one you do the same for all moral action, merely because we exist in this world.

>WAAAH WAAAH YOU TOOK THE HIGH GROUND AND SAID I AM WRONG AND BAD!!
Yes anon, that is what Christians do, if something is wrong or evil, one must reject it utterly. I cannot believe in falsity like you, and I cannot act in evil like you. You've BLATANTLY lied about what I've said, and been disingenuous in every post. You'd rather every Christian in the world die, you said yourself such a thing wouldn't matter, if it depended on using Christianity in a state(which every Christian in existence has seen as Christian, and smarter and nobler men than yourself).

[Anonymous No.16342651]

>>16342621
Humans are morally responsible because they act in accordance with their will and their nature.

[Anonymous No.16342664]

>>16342648
>Firstly you haven't stated why and secondly I lay on you all the condemnation of which Sodom and Gomorrah are guilty of
Do you actually expect me to read past this or bother responding to histrionics like this?

[Anonymous No.16342669]

>>16342555
>You are the side claiming that entire states and civilizations can become Christian entities.
See, because you are disingenuous like every Sophist you will change the meaning of the word "entire" if I originally used to, instead of meaning the idea and truth of the state on the whole, you interpret as meaning that I mean every last person will be Christian in the highest form. If God did not destroy a city for few good men, then why do you think he will not save it, or it cannot be considered Christian, because of a few bad man? You have not explained WHY having a state itself is idolatrous, or why it ESPECIALLY is in your opinion if the King of it is praising God and attending Church, converting thousands, and raising a people morally, culturally and practically.

[Anonymous No.16342685]

>>16342664
Yes, I do, because you are guilty of the Sodom-city because you would rather allow Christians to be tainted by it than "le noooo not my state having a picture of Jesus and praising God nooooo collectives can't believe in religion noooo".

You have no religion, you have already killed yourself in spirit.

[Anonymous No.16342689]

>>16342685
>Yes, I do, because you are guilty of the Sodom-city
yawn

[Anonymous No.16342699]

>>16342689
>yawns at mass paedophilia
You should unironically just kys if you aren't being ironic.

[Anonymous No.16342712]

>>16342699
>I'm going to call you disingenuous while saying you're guilty of Sodom and Gomorrah and when you laugh at me I'll say it's because you don't care about pedophilia
This is the true experience of arguing with a Catholic.

[Anonymous No.16342732]

>>16342712
I'm a Protestant you gay-faggot. And I said you were guilty of a crime, because you openly don't care if it happens because what? You don't believe a collective can exist and be Christian?

[Anonymous No.16342887]

The book is free on Project Gutenberg. both english and spanish.

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50436

[Anonymous No.16342893]

>>16341733
What a dumbass. The polytheism that preceded it was far more influential than either of those

[Anonymous No.16343148]

>>16342887
>The book is free
Every book is free. Pic mostly unrelated.

[Anonymous No.16343173]

Christian's are just as much gay, retarded, posturing insectoid dipshit freaks as philosophy majors are.

[Anonymous No.16343232]

>>16343173
>Christian's are

[Anonymous No.16343261]

>>16341733
thanks, sounds like he's right.

[Anonymous No.16343304]

>>16342131
protestantism (and the political left) is a personality disorder. simply narcissism.