Christianity did not give us internationalism, liberalism: the guillotine and the hammer and sickle. All that comes from the PERVERSION and undermining of the traditional Christianity which gave us the cathedrals, music and art of High Europe, individualism (for all its faults), rule of law, science and technology. One can say it comes from the masonic revolution, but of course that in turn is but a modern-era iteration of a much older and darker evil.
Christianity did not necessarily give us internationalism or liberalism per se, though I understand the impulse behind such an undertaking. The idea that there is a desire to unify human beings into a single being so to speak is what many believe may have underlined the values of these 'isms'. Yet it is also important to recognize the logic of '“emancipation” that drives them. For instance, it was the will to emancipate that derived the logic of liberalism and then binded it with a broader international order. In modern political thought, it is this idea, that has often been perceived as a necessary condition or even a driving force of a dialectical progression. Christianity on the other hand was seen as a coercive force that historically restrained or tamed what was perceived as a necessary movement.
You don't seem to notice the contradiction between the first two sentences. This happens very often: Christians can't understand the European New Right's critique of Christianity.
So, in the first sentence you basically say: "Christianity is not the cause of these evils."
And in the second sentence you say: "The perversion of Christianity caused these evils."
Do you see?
For there to be a "PERVERSION of Christianity", first there must be a Christianity, no?
Christianity did not give us internationalism, liberalism: the guillotine and the hammer and sickle. All that comes from the PERVERSION and undermining of the traditional Christianity which gave us the cathedrals, music and art of High Europe, individualism (for all its faults), rule of law, science and technology. One can say it comes from the masonic revolution, but of course that in turn is but a modern-era iteration of a much older and darker evil.
That apart, great stuff!
Christianity did not necessarily give us internationalism or liberalism per se, though I understand the impulse behind such an undertaking. The idea that there is a desire to unify human beings into a single being so to speak is what many believe may have underlined the values of these 'isms'. Yet it is also important to recognize the logic of '“emancipation” that drives them. For instance, it was the will to emancipate that derived the logic of liberalism and then binded it with a broader international order. In modern political thought, it is this idea, that has often been perceived as a necessary condition or even a driving force of a dialectical progression. Christianity on the other hand was seen as a coercive force that historically restrained or tamed what was perceived as a necessary movement.
You don't seem to notice the contradiction between the first two sentences. This happens very often: Christians can't understand the European New Right's critique of Christianity.
So, in the first sentence you basically say: "Christianity is not the cause of these evils."
And in the second sentence you say: "The perversion of Christianity caused these evils."
Do you see?
For there to be a "PERVERSION of Christianity", first there must be a Christianity, no?