Your first statement, which you're backing off from already in a big way, was:
Note that you say "the irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism". That doesn't sound anything like "the iconoclast controversy in the East led the Pope to intervene and centuries later that intervention was used as a precedent to establish papal primacy, which helped lead to the Great Schism". No. You're saying that iconoclasm was rejected in the West because of some pagan affiliation, and it was a key reason for the Schism.
Of course, you have absolutely no evidence to support this statement, which WAS pulled out of your ass based on its value. Iconic representations originated in the East, not in the West, and pagan conversion was ongoing in the East at the same time as it was in the West (the Bulgars, Serbs, Romanians and Russians were all being proselytized to by Eastern missionaries, such as Cyril and Methodius, who were active just as the second iconoclast wave was ending). There is no historical, cultural or geographic justification why the Western Church would be predisposed to attack iconoclasm any more (or less) than the Eastern Church.
So, we have a typical Joel rant that is dead wrong, making grandiose statements about iconoclasm that are dead wrong. So, if "the irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism" is not your attempt at saying that you believed the Popes were attacking iconoclasm for the spurious reasons you give, and that the Papist position on iconoclasm was a decisive factor (or does "irreparable damage" mean something else to you than to the rest of the world), then just what were you trying to say, Joel? Try working on your writing skills.
Incorporating pagan deities as Catholic saints rather than attacking them as idols was vital to Christianitys spread throughout both Western Europe and the New World, so iconoclasm has less orthodoxy. The irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism makes more sense on that basis. The Roman Catholic Church would have been naturally reluctant to surrender a missionary tool indispensable in Early Medieval northern and western Europe.
Note that you say "the irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism". That doesn't sound anything like "the iconoclast controversy in the East led the Pope to intervene and centuries later that intervention was used as a precedent to establish papal primacy, which helped lead to the Great Schism". No. You're saying that iconoclasm was rejected in the West because of some pagan affiliation, and it was a key reason for the Schism.
Of course, you have absolutely no evidence to support this statement, which WAS pulled out of your ass based on its value. Iconic representations originated in the East, not in the West, and pagan conversion was ongoing in the East at the same time as it was in the West (the Bulgars, Serbs, Romanians and Russians were all being proselytized to by Eastern missionaries, such as Cyril and Methodius, who were active just as the second iconoclast wave was ending). There is no historical, cultural or geographic justification why the Western Church would be predisposed to attack iconoclasm any more (or less) than the Eastern Church.
So, we have a typical Joel rant that is dead wrong, making grandiose statements about iconoclasm that are dead wrong. So, if "the irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism" is not your attempt at saying that you believed the Popes were attacking iconoclasm for the spurious reasons you give, and that the Papist position on iconoclasm was a decisive factor (or does "irreparable damage" mean something else to you than to the rest of the world), then just what were you trying to say, Joel? Try working on your writing skills.
Political correctness is the pettiest form of casuistry.
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
ἡ δὲ κἀκ τριῶν τρυπημάτων ἐργαζομένη ἐνεκάλει τῇ φύσει, δυσφορουμένη, ὅτι δὴ μὴ καὶ τοὺς τιτθοὺς αὐτῇ εὐρύτερον ἢ νῦν εἰσι τρυπώη, ὅπως καὶ ἄλλην ἐνταῦθα μίξιν ἐπιτεχνᾶσθαι δυνατὴ εἴη. – Procopius
Ummaka qinnassa nīk!
*MySmiley*
This message last edited by Tom on 11/03/2012 at 05:16:13 AM
Atheism: The Iconoclasm of the West?
10/03/2012 05:42:56 AM
- 1291 Views
I think about as highly of athiesm as I do of christianity. *NM*
10/03/2012 05:54:20 AM
- 355 Views
I would chide you on that basis for having a love/hate relationship with God, but who does not?
10/03/2012 06:05:11 AM
- 522 Views
If the divine made men...
10/03/2012 06:27:42 AM
- 516 Views
True, but by the same token, in denying our nature we deny the divine.
10/03/2012 06:57:40 AM
- 531 Views
I was actually just saying in Skype this is the first post you've made in a long time I've enjoyed.
10/03/2012 07:02:56 AM
- 550 Views
But you do comparable things all the time!
10/03/2012 08:35:31 AM
- 744 Views
You've made this analogy before and it's still a bad one, those aren't comparable
10/03/2012 03:43:08 PM
- 629 Views
You said what I was thinking far more respectfully than I probably would have.
11/03/2012 12:14:55 AM
- 597 Views
You're right and wrong.
10/03/2012 05:09:32 PM
- 941 Views
Re: You're right and wrong.
11/03/2012 12:28:25 AM
- 848 Views
Nope, Buddhists are explicitly atheist and also explicitly Ontologically engaged
11/03/2012 01:39:20 AM
- 849 Views
Actually, Buddhists are not explicitly atheist in the conventional sense of the world.
11/03/2012 02:42:36 AM
- 648 Views
I guess it is that old impersonalism that seems the great disappointment in most Eastern religions.
11/03/2012 04:48:54 AM
- 750 Views
What you talkin' 'bout, Willis? *NM*
10/03/2012 06:29:35 PM
- 279 Views
I think he's saying that most arguments used on behalf of Atheism actually come from the Bible.
10/03/2012 06:58:50 PM
- 638 Views
Basically what Dan said; atheism as iconoclasm sans icons (unless we count religion as symbolism.)
11/03/2012 12:46:52 AM
- 652 Views
What exactly do you mean by "The irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism"?
10/03/2012 07:57:59 PM
- 721 Views
That Byzantiums iconoclasm was one of the many wedges between it and Rome that led to the Schism.
11/03/2012 12:27:05 AM
- 642 Views
Bull. Shit.
11/03/2012 01:54:07 AM
- 712 Views
I did not say it was decisive, but that it did irreparable damage to the relationship.
11/03/2012 04:23:43 AM
- 730 Views
Bull. Shit.
11/03/2012 04:30:08 AM
- 593 Views
It is not like I just pulled it out of my rear, any more than my HS history text or Wikipedia did.
11/03/2012 04:57:31 AM
- 671 Views
Bull. Shit.
11/03/2012 05:14:01 AM
- 747 Views
Irreparable damage is damage that cannot be repaired, not necessarily serious or fatal.
11/03/2012 10:34:57 AM
- 816 Views
Mierda.del.Toro
11/03/2012 12:36:59 PM
- 697 Views
1969 may be "sometime back" in Roman Catholic history,but is ~a millenium after the time in question
12/03/2012 05:47:11 PM
- 949 Views
You really must get steamed by anyone calling you out on your hyberbolic comments
12/03/2012 06:55:06 PM
- 808 Views
On the contrary, I am not the one screaming "bullshit" in as many languages as possible.
13/03/2012 12:07:54 AM
- 850 Views
ο κοπρος. του ταυρου.
11/03/2012 02:19:11 PM
- 777 Views
Very edifying; can you do Mandarin or Swahili next?
12/03/2012 05:47:23 PM
- 683 Views
No. Even English seems to be beyond your grasp.
12/03/2012 06:29:50 PM
- 592 Views
Citing scripture does not justify telling me to kill myself.
13/03/2012 12:08:02 AM
- 726 Views
Give it up already. You are wrong.
12/03/2012 12:53:37 AM
- 896 Views
I will do the former at least; pretty sure this "discussion" has reached rock bottom.
13/03/2012 12:12:46 AM
- 539 Views
More or less your last line
11/03/2012 01:37:42 AM
- 615 Views
That is a broader argument, but more consistent with iconoclasms established meaning.
11/03/2012 05:12:12 AM
- 728 Views
Would you include the iconoclasm that Joel cites in the canonical Judeo-Christian tradition as well?
11/03/2012 12:44:49 PM
- 595 Views