Active Users:1220 Time:23/11/2024 04:41:26 AM
Bull. Shit. Tom Send a noteboard - 11/03/2012 05:14:01 AM
Your first statement, which you're backing off from already in a big way, was:

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*
This message last edited by Tom on 11/03/2012 at 05:16:13 AM
Reply to message
Atheism: The Iconoclasm of the West? - 10/03/2012 05:42:56 AM 1297 Views
I think about as highly of athiesm as I do of christianity. *NM* - 10/03/2012 05:54:20 AM 357 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 527 Views
If the divine made men... - 10/03/2012 06:27:42 AM 522 Views
True, but by the same token, in denying our nature we deny the divine. - 10/03/2012 06:57:40 AM 537 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 556 Views
Thanks? It is all Dans fault, really. - 10/03/2012 07:21:19 AM 825 Views
But you do comparable things all the time! - 10/03/2012 08:35:31 AM 750 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 635 Views
You said what I was thinking far more respectfully than I probably would have. - 11/03/2012 12:14:55 AM 601 Views
... and apparently it was a waste of time - 11/03/2012 03:27:04 AM 540 Views
Perhaps he just missed it in all my spam? - 11/03/2012 04:59:31 AM 612 Views
Basically what Isaac said. *NM* - 10/03/2012 07:22:07 PM 307 Views
who? *NM* - 11/03/2012 12:00:13 AM 287 Views
Me - 11/03/2012 03:31:51 AM 569 Views
You're right and wrong. - 10/03/2012 05:09:32 PM 947 Views
Re: You're right and wrong. - 11/03/2012 12:28:25 AM 855 Views
Nope, Buddhists are explicitly atheist and also explicitly Ontologically engaged - 11/03/2012 01:39:20 AM 853 Views
Actually, Buddhists are not explicitly atheist in the conventional sense of the world. - 11/03/2012 02:42:36 AM 653 Views
Yeah, that's very true. - 11/03/2012 03:27:09 PM 748 Views
My Buddhist readings are definitely Tibet-focused. - 11/03/2012 04:00:17 PM 800 Views
Duplicate post *NM* - 11/03/2012 03:28:58 PM 375 Views
What exactly do you mean by "The irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism"? - 10/03/2012 07:57:59 PM 724 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 645 Views
Bull. Shit. - 11/03/2012 01:54:07 AM 718 Views
I did not say it was decisive, but that it did irreparable damage to the relationship. - 11/03/2012 04:23:43 AM 734 Views
Bull. Shit. - 11/03/2012 04:30:08 AM 602 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 677 Views
Bull. Shit. - 11/03/2012 05:14:01 AM 752 Views
Irreparable damage is damage that cannot be repaired, not necessarily serious or fatal. - 11/03/2012 10:34:57 AM 822 Views
ο κοπρος. του ταυρου. - 11/03/2012 02:19:11 PM 783 Views
Very edifying; can you do Mandarin or Swahili next? - 12/03/2012 05:47:23 PM 688 Views
No. Even English seems to be beyond your grasp. - 12/03/2012 06:29:50 PM 596 Views
Citing scripture does not justify telling me to kill myself. - 13/03/2012 12:08:02 AM 733 Views
I'm not telling you to; God is. - 13/03/2012 12:35:45 AM 515 Views
Or can only you use that sort of specious logic? *NM* - 13/03/2012 03:50:20 PM 263 Views
And re: particular bullshit - 11/03/2012 02:33:15 PM 706 Views
Re: And re: particular bullshit - 13/03/2012 12:07:42 AM 614 Views
Give it up already. You are wrong. - 12/03/2012 12:53:37 AM 901 Views

Reply to Message