In these charged times (and by that I mean the abundance of angry shitposting online) I keep seeing this claim the...

It's not significantly different nor is it lesser. It's actually a much greater claim when you look at the scale.
Lookie here, my dear Redditor. Christianity was the first ethical teaching to coherently solidify an ideal of divine individualism. That the individual was the end of human ethical propositions. That "In his image" meant something more than an architecture of human anatomy. But an architecture of moral philosophy with Christ being the link between man and divine. In other philosophies if we put man at the center, we have no room for the divine, if we put the divine at the center we have no room for man. If we put Christ at the center we can justify not only a morality centered upon man and his dignity, but with divine significance.
This is the basis of Western Thought, which is arguably the basis of "The West". At least in terms of it becoming a civilization. Even today, with our sophistries justifying hedonism and non-conformism. Even if you take out the religious element you still have the Christian ideal within. Look at Japanese culture, no God/gods, yet they are conformist, they are traditional. Look at Buddhists, again no God/gods, but no Hedonism, no live for the moment, nothing to suggest your individual self is the center of the universe. All Buddhist philosophy points towards oneself being between chaos and order within the universe and seeking enlightenment to achieve a supreme harmony. It does not place man or his natural wants and objects of dignity at the center. You can also look at Hinduism for an example of having gods but being without the divine ideal which could justify philosophies of hedonism.
Our Ethics are based upon helping others, putting oneself aside, but in doing so doing it because of others, because they are special as you are special.
You can call it biology, but that doesn't change anything. besides, if it was biology then people wouldn't evolve traditions to eat their children.
Read a book, yah dumb nigger.

>solidify an ideal of divine individualism.

Kek.

What this your post btw?

not an argument

This may be the dumbest /pol/ infographic I've ever seen

No, it was me laughing at a silly claim and asking you a question.

Did you have a problem understanding?

>No
>my non argument was an argument
or maybe you meant to say but you didn't because your brain subconsciously sees "yes" giving me an affirmation as a concession which people do not give when they are presented with an opinion or fact that conflicts with their perspective on the world, they only entrench themselves further in their own thinking, for better or for worse.
Now why don't you tell me what it is I said that you have a problem with?

To say yes...*
Also
>77
My dubs outdo your dubs.

I see you don't have a shred of evidence for your laughable claim and aren't willing to admit you made a post that admitted Western civilization wasn't built on Christianity.

A very poor show from you.

Based

Legalism came from within Christianity itself. The Catholic Church was far more legalistic than its Eastern counterpart. Without the developments in theology that were seen in the High Middle Ages you would have never had legalism or Western civilization.

>Legalism came from within Christianity itself. The Catholic Church was far more legalistic than its Eastern counterpart.

The second statement doesn't even back the first statement.

Yes it does.

Read a book.

We have Christianity to thank for universal ethics in the west

>individualism couldn't possibly be a part of Christianity

fml

>legalism is from Christianity
>this one part of Christianity was more legalistic than this other part of Christianity

How does one claim even relate to the other?

>moving the goalposts this hard

Catholicism invented legalism. Therefore legalism comes from Catholicism.

>Catholicism invented legalism.

Did it?

Define legalism and show how it comes purely from Catholicism and then explain why if it came from Christianity rather than a specific branch of Christianity why other branches of Christianity were less legalistic.

You're salty, great... Now it will be even harder to hold a conversation with your contemptible ass.
>evidence
But, it's theoretical, that's the inherent nature of sociological propositions. Are you even capable of abstract thought? The evidence is gave was explaining the influence Christianity had upon existing thought in what would become the Western World. Western Thought is centered upon a concept of an inherently divine individual. This is the most progressive form of political and moral philosophy. Western Thought only formed Western Civilization under the banner of this progressive idea. This idea came about only in Christianity and only when it had a confluence with the West. Western Civilization is built on Western Philosophical underpinnings, Western Philosophical underpinnings are built upon Christian ideals, or rather the singular Christian ideal of the interaction between Man and God. Thus we can conclude that Western Civilization is built upon upon Christianity. Well, there's the syllogism. Refute it or just concede. Syllogisms only please, no more of your opinionated drivel.
>aren't willing to admit
>admit
You frame it as if I would be ashamed of making such a post. I wonder why that is... It's almost as if you've got some narrative which you refuse to share. It matters little as your voice is the one being silenced, by yourself no less. Anyway that post was not saying Christianity isn't the basis, it was only giving an affirmation that Christianity was an influence. The two are not mutually exclusive as you are presenting them to be. Again, more evidence of your dogmatic agenda.
>The second statement doesn't even back the first statement.
It doesn't need to.
He was giving you a juxtaposition by which you might measure the legalistic tendencies of the Catholic church.
No, critical thinking from you today, unfortunate.
(this isn't me)
That's a nice response you gave. Irrational.

no it didnt, legalism came from roman systems of courts and laws themselves based on greek city states all of which predate Christianity

>moving the goalposts this hard

This is all incredibly subjective, it doesn't even remotely attempt to even address my first statement in this thread

The Western Conception of Legalism came exclusively from the Catholic church because the Catholic church was the only significant entity to enforce moral laws within Christian Europe.
>why it came from Christianity rather than a specific branch of Christianity
Catholicism is a branch of Christianity, your non-question statement is incoherent.

>English isn't your first language
>You're an idiot
>You don't understand what the thread is talking about
Pick one, or all three, I don't care.

Legalism: a focus on rules and laws over personal relationships in determining legal outcomes.

Catholicism established purgatory, mortal sins, venial sins, and other constructs that specified specific legalistic relationships between God and man. It also established in the Middle Ages one on one confession, a distinctly legalistic construct.

Incorrect. Even if this were the case, it was Catholicism that developed and preserved Roman court systems for the modern age.

Clearly, the Catholic Church is to thank for the emergence of legalism, science, ethics, as well as numerous other constructs that led to Western Civilization.

So you honestly think that making a claim that individualism comes solely from Christianity and then when challenged changing that claim to "individualism couldn't possibly be part of Christianity" isn't moving the goalposts ?

What is wrong with you?

>This is all incredibly subjective
Elaborate, please explain how it is subjective? I should think that it is relative to the intellectual capacity and tradition of reason mankind has developed. If you have some other idea of communication which does not rely upon communication then please share with us. I think you can see where this is going.
>It's what is called a subjective claim with no right answer.
I believe this is a subjective claim with no right answer. Now prove me wrong.
>inb4 onus of proof
I'm just following in your footsteps.

That is not me, you retarded mong.
There's nothing wrong with him, he simply isn't me. Now how about you address him as if he were an individual without your inherent bias instead of being delusional and thinking this thread is a conspiracy against you.

Maybe not so much built upon, as built by.

Granted, that's assuming you don't consider Rome and everything before it part of western civilization, as, in terms of what it was built "on", rather than "by", both the Greek and the Romans had a lot to do with the foundations, and by proxy, so did the Egyptians.

At the same time, the reformation and the Enlightenment, that are core to western civilization, are both the results of schisms with and breaks from fundamental Christian tenets, while at the same time, promoting secular variants of other parts of that same belief.

But without the institutions created by the Church and the unifications it brought about during the early days of Europe, yes, western civilization would not exist. ...and while the dark ages were indeed dark, despite the counter-meme to the meme, Christianity had a lot more to do with bringing Europe out of the dark ages, than it did with creating them.

While the other world religions emphasized mystery and intuition, Christianity alone embraced reason and logic as the primary guide to religious truth. Christian faith in reason was influenced by Greek philosophy. But the more important fact is that Greek philosophy had little impact on Greek religions. These remained typical mystery cults, in which ambiguity and logical contradictions were taken as hallmarks of sacred origins. Similar assumptions concerning the fundamental inexplicability of the gods and the intellectual superiority of introspection dominated all of the other major world religions. But from early days, the church fathers taught that reason was the supreme gift from God and the means to progressively increase their understanding of scripture and revelation. Consequently, Christianity was oriented to the future, while the other major religions asserted the superiority of the past. At least in principle, if not always in fact, Christian doctrines could always be modified in the name of progress as demonstrated by reason. Encouraged by the Scholastics and embodied in the great medieval universities founded by the church, faith in the power of reason infused Western culture, stimulating the pursuit of science and the evolution of democratic theory and practice. The rise of capitalism was also a victory for church-inspired reason, since capitalism is in essence the systematic and sustained application of reason to commerce — something that first took place within the great monastic estates.

I think I may have deeply misinterpreted your earlier posts, I was trying to say that individualism is a part of Christianity and that our culture absorbed Christian ideas. Obviously Christianity isn't the only source of culture, but individuality being so wide spread convinces me that religion helped circulate that way of thinking.

I'm replying to the people that reply to me. I don't think anything is a conspiracy, but if a new person replies to a post I made to another user completely changing the argument I initially replied to then that is moving the goalposts just as much as if the original user did it.

>making a claim that individualism comes solely from Christianity
I also didn't make this claim.
I said >Christianity was the first ethical teaching to coherently solidify an ideal of divine individualism. That the individual was the end of human ethical propositions.
You seem to think it's a claim when it is easily falsifiable and also demonstrably provable by a converse proof. Find a Western non-Christian influenced philosophy of divine individualism.
There is no evidence of this mysticism which makes the connections Christianity makes, thus Christianity being the origin of this type of thinking which is the basis of Western thought thus Civilization has the preponderance of evidence.

>I don't think there is a conspiracy against me
>it's just a (((coincidence))) everyone is arguing against me
alright

The Catholic Church ban on cousin marriage and forms of usury.

It prevented Europe from being a nepotistic shithole by encouraging the mixing of genetic material.

On the otherhand, banning usury made way for jews to use that profession as a wedge to open up other areas of society.

Which has good and bad aspects.

>while the dark ages were indeed dark
TAKE IT BACK!

Your greentext has no relation to what I just said, please learn how to greentext.

I'll have to put it in simpler terms.
>I don't think anything is a conspiracy, but if a new person replies to a post I made to another user completely changing the argument I initially replied to then that is moving the goalposts just as much as if the original user did it.
You're saying that if someone responds to something you said then they are taking on the position (or at least you are treating them as if they were) of the person you originally replying to.

I don't think Christianity is particularly individualistic - it's largely focused on denial of the self, infinite charity, living for a higher power, and the like. If anything, the rampant individuality we see today has been largely a counter movement to Christianity.

...But in terms of its benefit to western civilization, the fact that it wasn't individualistic - the idea that all men belonged to God, regardless of nation, is a large part of what held European civilization together through some of its darkest hours.

I'm also not sure if we can call a religion that has caused nearly every generation since its birth to believe that the world is going to end within their lifetime, particularly future oriented - unless by "future oriented", we include the afterlife.

However, the non-iconoclasts did start multi-generational projects in the form of the great Cathedrals, where the folks who began them never lived to see them anywhere near completed, so in that "works of faith" sense, yes, they were forward thinking, and those collective works in turn helped unite and develop various communities and institutions throughout Europe. So, yay for idolatry?

Charlemagne helped end the dark ages.

>individuality we see today has been largely a counter movement to Christianity
But it has not come out of any other culture aside from the "Christian" one.
Christianities self denial is so that one might respect themselves. Christian charity is infinite because it says love can be infinite. But the justification of it that those we help are like us, children of God, they can not be relegated to any other group that is more significant. This is to say there can be no "us vs them" when it comes to being morally upright. You must be moral to other because you are moral being and others are moral beings.
>All men belonged to God
But it never says that. It says that all men are children of God.

>that has caused nearly every generation since its birth to believe that the world is going to end within their lifetime
This is untrue as well. Every society has had its pessimists as well as its optimists. One might reply to you by saying there are those take the latter meaning of the script and live as if they will never see the day.

He was born in the middle of them and he was the reason the term is a misnomer.
Also, Constantinople wasn't "dark" in any sense.

Well, not a single generation has gone by since Nicea without some high religious official declaring that "these are the end times". Hell, even Constantine thought the world was ending when Haley's Comet flew over and rode out his army for the pending armageddon.

But maybe that's been beneficial, as when shit hits the fan, folks that think that their God is coming down from heaven soon as a result are probably more apt to band together.

And there are religions MUCH more individualistic than Christianity (including its predecessor), even if most of them haven't been particularly successful. That also includes, despite their being infamous for being so collective, many of the Eastern religions, where each man's salvation is entirely his own, and not subject to the whims of any particular higher power.

I really suspect, in both cases, the benefits of Christianity have been due to its possessing intrinsic natures exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting.

I'm sure you can use a dictionary without me needing to explain what words mean.

>You're saying that if someone responds to something you said then they are taking on the position (or at least you are treating them as if they were) of the person you originally replying to.

Surely you understand the concept of context and can differentiate that from conspiracy?

NTG, but I don't see him asking for a definition there.

Sorry Charlie, ya did help a lot by helping everyone hold it together, largely through unified religious front - but even while you were alive, shit was just bloody as hell.

Thanks though, couldn't have done it without ya.

>the western world was built upon Christianity,

The western world was around long before christianity and continues long after it.

It's more fair to say that christianity was built upon the western world.

And the western world eventually destroyed it.