Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who is Douglas John Hall?[edit]

Again, time after time, editors insist in bringing in their favorite university proffesor or book author as an authoritative figure for an important article. Christendom is a concept that defines a period in history and a group of people far too large to quote individuals with no trscendece in that history or in that group. His remarks could be used but not stating his name as it would imply some degree of relevance. Name explictly Augustine, Aquinas, or some modern acclaimed theologian as John of the Cross or Teresa of Avila not some unknown proffesor in some University. (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources would be primary sources regarding historical Christian doctrines. Douglas John Hall (who is clearly not "unknown" as there's a bloody article about him) is a professional whose job is (as far as Wikipedia is concerned and put overly simply) to summarize the history of Christian doctrine. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with the current state of the article, August '19, but also credit "rewrite's" charge of ambiguity: ecclesiastical versus imperial Christianity/[edit]

I'm afraid Wiki is up against its own limits, as to Professional sources and all that, which might mean someone's pet professor. Do you recall the Vietnam War: KKK was behind it, I was told at the time: Killing a Kommie for Khrist. It may be that the only thing that remains of either Christendom or Christianity discernible to a general historian is the urge to conquer China (see Goths in England by Samuel Kliger, whose point I've taken and advanced a few hundred yards). That is, the "global war on terror" and the (fading?) urge to conquer China probably exist, in this market age, as a skeleton of a Constantinian Christendom composed of hypocrisy, "concern", and servile careerism. "Well, once we invade the place, we can decide how to set it to rights." As it were. Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea seems to be a metaphor for the divine fisherman failing to land the big fish: the human race. If the fish were a shark, as Hemingway probably would have preferred to talk about--that is, if Christianity were for the most part a predatory thing, in its historical realization in western Europe (east-European/Asian Christianity seems rather charming in its feebleness, albeit "Slavs" are called that because the Byzantines liked them as slaves), it complicates the metaphor but it makes a better story. Let me run with it. The old man catches Jaws and ties it to his boat. A bunch of tuna come along, no. A bunch of vacationing professors come along and deplore the loss of the habitat's natural order. The fisherman releases Jaws and it sinks the excursion boat and eats all the professors. No, that's not it. How about the vine metaphor? Is it a recipe for sociopathy? These two sociopaths meet on a path in the forest and one says to the other, "Let me be your friend." Supply your own punchline. We cannot see Christianity because, aside from Constantine, it got gobbled up by Germanic culture when the two collided, replacing the ur-democratic spirit of the latter (we're all free here in the Folksgemot, the "thing", except for the slaves) with a grand vision (Kliger) of a depraved structure best termed Vikingdom: raiderdom. Hans-Peter Hasenfratz, Barbarian Rites, which opens with Ambassador Fadhlan's encounter with Vikings in Ukraine about the time they'd set up Rus. A disgusting description of a dinner party. And to show the relevance of that, consider Eaters of the Dead, by Michael Crichton, which takes that same account and fictionalizes it in a way so as to leave you unsure if Fadhlan existed and to otherwise dismiss any bad stuff about Vikingdom as squeamishness. Whereas Hasenfratz more or less says he finds the origins of Naziism in these philological ruminations about Icelandic eddas, etc. "Armies of the night". A social order turned into a social disorder which only sustained itself by steadily expanding until it ran into itself. I might justify that last claim by two examples today: Trump's spurious (in my view, compared to Obama's TPP, which was deadly serious in its predatory attitude to China: it excluded China, the FT said it was to "weaken and isolate" China, and the FT then quoted Obama, "Why should China make the rules? We should make the rules.") attacks on China and Iran are being held at bay by western Europe and indeed by a global culture which is not, as a Sudanese lawyer said twenty years ago or so in Maine, the NYC-DC beltway but the people who'd gone to his lecture in Maine on that evening: the international community is not another name for Christendom but is rather its successor: imagine Kafka revisiting the castle after it has been turned into a Disneyland attraction. He says to the concession worker, "Twelve euros for a box of popcorn?" and the young Turk says, "Do you want it or not?" The other sociopath takes the first sociopath by the arm and says, "Hush."Chrisrushlau (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the data in Demographics of major traditions come from?[edit]

I read the reference and did not find a single evidence suggesting the internal or external decline of the Orthodox Church, nor the Catholic Church. 梦叙天 (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]