User talk:Aneris/Christian West

Search

"Cultural Christian" and you'll get most of our mentions of the idea. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 12:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a little what you mean? Thanks :) ~ Aneris ✻ 16:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Cultural Christian is a term popular in Europe referring to people who value the identity politics of Christianity, without, you know, actually believing the precepts of the religion. The wonderful Anders Behring Breivik is an example of someone quite obsessed with the idea. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I should wake up before typing. I'm saying: see Cultural Christian. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah! I point out though that the connotations are probably very, very different in diverse countries. I would use the term as well, since it's commonly understood around here and fairly benign. It indeed means the vague european culture with (usually) no nefarious undercurrents. It's perfectly cosmopolitical, too. You simply say that you probably celebrate Christmas, consumerism and pagan customs included; that you hide eggs on Easter, and a range of more subtle preferences and customs we are only aware of when we meet someone from a different culture. That Breivik also uses the term is more of a Hitler Ate Sugar. But that's why I wrote this article: it's spectacularly misnamed. It does describe "something", since there are clearly shared ideas (which I regard as a good thing) and there is a Christian veneer to it, but the Christian element is vastly overstated. ~ Aneris ✻ 17:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Another possible item

The relevance of the first and second great awakenings as sudden and rapid reductions in secularization of the US in particular. As part of the myth of an unbroken chain of Christian History under sudden modern threat. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point, however I probably could need help for that, since I'm not an American myself and know very little about Christian history of the USA. ~ Aneris ✻ 16:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I know less about the subject than is present in the wikipedia articles. Also, I guess there was a third and fourth, but my impression is that they're not as big. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Already noticed

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/41znoh/trackreddit/cz6idq9/ Welcome to our crank department! FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the thing in the current state misses a lot of sourcing and is still loosely written, it's fair game to criticize it. I welcome improvements and additions. But of course, I am confident that the general take is correct and that some balance what Christians actually brought to the table would make it only rounder and stronger. I mentioned in the notes the development of the hospital as perhaps one example. I am also fully aware that I have a personal preference for directions, tendencies, currents of how things went, with examples that glue it to concrete events, whereas other people prefer data points and a more static and detail-oriented view. But I also believe that such summaries of history, with all the pitfalls (i.e. "gist" before "accuracy") can be very helpful as a general guide — a framework that can be used to fetch the fine details in areas of interest. ~ Aneris ✻ 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is really bad. It's already long, rambling, and apparently tries to prove some kind of point, which I think it should try to do sooner and in less words before most readers fall asleep. I've looked at the bottom and found only one reference, about Charlemagne. Reading that section on him makes me think that Aneris believes in the "dark ages" myth. Founded no schools? No libraries? Seriously? There are entire books written about Charlemagne contribution to education and arts. This is what happens when an ideologue tries to write about history. The user on reddit was correct to call you a crank. Typhoon (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

One thing you could mention

There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament, nor anything in the pre-imperial Church Fathers, that suggested that Christians would ever form a government, wield political power, or govern a territory. The whole political counsel of the New Testament can be summarized as, "DUCK!". They saw the pagan tyranny of the Roman Empire lasting to the end of days. Obey the laws and try to remain beneath the notice of the authorities was about all they said. Stay away from the courts and from politics. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That was the plan. Theodosius I had a somewhat different idea, as noted in the article. Any idea how your take could be emphasised or worked into it? ~ Aneris ✻ 19:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)