Likewise one cannot ignore the differences between Christianity and all of Western classical civilization...

Likewise one cannot ignore the differences between Christianity and all of Western classical civilization, given that the Romans and pagans considered Christianity an Eastern sect issuing from the margins of the Empire, alien to Greco-Roman life, customs, and mentality.
While not forgetting or denying the pagan elements grafted onto Christianity and especially in Catholicism, one cannot fail to recognize the Asiatic character of this movement founded by a Jew who was born, lived, and died in Palestine, and was certainly not Hellenized. Religious intolerance, by which heterodox thinking becomes a crime punishable by law, was certainly not a Greco-Roman characteristic.
Nor was the holy zeal of propaganda; nor the subordination of the citizen’s duties to those of the believer, and of the interests of the earthly homeland to those of the heavenly homeland; nor the claim to enshrine truth in the articles of a creed, and to make the soul’s salvation depend on professing a specific belief and observing a specific morality; nor the anarchic and democratic spirit of universal and obligatory brotherhood and of similitude and equality to one’s neighbor.
Don’t the Christians themselves exalt their religion because the preaching of Jesus’s doctrine has overturned the whole table of pagan values, giving the poor precedence over the rich, the last the place of the first, awarding victory to the folly of the cross and to what is low and despised in the world over the wisdom of the philosophers, and putting the maximum value on the salvation of souls, the minimum on the defence and interests of the empire?

Attached: IMG_5536.jpg (450x713, 39.53K)

When the apostles and disciples opposed their doctrine and worldview to those of the gentiles or ethnics as they called them, were they not the first to recognize and establish the difference and indeed the contrast between Christianity and paganism, between ethnics and Christians; were they not affirming themselves as ethnically alien to the West?

If one prefers to take no account of this fundamental Judaism and this radical difference, and insists that original, primitive Judaism has been transcended, that Christianity is what Saint Paul preached, and that the Gospel is addressed equally to all the peoples of the earth, we cannot see why it should be considered Western any more than Eastern, Northern, or Southern. Obviously, to define Christianity as Western is equivalent to negating or forgetting its universality, while to assert the latter denies its Western identity.

The cavils of casuistry cannot get out of this dilemma. In any case, supposing—though not admitting— this acquired universalist character, its original character always remains what it is. Perhaps macaroni, now eaten and enjoyed worldwide, has thereby ceased to be a Neapolitan dish?

impiety is actually very hellenic

nice blogpost kike

Hence neither its historical origin, nor any preference or precedence deliberately given to the West over peoples of other parts of the earth, gives Christianity the right to boast a Western character. What then supports its proclaimed Western nature? The only possible justification of this commonplace is the fact that the West has been Christianized, in a certain sense and to a certain extent. It is not that Christianity is or has become Western, but in a certain way the West has become Christian.

Can you refute that though

>can’t read
>spends time on a board where words are used for communication
What’s your endgame?

Attached: 61426496-0DF3-44B4-A4FC-55B03C2F5A2D.jpg (828x797, 62.19K)

punishing impiety*

atheists btfo.

I hear the voice of God and if you believe you will too!