Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Middle east refers to a region of the world physically, it also means an area of politics and culture.
If you are refering that Christianity came out of the middle east physically than yes, what about it? I do not recall anyone ever disputing that fact.
If you are meaning it came out of the middle east culturally then that right there is a very loaded question as the middle east then is not the middle east now, so to even compare the town is ridiculous.
Plus you do not even want to mention which branch you are talking about, you do understand there are different branches don't you? Many do not indulge into the pagan aspects like the easter bunny and christmas tree and frankly are against it, but they also don't sit in church either, just stand.
Others are just money making machines, for profit institutions claiming to be religious, to classify everyone under one group is ridiculous.
Modern democracy was bred out of greek society. Sure, the concept is naturally as old as human thought is itself, so is flying, but it was only put into universal practice starting with the greeks, who thus wrote books on the subject.
It is attributed to western thought because most of what is the west is structured off of Greek and Roman ways of doing things, like it or not, and Roman influence spread far into the middle east, the governing societies rose from the foundation that Rome built.
You are confusing what the term middle eastern and western mean, as I said, they have different meanings and you are trying to apply all of them.
And more news to you, evil European colonists did not wipe out everyone on Earth, a simple 100 level college world history class will even tell you that one.
Many people and cultures have been wiped out throughout history by many different people. It is just not those "evil" European colonists (whose society that they created just happens to be the one you live in and rely on), that wiped out people and cultures.
It is amazing the amount of these primitive types as you called them would love to abandon their lifestyles and go to Europe, many die everyday trying to get there, so I guess the European lifestyle must not be that bad.
Again I ask, who claimed that Christianity is western? I have never heard it out of the mouth of anyone at my church, or any other church I have been to, there is no care or revelance to where Christianity originated, anyone who ever picked up a book could just read history about it, its not very hard. Maybe you are just listening to the preachers here who love mixing up politics and God in their sermons.
Wow! a Turkish paper! Must be the Mecca of facts and truth in that paper.
Wow! a Turkish paper! Must be the Mecca of facts and truth in that paper.
I just find it ironic that Turkey, who was not admitted to the Europan Union on the basis that they are not Western (read: they were Islam instead of Christian) is trying to solve the Israel/Palestinian question on the basis of philosophy instead of religion and / or politics.
I also find their conclusion that Judaism is as much Middle Eastern as the Islam very logical, so Israel has the right to exist in the Middle East. Unfortunately the Israelis would like to pass themselves as democratic and Western to create as much difference between Israelis and Palestinians.
As for me personally I finds terms like 'Eastern' and 'Western' illusionary divisions.
But I’m used that some people find my way of reasoning and questioning ‘insulting’. Simply because I don’t play favourites.
Can Christianity claim to be Western when they are based on Judaism which clearly is Middle Eastern? Even democracy is not exclusively a Western invention.
There had been 'primitive' societies who were democratic before they were either conquered or wiped out by European colonists.
It's all a matter of perspective, the Byzantines were Eastern to the Romans, however most of Europe and "near Asia" so called by the Europeans are in the West today. Western is used in terms of geography also culturally. Also if you say "middle-east", where is it middle of? And what is it east of?
Originally Posted by k350 I just find it ironic that Turkey, who was not admitted to the Europan Union on the basis that they are not Western (read: they were Islam instead of Christian) is trying to solve the Israel/Palestinian question on the basis of philosophy instead of religion and / or politics.
I also find their conclusion that Judaism is as much Middle Eastern as the Islam very logical, so Israel has the right to exist in the Middle East. Unfortunately the Israelis would like to pass themselves as democratic and Western to create as much difference between Israelis and Palestinians.
As for me personally I finds terms like 'Eastern' and 'Western' illusionary divisions.
But I’m used that some people find my way of reasoning and questioning ‘insulting’. Simply because I don’t play favourites.
That was not the reason that Turkey was not admitted into the union. There are benchmarks a nation must reach in terms of econimcs and social issues in order to become a member. Turkey has not reached those marks, especially in the area of human rights.
Turkey is a secular state, the military is the only thing right now ensuring that.
Plus there has been constant opposition towards any expansion as the EU as the concept is for a "European Union" not a world union. There are other European countries that are not members, one of the is Norway which is doing quite well for itself, which basically is making a mockery of the union all together.
Plus many in Turkey do not want to be part of the union because that would mean having to abide by rules not originating in their country.
So no, Turkey having a population consisting mostly of Muslims is not the reason they were not brought into the union.
As far as Isreal is concerned, that should be for another thread as I see no relation to the orginal subject. But in terms of western, yes, Isreal is far more western in terms of culture than its surrounding nations, the only one that comes close is Lebanon, basically the northern part which consist of many Christians and non-practicing Muslims, they are pretty progressive.
And there is a huge difference between how Palistianians live and Isrealis live. But again, I do not see how it is related to the original question.
However, this does not define "western thought", which is better described as the offshoots of the Greek and Roman culture before the common era, and what is being referred to in the current discussion. Some people confuse the two, since both have the word "western" in them and are epitomized by John Wayne on horseback... (just kidding).
Ancient Israel was influenced both by western and eastern (AKA oriental) thought. References to Greece are clear, and the Torah was translated to Greek by one of the Ptolemy rulers (roughly 200 BCE, IIRC) The Greek era in Judaism is not unknown, most people recognize Ecclesiastes, and have a vague remembrance of Chanukah ...when the Greeks entered the Temple and defiled the oil. To be fair, some have never heard of Maccabees I & II, (it fits between Esther and Job and isn't in the KJV) which lays out a lot of the relationships between Jews and Greeks and Romans. They just don't connect the dots that post-David Judaism was influenced by western thought.
Christianity was formed while Israel was under Roman (western) rule, after the bulk of the Greek (western) influence on Judaism, and was first established as a separate religion by Paul/Saul of Tarsus, a Jew of Roman (western) citizenship. (Christ was not a Christian (follower of Christ), by definition.) That kinda makes Christianity a western religion.
Of course, if you want to argue that point, based on early Judaism being "eastern" then my counterpoint will be to ask you to extrapolate with a straight face why the Mormons don't have a "western" religion. However, that isn't the only roadblock to the (rather silly) claim.
Since "western" thought did not exist prior to the establishment of Greek city-states at the earliest (750 BCE +-), and Israel and Judah were formed prior to that, then Judaism itself at that time was neither eastern nor western, any more than King David was Republican or Democrat, or Shiite or Sunni.
Islam, OTOH, was formed outside of and after of the influence of Rome and the Greeks, and to the east of the "western" culture. Whether it was "Near East" or "Middle East" is problematic. "Until World War II, it was customary to refer to areas centered around Turkey and the eastern shore of the Mediterranean as the "Near East," while the "Far East" centered on China. The Middle East meant the area from Mesopotamia to Burma, ... "
The closest the original argument comes to being true is that the early Jews were Semitic, and there are people of Semitic origin that live in that area today.
As was pointed out earlier, the whole argument is based on linguistic sand, and it has probably less importance than finding out how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
As was pointed out earlier, the whole argument is based on linguistic sand, and it has probably less importance than finding out how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
My point was that Western has no meaning if there is no Middle Eastern or Eastern.
The problem is that most people either view being different as better or worse, while it is only different.
Being Eastern works for the Asians and being Middle Eastern works for the Semites and being Western works for the Europeans (and their off-shoot the Australians and Americans).
The question now is what works best for the world and nature in general, because clearly being modern and Christian (or any other religion and / or philosophy) and Western ( or Eastern and Middle Eastern) does not work well for the earth?
Apologies in advance to readers for this fragmented and somewhat choppy point by point response dissecting Tricky D's previous post. Dissection can be messy at times.
"My point was that Western has no meaning if there is no Middle Eastern or Eastern."
That certainly was not reflected in your opening argument of the thread, and you are drifting in your responses.
"The problem is that most people either view being different as better or worse, while it is only different."
That is a philosophical posit. You have to define your terms better for the posit to have meaning. If the life expectancy of one culture is a brutish and repressive twenty-five years, and the life expectancy in another is an easy and fullfilling life of eighty years, you'll have difficulty convincing most people that both have equal value. There is an element of the posit that does work on a meta-level, but discerning it correctly takes years of training.
"Being Eastern works for the Asians and being Middle Eastern works for the Semites and being Western works for the Europeans (and their off-shoot the Australians and Americans)."
"Works," as in people live relatively comfortably in the context of their own culture? You deny the obvious changes in China, the reversion of Russia to strong man politics after embracing capitalism, the splintering of Judaism in ultra-orthodox, orthodox, reform, and new age, the split between Shiite and Sunni, and so on. People are familiar with their own cultures, but in general once exposed to the lushness of western lifestyle either adopt it or incorporate parts of it into their own. Anthropologists bemoan the loss of unique languages throughout the world, and even more importantly, the folk wisdom of many smaller cultures is similarly lost in the rush towards westernization.
"The question now is what works best for the world and nature in general, because clearly being modern and Christian (or any other religion and / or philosophy) and Western ( or Eastern and Middle Eastern) does not work well for the earth?"
More muddy thinking, and off-topic anyway. Diagram your sentence and you'll see multiple objects. Editing, and breaking it into sections to clarify, it becomes:
""The question now is..."
This indicates your desire to change the subject of the discussion again. In debate, that generally is a concession that the original posit has been abandoned, because it is no longer a tenable position.
"...what works best for the world and nature in general..."
"Works" is a subjective term with multiple possible meanings, depending on your point of view. One argument is that what "works best for the world and nature in general" is a pandemic wiping out humanity. Another is where what "works" is wiping out infidels. Another pov is where what "works" is hunting seals and living in igloos (Inuit, and arguably neither eastern nor western in thought.) Since you don't designate a specific point of view, any direct rebuttal can be deflected with an "oh, I really meant to say...", a muddy squishing that we get all too much of in election years.
Your reply continues:
"because clearly being modern and Christian (or any other religion and / or philosophy) and Western ( or Eastern and Middle Eastern) does not work well for the earth?"
Parsing that muddy phrase, and removing the superfluous modifers, it reduces to the absolutist statement:
"because any religion and / or philosophy does not work well for the earth." Such a statement doesn't work on a logical level, as it implies that the statement, as a subset of philosophical thought, is itself tainted, and that no possible solution is therefor worthy of consideration.
Further, the object of the sentence, "the earth," is muddy as well. It can have multiple meanings in different contexts. It can mean "earth" as a ball of rock and dirt in space," it can mean "humanity as a whole," it can mean what eco-nuts call the "Environment" (note the capital leading letter) that for some reason they think should be static, even though billions of years of history and a few extinctions are the "earth's" own way of telling them it ain't goinna happen.
The bottom line is that you squished away from your original muddy and anti-western argument, which was:
"Can Christianity claim to be Western when they are based on Judaism which clearly is Middle Eastern?'
(Wrong not only because of mixed tenses, but because of your confusion of the physical definition of western as a set of places, with the concept of western thought, as witnessed by this earlier exchange:
Originally Posted by cpg35223
I would consider Greek and Roman civilizations to be Western
Response by Tricky D:
Why?
The Greeks now, like back then, more resemble the Turkish than a Norwegian. Besides the Romans fashioned themselves after the Greeks..)
To think that Greeks and Romans might not be "western," when western thought by definition is Greek and Roman in origin shows the depth of your confusion.
You supporting arguments in that first post were:
"Even democracy is not exclusively a Western invention.
There had been 'primitive' societies who were democratic before they were either conquered or wiped out by European colonists."
Those arguments have zero, zip, nada, to do with Christianity as a western construct, and muddied your claim enough that I ignored it until others churned up that mud. What your early supporting arguments do contain is a common thread of anti-western bias that borders on inflammatory ranting rather than any discussion of history.
The original opening statement has been explored, and thread drift outside of the forum header topic is imminent. Time to move on.
Those arguments have zero, zip, nada, to do with Christianity as a western construct, and muddied your claim enough that I ignored it until others churned up that mud. What your early supporting arguments do contain is a common thread of anti-western bias that borders on inflammatory ranting rather than any discussion of history.
You presume that I believe that Western society is better than others, which I don't.
I mostly associate Western society with capitalism which puts human (individual) wants over the needs that is generally required for a healthy earth.
Healthy as in the many different forms of life; biodiversity. Capitalism and modern technology prefer specialisation over diversity which has always been nature's strategy for survival.
I am a pragmatist and prefer to use whatever works over set patterns (especially if they don’t work). So whether it is Eastern, Middle Eastern or Western is irrelevant to me.
So if you want to wrap it up by calling me anti-Western that is your decision and has nothing to do with me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just find it ironic that Turkey, who was not admitted to the Europan Union on the basis that they are not Western (read: they were Islam instead of Christian) is trying to solve the Israel/Palestinian question on the basis of philosophy instead of religion and / or politics.
Unfortunately the Israelis would like to pass themselves as democratic and Western to create as much difference between Israelis and Palestinians.
Simply because I don’t play favourites.
Even democracy is not exclusively a Western invention.
The question now is what works best for the world and nature in general, because clearly being modern and Christian (or any other religion and / or philosophy) and Western ( or Eastern and Middle Eastern) does not work well for the earth?
Time to wrap this up
