Peter Frost has some good arguments as to why Edward Gibbon may have been (God bless the old pagan) partially right in attributing Rome's fall to "Christianity". I think the main point here is that we "Christians" have absorbed a rather vain glorious view of ourselves (necessary as children, shameful in an adult) in which people like Saint Martin of Tours didn't essentially act as an imprudent jerk in abandoning all of Gaul to the barbarians in favor of his monastery. Sulcipius Severus has the whole story, if you want to look it up. Of course, it's hard to judge a man (let alone a saint's) heart, but it does seem like the Christian religion unnecessarily abandoned the legitimate use of the sword. Looking at what passes for "Christianity" these days, one can certainly sympathize with the old Romans who saw it as a religion for the weak, the deracinated, the effeminate, and those dead to Roman customs. Or take the story of Iceland's conversion - peace was made by the man respected by both sides, but as soon as he died, the "Christians" violated their agreements with the pagans. Should we return to the Runes?
Not having read the book, I am not sure if Gibbon's points are good, bad, or otherwise. I would pose though that his apparent premise is false. It is true God could have used Christianity to bring down the Roman empire. It is also true that Christian men today (in many cases) have become a group of effeminate, luke warm, spineless sissies (stating it nicely) and could have also been back then. But looking back at history, you can see the normal progression of rise and fall of nations. Some have longer lives than others but Newton's law still pretty well applies; what goes up must come down. The Roman empire had been on a downward track out of glory for quite a while. We could look into the many causes, but a few less swords on the battle front, I dare say, was not the reason.
ReplyDeleteAnother point, it is interesting as you look at the overall rise and fall of nations, it seems that it can be sometimes connected to that nations overall religious views. I haven't really researched this to back it up. But since Christ, I wonder if a nations rise doesn't have a lot to do with it being a Christian nation and its fall have a lot to do with the nation falling away from Christ. Just a thought I have been pondering lately.
Wanderer, thanks for posting, and thoughts are always more than welcome. The advent of the Christ certainly altered the fabric of reality in some way, possibly to be manifested on civilizational levels as well. I'd like to say more, but my thoughts are a bit disorganized as of yet. We seem to agree on the dangerous state of masculinity in the West, but I don't want to trivialize the decline of Rome by subscribing to inevitability, which way seems to be that of death. If freedom from destiny and sin in the superconscious states of being "near to God" mean anything, they certainly would have to include the possibility of "one man saving the Empire". The law of "what goes up must come down" is a karmic law pertaining to the material level, which exercises tendencies at higher levels of reality but which cannot be a "Law". The loss of that esoteric discipline and consciousness has been a dangerous mix within "Christianity" for some time now.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you if you were talking about a karmic law. Any "karmic law" that mixes with our thinking and holds sway enough on our beings to displace or even rival God in our lives is and should be stomped out immediately. I however am referring to God's law or maybe better stated how God has created the universe. God has created an universe of rationality, logic,and trends. This is why you see such things as trends in history (i.e. rise and fall of empires). In understanding this we can better grasp and offer up all the more praise to our heavenly Father for the wonder of his creation and the unwrapping of his plan in it. The danger in all this though is to presume that God must act inside the framework that he has made. I believe he does because it is part of his nature but that is not to limit him to he must.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are hinting at is "miracle", and are quite right to do so - I wouldn't quibble with anything you said there. What I am suspecting (more and more) is that what we call "miracle" is actually what God prefers to do, which is freedom for both man and Himself - in other words, man's goal is to become someone who has "faith to move mountains". Or, as Boethius (and Dante) put it, here "love and Fate are one". This is not a pipe dream, but the way things "actually work", not mechanically, but right now (if we could see it). This is the whole paradox of "what you seek, you will find" - it's "law", but also freedom. I admit to being a neophyte first class, so this may be a poor way to put it.
ReplyDelete