Judeo-Christianization of World Values Not Proximal to Societal Failures

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Aug 5, 2020 at 18:15

The opinion/analysis provided in this previous post alleges many quasi-political things which may, or may not, have contributed to the build-up of 'Western Civilization' subject to the prejudices of conflicting philosophies /theosophies during the couple of millennia since the introduction of the interruption of world history caused by the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of the most controversial person that ever lived. The center of controversy is that many do not concede the importance of this individual, either politically or, in some instances, historically or even religiously. In irony, even as those people who have the ability to claim some association with this native son, more disclaimers are in evidence than confessions of faith. Of such are the contentions of the basis of 'Western Culture.'
Much of the contention of modern observations in whether 'Judeo-Christian' influences were proximal to the later empire building over previous attempts develops around the immediate rejection that 'Judeo-Christian' values do not serve humanity in the way an intellectual interpretation would define how the world would be best served. This contention may have its basis in the observation of the 'Roman Empire's' 'conversion' to the Christian beliefs held by the emperor of the time, Constantine, inculcated in the naming of his new capitol, Constantinople, newly controversial for the issue of the Hagia Sophia being reconverted again back to its first insult, a mosque; a process that is a defeat to Islam since it has yet to prove its basis for replacing Christianity.
Since it is apparent that 'Western Civilization' has yet to validate its superiority as a culture sufficient in modern times that peace is the product. Indeed, much of the contention between Judeo-Christian values and the replacement ideology/theology of Islam is the real basis of the failure of modern civilization being able to come to peace since neither culture(s) is/are willing to concede the real contribution of that life terminated in front of a hill called Golgotha. The inability to negotiate terms of peace in lost because there are no grounds for coming to terms; they are irreconcilable due to the innate contentions that mankind will only survive if one side or the other is given absolute power. Memo to all: neither side as that destiny. 'Western Civilization' is not destined to be the peacemaker entity; neither does Islam rise to the occasion.
So how fares 'Western Civ?' The lawyer's answer is: that depends. The better question is: how does anyone survive? The indigenous lawyers at the foot of the Roman cross could not answer that. But a Roman witness there: truly, this man was the Son of God, the central figure of that time two thousand year ago; and the same person that holds the destiny of humanity today. Elsewhere, the importance of that life that survived the crucifixion of a Roman cross provide that answer: surrender your heart to the heart of the One that sent this person to the cross, asking in His Name to be saved from the wrath to come. What Name(?): even the Muslim knows the Name, going beyond Who the Judeo-Christian has been taught over the centuries.
In English, it is the Anointed Savior. If you know Who it is, then there are no more excuses for turning away; and as we see the world in freefall collapse, being able to call on Him by His Name before it all comes to a flaming end is obviously really, really close.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".