Is it Christian for a Country to open the borders?

1/ On the Golden Rule: is it Christian for a Country to open the borders?

2/ Every morning the UK Parliament starts w/ prayers. The religiously-inspired nature of Parliamentary debates dates back to many centuries. There is, virtually, nothing new in modern moral dilemmas.

3/ Why do I mention the classics? Because UK Parliament used the “Homeric method” of debates that debased those who were not “honorable gentlemen”. You can’t do any political deliberation on Golden Rule w/ trolls. Let alone with payed trolls. (Persia used to pay trolls in Athens)

4/ Aristotle in his Rhetoric says “κυριωτάτην πίστιν έχει το ήθος” (first and foremost you should trust ethos/character). In Rhetoric it’s not the “facts”. Not just the “evidence”. But the character of your opponent has to be established BEFORE any deliberation.

5/ The ignorance, absurdity and ineptitude of American scholarship reached the point of reversing even the english definitions of latin terms. I typically use the “argumentum ad hominem” as an example, where the American Wikipedia defines the exact OPPOSITE of the french one.

6/ Ad hominem argument in French Wikipedia
Ad hominem = check for contradictions + practice what you preach

7/ Now compare with the english version.
Ad hominem: “a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character”.
Deliberately confusing ad hominem with ad personam.
An intellectual scam.

8/ With this simple introduction I’ll make my next point: Forget about the borders. How did the UK Parliament dealt with the French Revolution & execution of the French King?
Should the UK become a Republic? Those were hot issues back then.

9/ Parliamentary reports informed the public by dividing pro-French Revolution politicians in two categories: the BS vendors (radicals) who supported Liberal Revolution showing no character. And those who actually believed in the liberal cause. They took the latter seriously.

10/ In other words: ad hominem = #SITG
Now, should we open the borders? Christian solutions may come by a Bible-inspired politicians. And secular answers may appear by secular humanists. If both have SKIN IN THE GAME in no borders (= took risk e.g. opened their own houses).

11/ Example: Lincoln was inspired by Lord Byron. Byron was not a “liberal poet” because he wrote liberal poems but, mostly, because he sacrificed himself in the cause of Liberal Revolution in Greece against Turks. He had also adopted a 9-year-old Turkish Muslim girl (humanism).

12/ Golden Rule = (do vs. say) = (practicing vs. preaching)
We live in a globalised society and the notion of borders is going to change. Inevitably. Still, we can’t afford radical liberals dominating the debate.


True intentions ≠ Declared intentions

Taking people’s intentions at face value, in public discourse, is a product of failure of western education. The classics & Bible were taught for this exact reason: aiding to detect hidden demons & intentions (e.g. Homeric Trojan Horse).

Greek language (New Testament & Classics) uses verbs particularly to distinguish public intentions from internal (true) ones. μερμηρίζω δόλον: thinking [internally] to harm μηχᾰνάομαι (same root w/ word “machine”): elaborate complex plans, typically to hide intentions

Modern education, dominated by naive STEM logic, teaches the mechanical (materialistic) nature of Truth. Thus, today, the perfect Government is the one which applies the “mechanics” of democracy (e.g. voting) and applies good “mechanical” solutions (bureaucracy).

The classics, however, teach the opposite: Aristotle distinguishes forms of gvmt in good or bad based solely on the TRUE INTENTION of leadership to serve the public interest (of course intention is evaluated by actions). All types of gvmnt are bad when serving private interest.

The word Aristotle uses for intention is “proaireton” (literally “to choose before”). According to classics (and New Testament) a sin (αμαρτια) can be side effect of ignorance. But only if the person REGRETS (and adapt his/her behaviour) it may be considered as involuntary.

Example: Left-wing scholarship promotes group-based BS generalisations: If you belong to X group you’re morally superior. Thus, being poor & evil or rich & good would be a communist logical paradox. After communist atrocities, they never regretted these fundamental logical flaws.

According to christian scholarship, the evil resides:
1. inside our best leadership (Judas one of 12)
2. in our best leader (Peter denied Jesus)
3. inside the Paradise (snake)
Evil-free theories of utopia (leadership w/ no INTERNAL demonic voice) hide evil intentions.

All can be summarised in the concept of *hubris* also referred to as “pride that blinds”. Blindness means, of course, not being aware of the self-destructive side effects. But, again, it’s the product of INTENTION to outsmart instead of researching the Truth in its highest form.

Taleb: I would argue it is not hidden intentions but rather side effects of policies.
That may be true when there is a symmetry in side effects of policies (e.g. Terror in Fr Revolution). But when the side effects concern *others* (e.g. communist revolutions) and not the demagogues themselves (who become powerful), it’s the asymmetry that may reveal intention.


On paganism and christianity

While pagan Kings sacrificed 100s bulls to the Gods, poor & slaves did NOT have any expectations for divine or earthly power. The sacrifice of Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) introduced aggressive decentralisation to theology. So, no @nntaleb, the opposite is actually true.

There were a handful of Gods in ancient Greece, but it’s impossible to quantify christian Saints. Some estimates have the number exceeding 10,000, including countless local saints, raised and born in local regions. You can’t beat this level of embedded decentralisation.

The Greeks introduced voting & elections in a city of free men (Ecclesia). The christian church introduced procedures of voting & elections within religion, with the participation of poor & slaves. The term Ecclesia (ἐκκλησία) appears in NT 114 times.

The fondamental idea of western enlightenment, the Social Contract between governed and governors, was a CHRISTIAN movement of monarchomaques (protestants, catholics) of 15th & 16th c. that promoted the idea of decentralisation of power in Europe.

The fondamental idea of western enlightenment, the Social Contract between governed and governors, was a CHRISTIAN movement of monarchomaques (protestants, catholics) of 15th & 16th c. that promoted the idea of decentralisation of power in Europe.

And the opposite is also true. Neo-paganist movements are fundamentally submitted to animalistic representation of power, embracing the strongest forms of CENTRALISATION. Examples: Thule Society & Nazis LGBT & Wicca paganism.

Question from Nassim Taleb: Yes but Christianity came from monotheism, no?
I avoid terms like monotheism or panpsychism. Jesus framed his teachings on Daemons & Άδης (Hades) & Judgement (Apology of Socrates) & psyche (Thales) + 1000 things not found in “monotheism”. The Christ was worshiped by the Greeks for the same reasons the Jews crucified him.


On a misconception about French Revolution

Most know Voltaire due to his aggressive marketing in spreading radical anti-christian ideas. However, it is another author considered as foundational for the legal framework of the French Revolution: Ironically, a Catholic priest: Sieyès.

Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès or l’abbé Sieyès. This savage dude demolished the legal framework of the Ancien Régime. Established the modern concept of Nation, the need of national assemblies based on active citizens and not privileged casts & rejected utopian revolutionary BS.

In 1789, as the representative of the third state he proposes the most radical idea on French history: to rename the “Chambre du Tiers état” (Chambre of Third State) as « Assemblée des représentants de la Nation » (National Assembly). At that point, the revolution starts.

This detail is exemplary of the level of illiteracy & idiotic ignorance of modern scholars, claiming that “the enlightenment” was just an anti-christian or anti-religious movement. Sieyès, a PRIEST, was PRESIDENT of the Assembly (1790) drafting the 1st constitution.

After the crazy times of the Terror (Maximilien Robespierre), Sieyès returns, once again, to propose something equally radical: the first Constitutional Court to control the constitutional conformity of laws. Ahead of his time.

Voltaire proposed no concrete solution for any sociopolitical problem. BS generalisations were cardinal of “anti-christian humanism”, nothing more than a liberal bloggers virtual signalling from a safe distance. Individuals like Sieyès actually put their skin in the game.


On Atheism

The atheist community proved to be the most toxic proponent of BLIND TRUST & UNCRITICAL ACCEPTANCE OF AUTHORITY in the name of science. There is not a single mental trap atheist soldiers didn’t fall into giving a hint why atheism contributed nothing to our civilisation.

Dawkins, the famous atheist biologist, is maybe the most important impediment that slows down research in biology, by waging a war against systems biology, playing w/ political & media powerhouse dominating national-level textbooks & curriculums. It’s the disgrace of science.

When atheists talk about history, they make communists look like Saints. They criticise Christianity as synonym of “astrology” that “slows down science” while Byzantines where the FIRST civilisation that BANNED astrology & BANNED theology from higher education (pandidakterion).

Tim O’Neill, an atheist himself, does an amazing job exposing the ignorance & stupidity populated by the major atheist celebrities. We’re not talking about a couple of mistakes here or there, but their core understanding of history, totally BS.

Atheists now use their toxic platform to construct “scientific” arguments against Brexit and Trump. So… apparently… “facts” and “science” show that Trump supporters are idiots, victims of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Stephen Fry voiced over a lecture supporting, among other things, the “scientific fact” that immigration decreases the crime rate (!). Bypassing that LEGAL immigration is NOT the same as ILLEGAL, tribalism & pedophilia are among the imported elements.

This reminds me of another peak of Fry’s ignorance, claiming he would prefer the “greek version” of God. With obviously no clue that the Jews didn’t believe in the afterlife judgement… it was the Greeks that did! (From Homer to Apology of Plato).

And this also reminds me of another documentary made by Fry on the issue of depression, promoting the scientific usage of LITHIUM. Of f***ing lithium! Cause that’s what *scientists* told him. Nothing about curcumine, nothing on saffron, nothing on caffein/l-theanine or exercise.

Note: the idea of PRISON, instead of death penalty, was a Christian institution of Canon Law of the middle ages. The Higher Court (Parlement de Paris) created La Tournelle (1436) judging criminal law WITHOUT clergymen. Why? To reinstitute death sentence!

That’s why Montesquieu, although critical of Catholic institution, declared in the “Spirit of the Laws” (1748) that Christian religion overall inspires humanity in western laws. This level of humanity, historically, is NOT found in atheistic & rationalistic regimes.

By using the idea that pedophilia is imported, you are influencing readers in thinking that “these foreign people” are inherently (gut reaction). But the sin you criticize is unfortunately universal, isn’t it?
Everything that I write has a context. All great ancient philosophers lived as immigrants. I’m not going around randomly accusing immigrants. But let’s not pretend a huge problem doesn’t exist. Official child-adult marriages is an “immigrated” problem.

It can be an “immigrated” problem in some polities such as Sweden. But it’s not in the USA where it is legal in most states. I will agree to say that it can be, but it’s not “always” a problem enabled by lax atheists. It’s not foolish to say Christian Americans are at fault too
Just for clarification, in this thread I’m not against all atheists (I praised one in particular). I’m against western atheist intellectuals (aka atheistic scholarship). It is unique. It is unparalleled. Haven’t found any other domain filled – almost exclusively – with ignorance.

In other words, a christian / muslim / jewish author may advocate their religion, spirituality, culture, and it can be a golden treasure. Or trash. But I’ve never seen an atheist writing on atheism, without butchering history, logic, or science (not always in that order).


Objection vs. Disrespect

1/ Distinguishing the fine line between Objection & Disrespect was a key to western culture. Tyrants around the world, for 1000s of years, rejected any serious objection as a form of disrespect.

no objection = no progress.
radical objection = chaos

2/ The most ancient text in western civilisation is Iliad, by Homer.
Epic poems from other cultures praised their glorious leaders. Iliad kicks off with a DEBATE in a COUNCIL & OBJECTION to the leader. According to Homer ignoring objections & warnings is payed by a high price.

3 / The fathers of the church combined Jesus’ OBJECTION to Pharisees, with Socrates OBJECTION to Sophists. Teaching kids how to respectfully object.
That was called as Ecclesiastic Paideia (christian education), combined with Thyrathen paideia (non-christian, classics).

4 / Christianity evolved as the strongest movement of objection to Roman authority.
Today the most illiterate generation in the planet believes that you couldn’t object the Pope. That’s False. Stalin was the true archetype of leader that you could NOT Object.

5/ Example: Today, it’s “common knowledge” that Copernicus was going against the Church w/ his heliocentric model.
In fact it was the Pope & Cardinals that financed him gave him ancient manuscripts & URGED him to publish radically new ideas, OBJECTING the scientists of his time.

6/ Modern constitutions, parliaments, civil liberties & institutions come from British Royalty & Aristocracy, inspiring the french enlightenment. The British moved forward with new levels of objection to the Pope (externally) and objection to their King (internally).

7/ We can summarise the heart of modern civil culture in one phrase “His Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition”. Notes:
– Opposition was written with capital “O”.
– Opposition is NOT disloyalty.

It’s part of being loyal and serving the public interest with opposing views.

8/ German products are superior because in German culture there is a brutal honesty in judging efficiency & productivity. It’s the healthy objection to trash products that makes productivity superior. BS is called out.

9/ Greek philosophy is superior because in Greek culture there was (and still is) a brutal honesty in criticising sources of abstract ideas. Modern ideas by major European philosophers (like Voltaire) are called out as naive wishy-washy culture (θολοκουλτούρα) by the greeks.

10/ China is full of ghost cities. Buildings with materials falling over & elevators breaking so often that some prefer to take the stairs for precaution. Why? Chinese IQ is supposed to be high. Science & tech is thriving. What is missing?No literature of healthy objection!

11/ The phrase “Radical progressive” is oxymoron. Radical opposition is AGAINST healthy opposition, thus against progress.As @promulgatus phrased it “revolutions don’t scale”. They can scale into tyranny quickly since INEPTITUDE survives better by SILENCING OPPOSITION.

12/ When freedom of speech is silenced (like we gradually see in US) there is a major symptom through time: “ACCIDENT ACCELERATION”.
USSR fell from within, after Chernobyl disaster. It was a wake up call that communist kids can’t play with matches without burning the house.

13/ Tsipras is textbook example of marxist accident acceleration. After selling Macedonia, removing classics from examinations, by ignoring all warnings he let a local fire become the 2nd deadliest fire of the 21st century WITHOUT any ALERT or EVACUATION.

14 / We can’t review the topic of OBJECTION in western history without mentioning J. Chrysostom: Archbishop of Constantinople, pillar of Christianity, most prolific Orthodox author, introduced Christmas. He was finally EXILED for his constant OPPOSITION to ABUSE OF AUTHORITY.


“Macedonia” problem is part of a bigger problem

1/ This is written by the infamous JAVIER SOLANA, Secretary-General of NATO & EU Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. He claims “no conflict is unsolvable when diplomatic creativity […]”.

A Tsipras agreement against the 70%+ of greeks is “diplomatic creativity”.

2/ Soros named his son Alexander, and gave him “Macedonia” as a gift. “Project Syndicate” is a fitting name. A mafia syndicate, a CIA/EU/NATO cartel showing off their teeth, their ability to “change history” & our intellectuals (highly educated illiterates) don’t get it.

3 / My take is this: in the end nobody can hide from history. Communism & Nazism were just phases. Claiming themselves to have the eternal glory of Truth, breaking traditional values & historical truth. Seemingly invincible powers were kneeled down by their own incapacities.

4/ When the US foreign policy of Donald Trump goes against 70% of Greeks (polls on Macedonia) & finances the “Macedonia language” propaganda (FBI agents protecting Tsipras) for instrumental reasons (NATO bases, control of N. Greece) this is a SYMPTOM of malignant disease.

5/ We can label this “political disorder” with various names or phrases:

6/ The spirit of this “New World (dis)Order” may superficially take the form of “nationalism” or “globalism” but it accepts the basic marxist premises & terminology:
– capital over higher values
– materialism over wisdom
– money over honour
– instrumental dialectic over truth.

7/ This “disorder” expresses a general LACK OF RESPECT for the TRUTH. And it has plenty of different symptoms:
– There is a reason why the founder of Linux stepped down.
– There is a reason why founder of Python stepped down.
– There is a reason why Google becomes a cult.

8/ There is a reason why Jordan Peterson has a free pass to lecture on the topic of religion & christianity, claiming the exact OPPOSITE of what Jesus said and only a few noticing.

9/ There is a reason why you can say “Byzantine was Rome” in english, and get away with it.

10/ There is a reason why Yuval Noah Harari & Steven Pinker, the Dumb & Dumber of intellectualism, managed to become “philosophers”. There is a reason why “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind” has 5,040 customer reviews. As one reader wrote, it’s “Fun, Enjoyable Easy Read”.

11/ Appropriating the legacy of Alexander the Great is part of the same disorder. But it’s going against gravity. You can buy politicians to change the “laws of gravity” for your own benefit, but in the end you’ll break your neck. There ARE natural laws / truths.

12/ Μore than 140 fake news websites run out of N. Macedonia. A center for Psychological Operations. I warn my friends from day #1: Soros & Trump play the same game in the region. Fake “Macedonia” survives only by selling its soul to the highest bidder.


On European Law and Christian persecution

The French Christmas tradition: religious persecution. Now it has become a legally-binding European obligation. Example: today the city of Béziers is – again – legally persecuted, this time by the State, for placing a Christmas crib in public space.

According to European Court of Human Rights relig. symbols like Christmas cribs are FORBIDDEN to be used by public agents in public spaces of ALL European countries, based on art. 9 of European Convention for Human Rights. Eradicating western christianity is a “human right”

It’s about public agents, not everybody. It’s about religion and state separation.

The game is rigged and dishonest. The point is this: when Greeks or Italians enter EU, do they know that celebrating Christmas in schools is actually illegal against the treaty of human rights? No. Nobody told them. It’s a surprise they’re going to find out in the future.

Christian persecution under European treaty of human rights.

EU has created a Daedalus of legal complexity almost incomprehensible to the average voter. I’ll create a short review here.

2/ The Council of Europe (not EU), founded in 1949, consists of 47 member States that have signed the The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This international treaty is legally binding (“direct effects”) to all members, enforced by The European Court of Human Rights.

3/ This should not be confused with the “indirect effects” of the EU directives by the European Union that have to be harmonised in State laws. ECHR = Direct Effects are Legally Binding (milestone decision: Van Gend en Loos )

4/ The geniuses named “European Court of Human Rights” also as ECHR, …the same short-name with the treaty (!). And as if the confusion is not enough, they named the European Council or Council of the European Union to be confused with Council of Europe. A babel of terminology.

5/ Anyway, according to The European Court, in many of its decisions, the article 9 of the Convention is translated as a ban of public officials (including teachers) to use ANY religious or “philosophical” (sic) symbols. Example: Aktas c/France, 30 juin 2009, req. n°43563/08

6/ Now, the term “law” is used by ECHR with the same value as “jurisprudence”. This means that ALL decisions of the European Court are LEGALLY-BINDING to ALL 47 countries or else…. the country is condemned (including Turkey that was condemned)

7/ Now, while France is CONDEMNED by many decisions (based on article 9) this is NOT applied to other EU countries. Why? The European Court invents many BS excuses to buy time.

8/ The inconsistencies of law are labeled “doctrine”. The most notable doctrine by Eur. Court is the “Margin of appreciation: Italy can keep their crosses in schools – for now – since those religious symbols are judged to be “essentially passive”, not “active”. BS to buy time.

9/ The history of separation of State and Religion (started in US) was NOT removing christianity from public space. It was a western effort for independence from the Cardinals of religion (the middlemen of God) while teaching the Bible in schools.

10/ French Revolutionaries didn’t revolt against the “King”. This is a naive cartoonish version of history. The King had no virtual power, that’s why he couldn’t do any reforms, although he tried. Reforms were blocked by the “higher court” of Paris (Parlement de Paris).

11/ French revolutionaries were mostly LAWYERS (like Robespierre) revolting against the Higher Court of Paris. Robespierre famously said: “Le mot jurisprudence doit être effacé de notre langue” “The word “jurisprudence” [higher court decisions] should be banned from language”

12/ The idea of Nation/Nationalism (article III of the Declaration of Human Rights, 1789) was to REPLACE the Higher Courts with a legislative power, elected by the nation. Today, as Édouard Lambert has said, we go back to the “gouvernement des juges” (government of juges).

13/ There are countless cases in France (and other countries) that the representatives (of the Nation) vote for one thing, and the European Courts reject the new laws as “against the international convention”. The Nations are loosing their legislative power to Courts.

14 / If I go to Saudi Arabia and claim Christianity & Islam are “equal” under the law, this means one thing: persecution of Islam, suppression of islamic heritage from public space. The same when “equality” is applied to a christian nation. Only through christ. persecution.


The working of modern BS

There is a need for new books. Not about Byzantium or Greeks vs. Romans, this has been extensively researched.
We need scholar research on how BS vendors mask themselves as BS hunters. How naive models are masked as complexity science. How parroting makes new academic fields.

It’s a serious issue concerning the future of academic research. A vicious cycle of naive old models → BS venting → BS hunting → naive new models. And all this simplicity in thinking is masked, now, as “complexity science”. The same way Injustice is packed as Social Justice.

Another element is how implicit intimidation works in scientific groups (mob dynamics & peer pressure) excluding criticism. We need to understand how eugenics once spread in most EU countries, how communist science spread, and how uncritical “complex science” may spread as well.

If we study these dynamics, a strange pattern emerges. Religiously inclined scholars become the strongest opposition against scientific BS. When eugenics was a serious trend, Pope Pius XI explicitly condemned sterilization laws. The Pope, yes the Pope, was the hero in this story.

Another detail, revealing the complexity of ethics, science & reason, is that The Fascist government in Italy abstained from copying Germany’s “scientific” racial & anti-Semitic laws until 1938, while Pope Pius XI publicly asked to abstain from adopting racist legislation.

Another Pope, Pius XII condemned eugenics in scientific conferences, but also pioneered in promoting scientific breakthroughs e.g. Big Bang (cosmic egg) proposed by Lemaître (1894-1966), a Belgian priest who dared to criticise & “correct” Einstein’s model of static universe.

From the examples above, we reach an unfortunate conclusion. It might be more easy to criticise Einstein or even the Pope (often Catholics do that in a sophisticated environment of respect) than it is to criticise the infallible Popes of science cults, and their fan clubs.

If you go to any major airport in EU or US you’ll see the same collection of best sellers. If you notice most of them try to do the same thing, to redefine truth, to break the myths, to break the old naive “BS models”. And to do so, they create new naive models. It’s a trend.


The most serious historical fallacies in western academic textbooks

It’s a topic we can’t avoid any more. Let’s start….

(2) Among the most serious historical fallacies:
A. Whig Fallacy (Whig History) dominating western culture after the 19th century
B. Judeo-Christian fallacy, recently dominating UK&US academy after WWII

(3) A – Whig Fallacy
Sir H. Butterfield, Prof of History & Vice-Chancellor of Uni of Cambridge wrote The Whig Interpretation of History (1931) on how historical positivism of the Whigs (political fraction in UK) was based on a series of assumptions creating a western myth.

(4) The “Whig history” sees ancients as having primitive minds, unlike our own, painting certain periods of history with brighter or darker colours (e.g. dark ages).
Butterfield considered this Whig tendency as a “mental trick” drawing false lines of historical causation.

(5) “The fallacy of the whig historian lies in the way in which he takes his short cut through this complexity. […] and impute lessons to history which history has never taught and historical research has never discovered” ~ Sir H. Butterfield

(6) In the 19th century historians deified ancient Greeks & Romans rejecting the significance of the evolution of the christian world with one catchy phrase: dark ages. As if modern institutions (e.g. Universities, Hospitals, Civil Code) appeared suddenly out of thin air.

(7) Of course behind the “Whig history” we have strong political motivation. Friends of democracy & parliament had reasonable bias against a visible & powerful “enemy”: the Catholic Church, representing not only the heritage of the middle ages, but also a strong political actor.

(8) Modern atheistic arguments (e.g. Sam Harris, Dawkins) are almost exclusively based Whig history… on steroids.
Tim O’Neill, an atheist himself, does extensively good job on debunking the BS of pop-scientists spreading their historical ignorance

(9) example: the Greco-Roman values are considered ideal but lost in christian world. Is this true?
Greeks had a temples with 100s of girls pushed to holy prostitution. Romans brutally crucified & killed in arenas. The christian world legally introduced something new: humanism.

(10) B – The Judeo-Christian fallacy
Many people are shocked when they learn that the word “judeo-christian” was introduced in christian scholarship after the WWII and the concept was not used by the fathers of the Church. It was coined by some Jewish converts to Christianity.

(11) In fact Chrysostomus, the greatest father of Byzantine Christianity (Orthodox), also known for introducing Christmas, was explicitly clear on the anti-Judeo nature of Christianity.

(12) The Judeo-Christian myth plays on the ignorance of the masses who falsely believe that:
a. [modern] Judaism is based on Old Testament (it’s not)
b. in a certain time & place a culture was transformed from following the Mosaic law to follow Jesus. This never happened.

(13) The Jewish culture NEVER transformed to Christian. In contrast, the Greek culture transformed to Christian. In the west there was a cultural shift from Plato/Aristotle to Jesus. The Mosaic Law was used only as a reference, never as a cultural or religious belief system.

(14) The proximity between Plato & Christianity (using the SAME greek vocabulary & key-concepts) was explicitly taught by the Church Fathers even by Protestants and philosophers during the enlightenment.

(15) In Voltaire’s philosophical dictionary, in the lemma of “Plato” his first sentence goes like this:
Les Pères de l’Église des quatre premiers siècles furent tous grecs et platoniciens
(The fathers of the Church, of the first four centuries, were all Greeks and Platonists)

(16) The church taught the Greco-Christian history of the west:
Examples from the New Testament
word “prophet” is NOT Jewish, it’s Greek coined by Plato
word ψυχή (soul) coined by Thales (mathematician)
word αμαρτία (sin) used by philosophers
word Genesis is greek

(17) St. Paul had an amazing Greek education, openly acknowledging this reality. Addressing to the Athenians he quotes a Stoic poet on God, presenting “Christian God” as the “Stoic god” of Greeks.
Note: God – Zeus related to Δίας [greek], Deus [latin], Dieu [french]

(18) Both Whig & Judeo-Christian fallacy are products of the same basic assumption: the greeks suddenly disappeared from historical scene (maybe abducted by aliens), deleting 1000 years of Greek Byzantine culture, building a gap in western history. A gap filled with BS narrative.

Some comments:
Western Scholars during the last 300 years copy-paste the same narrative: Greeks where deductive (mathematics) and the west does Science (inductive). This criticism grew out of proportion presenting Greeks as cartoons picking up axioms (models) & blindly believing them.

So this story can be traced back to Descartes & Francis Bacon (Scientific Method) criticising the dogmatic approach of the Aristotelian establishment of their time.
Today it’s different. Scientists don’t read Plato or Aristotle from the original, thus spreading misinformation.

Both parents of Aristotle came from great families of doctors, his father had written a book on medicine. Alexander the Great also had studied medicine. Yes, the greeks proposed crazy medical models but tested them through time. They knew how to play with induction & deduction.

So, it could be essentially anchored in the perceived axiomatic nature of The Elements and its multi millenia influence I guess.
Exactly. The shadow of Euclide was heavy but selecting axioms wasn’t an arbitrary choice. The Greeks examined where axioms lead. The verb άγω (lead somewhere) is found in both induction (επ-αγωγή) & deduction (απ-αγωγή) like athletes trained to run in both directions.