gay canaries

The moral Dark Ages? Hardly. By the end of the fourth century Christianity was established. The world of Europe was now Christian and there are two works that we can look at that cover the period: Christian historian Henry Milman's History of Latin Christianity, and William Lecky's History of European Morals as prominently referenced by Joseph McCabe. These two historians agree entirely that Europe passed into a state of moral chaos. Dean claims that the evil was new, not inherited from the pagans, and it grew worse and worse as the world moved farther away from paganism.For the fifth century we can heavily rely on the priest Salvianus who describes the morals of the Christians around him during this time in his writing, On the Providence of God. In it he writes, (iii, 9): "Besides a very few who avoid evil, what is almost the whole body of Christians but a sink of iniquity? How many in the Church will you find that are not drunkards or adulterers or fornicators or gamblers or robbers or murderers -- or all together?" Furthermore the letters of the contemporary Pope Leo I support Salvianus.Over the next few hundred years there is a very thin and meager monkish record. The only indication we have of the moral condition for this time are Papal documents, letters of bishops, etc. These illuminate a time of not great morals either. In a letter to Rome from Germany of St. Boniface to the Pope, Boniface writes (ep. xlix): "Today for the most part in our episcopal cities the seats are assigned to greedy laymen or adulterous clerics or wenchers, to enjoy the material benefits of them." We can also see what is happening in the 7th century by looking at violence within the papacy. Looking at the chair of Peter itself, it was filled by no less than twenty-one Popes in succession in the one hundred years after the death of Gregory, all wanting their moment of power. Heck just look what happened to Leo III who was attacked about the face and eyes by members of the previous Pope's family, who hoped to render him unfit for the papacy.Then around the beginning of the 10th century we have a record of a rather brutal and immoral event within the Church. As Jospeh Mcabe shows in The Story of Religious Controversy, "Stephen VI became Pope, after a bloody contest of the various factions. He ordered the body of one of his predecessors, Formosus, who had been several weeks buried, to be brought to the Papal palace. The stinking corpse was clothed in the pontifical garments and propped in the throne. The august representative of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the channel of God's mercy to the human race, gathered his "cardinals" (the name was already in use) and bishops round the ghastly object, and they vented upon it a fury such as one would hardly expect savages to show to a corpse. In the end they cut three fingers from the right hand of the putrid body, and flung it into the Tiber. [...] Here, moreover, we have the highest and most official representatives of what was understood to be the highest thing in Christendom, quite openly and officially perpetrating this orgy of barbarism. If that was Rome and the Papacy at the end of the ninth century, what was likely to be the condition of Europe in general?"He goes on later stating, "Rome was more generally corrupt than it had been in the days of the insane Nero or the feeble-minded Elagabal; and this corruption was intimately connected with the general illiteracy. It is on record that at this time some of these members of the highest Roman nobility could not write their own names; how many could we do not know. It is useless to ask us to consider these vices as relics of paganism, when we know that from being a generally literate city, and in its higher class a very refined and cultivated city, Rome under the Popes had sunk to an illiteracy that has no parallel elsewhere in the history of civilization."Overall the Dark Ages were not some supreme time of peace and it contained very little political unity. Before Charlemagne’s Empire much of Europe was extremely fragmented under a vast amount of various wealthy Feudal Lords who were constantly warring each other for more land, wealth, or even people. The religious unity of Europe was without a doubt existent though. People had literally no real way to think of anything else since the literature of the ancients and their knowledge was viciously destroyed by both Christians and the invading barbarians during the time. It lasted for as long as it did not because it was morally strong and unable to fall, but because it wasn't really an Empire of any sense. Empires do not consist of isolated and politically fragmented areas that go to war with each other. If such is the case then it is not an Empire in the same sense that Europe is not one huge Empire today. When Charlemagne did unify a major part of Europe (9th cent.) it didn't even last long and was split into 3 different kingdoms, showing you just how unstable the area was.During the height of the Dark Ages it was a time where the Clergy were vastly dominating the peasants, of which they kept ignorant of knowledge and subjugated with superstition. The Clergy was often very rich. Bishops were feudal lords, and later had seats in the British House of Lords, for example. While many peasants worked in mud and lived in mud Bishops built castles with moats and towers, and abbots in monasteries lived in large fine homes in splendor, as McCabe remarks. I think Le Fevre sums it up when he had said, "They take no care of us at all, they live scandalous lives, they tread upon our heads The common people make and deliver everything, and still cannot live without being tormented and ruined by the clergy The prelates are raging wolves"

1) You appear to have answered your own question in the same paragraph. I am not concerned about where you are coming from personally and I am only focused on your comments.Note that you search for some evidence about me and my fispoditionnin this quote:"I am curious why you keep refering to me as "emotional"? Did you perhaps watch "The dirty dozen" one to many times? Or do you perhaps fancy yourself as another version of Lee Marvin"2) In regard to the examples of failed societies NOT part of the point I make, those not part of Western Culture, I have no knowledge to respond on those facts.3) It seems that you also miss the point of what I do say and invent things which I did not say, not to be critical of you but in hope I can draw your attention again to the statement I made.Hedonism, inclufing the open expression of homosexuals has always been concurrent with the fall of the successful socirty in Western Culture EXCEPT for the 1000 years of Monastic stoicism during the Dark Agesbof Universal Roman Catholicism.To this I added that the re-birth of physical and carnal hedonistic devotion to pleasure again came into vogue and was duped the title of Rensissance to mark its long 1000 year absence.That this re-birth would again demonstrate a series of Western European rises snd failed societies substanciates that tgere is a one0one coorelation between Stoicism and the longivity of a society in Western Culture.Rev. 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, (the subtle cultural system of exploitive sexual mores), that old serpent, (Arian paganism), which is the Devil (of sexual license), and (libidinal lustfulness of) Satan, and bound him, the dragon, (throughout the) 1000 years (of the Dark Ages),

Ok and for the last time I say how is this statement true if Rome was thriving for centuries with Bath houses and Orgies and the Colosium bathed in blood? How did the Greek and Spartans have thriving civilizations with open homosexuality and hedonism rampant within they're culture. Your original statement, your revised statement and your current statements are all based on your views of morality and dogmatic religous hopes to associate inmorality with the failures of society. I wrote in my last post that to give credence to your position you must show evidence that hedonism was responsible for Romes collapse and also you must prove that the 1000 years of the Dark ages was without hedonism. If you can't show this evidence then your argument is speculation. *edit to add..Please do not regurgitate the same stupidity you have been hacking on your keyboard show the evidence or shut the fuck up. My apologies in advance to admin but this has gone far enough.[This message has been edited by 1.61803, 04-08-2004]

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Why is God Eurocentric?

God is not Eurocentric. God is human all to human says Fredrick Neitzche. I say that if Triangles had a god he would have 3 sides.

We seem to agree in what you report from history.By the 4th century, however, Christianity went from martyrdom of ten years, 303-313AD under Emperor Diocletian to the the Toleration of Constantine and in 324 AD the State Religion of Rome.1) Little is know for a 1000 year from @ 500 AD- 1492 except that Monasticism was the system under which Western Culture endured. The early part of this period saw Christianity instaledl under edit by Constantine in the Nicene Creed. 324AD. Paganism, as you noted, experienced a terrible battle and a tearing down of its temples. This a period that soon gave way to the darkness of history which you mention has little commentary beyond the letters such as you refer to.What we do know is that pagan hedonism was underground.2) Paganism was unopposed prior to the edit of Constantine @ 324 AD, recognizing Christianity as the official and mandatory religion of Rome. It re-established itself for a short period @ 362AD. Then, it was largely replaced with a mandatory Christian morality which we can only assume from the general Monasticism which gradually replaced it.3) As regards to your commentary about the greed and violence, including the reports you mention about the personal affairs of popes and such, this does not concern the mstter of a general and open Canary Syndrome as a sentinel to an out of control public Hedonism.4) The fact remains that authority in Western Culture last until Hedonism was, as you say, "re-born."5) The sexual excess in the society, hedonism, called Satan by these people, emerged at the end of the 1000 years after being bound by tge chains of the church morality. Certainly this was a gradually reinstitution. That it took place, the Renaissance, by definition recognizes that it is true. That it was predicted is not amazing but actually an early social experiment in Sociology.Rev. 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, (the subtle cultural system of exploitive sexual mores), that old serpent, (Arian paganism), which is the Devil (of sexual license), and (libidinal lustfulness of) Satan, and bound him, the dragon, (throughout the) 1000 years (of the Dark Ages),

Good to hear we're on the same page. I would be interested in some evidence for this rather then an assumption that it didn't filter out from the clergy as McCabe believed it had. Considering, the devotion to pleasure seemed fairly prevalent in the clergy, which by my definition is hedonism. Pope Stephen IV, along with cardinals, had certainly been open about his partaking in the pleasures of crude torturous acts towards a corpse he had hated in life. Authority among Europe as a whole was rather splintered in all the chaos of the Dark Ages. There wasn't a standing army to police everyone and military conflicts between feudal lords were numerous. Leading up to and including The Renaissance authority seemed to have gravitated to larger kingdoms much more. The Dark Ages certainly lasted long, but for good reason. An Empire is hard to hold together, we've seen time and time again in history of Empires being crushed from their own weight. However, The Dark Ages saw little centralization and unity among Europe with the exception of Charlemagne's brief empire. It is important to remember this when recognizing the length of the Dark Ages.

1) For the last,... naa.. I don't mind repeating over and again...
A) YOU ASK ME:" I wrote in my last post that to give credence to your position you must show evidence that hedonism was responsible for Romes collapse...."NO. MY POSITION IS SIMPLY THAT BOTH ARE CONCURRENT.(Both are present at the same time.)I HAVE NOT RESTATED OR REVISED. I HAVE REPEATED THAT BOTH ARE PRESENT AT THEIR PEAK.( I have not postulated that one causesvthe other. That both are present IS the Canary Syndrome.)2) YOU ALSO ASK THE FOLLOWING:
"...and also you must prove that the 1000 years of the Dark ages was without hedonism."THAT CHTISTIAN MORALITY REPLACED OPEN HEDONISM SEEMS OBVIOUS.(The public stocks for people who broke the moral code were still around as late as 1776. And, the history of witch trials of fornicators {assumed under the influence of Satan} are a matter of record availabe in any library. It seems like over kill to point this out repeatedly.)

Today the God of Hebrew scripture is recognized world wide, and exactly 1/2 of the population of 6.66 billion are either Jewish/Christian/Muslim.It is not God that is Eurocentric but the prophecy in scripture is, and in particular the Book Revelation.Nietzche said God was once with us but he finished his work and now is dead.Buckminster Fuller said that the only stable structure in the universe is the triangle.I said that every Western European Empire at its heigth of power was also at its extreme of Hedonism.(Note that I did not say that one caused the other.)Then I said, every Empire suddenly crashed not to rise again.
(Note: I did not say that it fell because of hedonism, only that the Canary Syndrome has always been present.)

Your question:"I would be interested in some evidence for this rather then an assumption that it didn't filter out from the clergy as McCabe believed it had."kofh 2 u:
Hedonism isn't defined as illicit sex by priests, or witch-like orgies in the secrecy of the forrest. Neither is hedonism the name for the present sexual improprieties in the church today.YOU SAY:
"Authority among Europe as a whole was rather splintered in all the chaos of the Dark Ages. There wasn't a standing army to police everyone and military conflicts between feudal lords were numerous. "Of course, we reallydo not know much about that. It was historically speak, on the written record of history.... a dark time in history.
You point out that political factions had there differences, but the ultimate social control was theocratic, and vested in Universal Catholicism. The culture was a willing monasticism of Christian Stoicism evidenced in the art of those 1000 years prior to the Renaissance.Now the point is that we seem to ge a warning right before a cataclysmic change from rich and successful times to fall and destruction just when a social Carpe Diem is the rule in the cultural life.This we are calling the Canary Syndrome.Rev. 20:1 And I saw (mentally), as it were, an angel, (a psychic aspect to my thinking), come down from heaven (of thoughts in my mind), having the key (of social evolution) for the bottomless pit (of time) and a great chain (of social restraint) was in his hand.Rev. 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, (the subtle cultural system of exploitive sexual mores), that old serpent, (Arian paganism), which is the Devil (of sexual license), and (libidinal lustfulness of) Satan, and bound him, the dragon, (throughout the) 1000 years (of the Dark Ages),Hedonism, especially notable at it peak is Carpe' Diem behavior in a society.

Greetings, The definition that I've been accustomed to was that it is when human beings act in any such way as to maximize all pleasure, in a sense, to devote themselves to various pleasures. I've obtained this from study in psychology; as well, the Oxford dictionary I have is of the same definition.If your definition is different then it would better explain contradictions that I had assumed. I'd ask you to clarify your definition. I agree that theocratic rule during this time was extremely prevalent, but I wanted to make it clear that it certainly wasn't a time of peace and harmony. If various feudal lords weren't fighting amongst themselves they were fighting some of the constant invading pagan tribes. You may be in agreement with this then. Is it your belief then that the Renaissance was a time of "fall" and destruction rather then a period of intellectual and economic progress? What do you mean by this?I have two questions concerning a reply to another: 1) Including the Carolingian Empire? The British Empire?2) Wasn't it your previous argument that Rome had "grown" in hedonism; then it reached its height shortly before its destruction? This runs into the problem that Rome's height is around 200 AD, 100+ years before its "height" in hedonism. Please clarify.Thanks,Garf[This message has been edited by Garf, 04-10-2004]

1) Hedonism:
The peak of hedonism in a society is called Carpe Diem.Hedonism is a philosophical outlook, one of about a dozen to be found in every society. I am saying, that when hedonism gradually embraces the philosophical outlook of most people in a society, when the society itself becomes motivated by this philosophy, the society, as a whole is hedonistic. This is the condition that I am reporting as having been observed historically in empires just before they fall.Hedonism, "maximize all pleasure, in a sense, to devote themselves to various pleasures," according to your definition...Your definition seems appropriate. I would contrast this philosophical social behavior with that behavior to be found in the stoicism of a christian or muslim theocracy, for instance.2)YOU SAY: "I agree that theocratic rule during this time was extremely prevalent" (how about 100%? It was calked Universal Catholicism)But, you apparently are having difficulty in separating the military and civil authority from the effect of the sexual mores, the social norms, and the general social behavior in the culture.Stoic, theocratic behavio, asr in Islamic countries, like Egypt, though ruled by secular government, still enforce strict Sharia religious observance. Its cultural, not political social control.In the fall of Wester Empires, I am saying that the sexual mores, the social norms, and the general docial behavior before the fall has been a growing hedonism culminating in Carpe Diem.3) You ask if I am saying that the Renaissance was a fall.Yes and no.It was a resurgence of hedonism, a new direction of pleasure goals, and a rejection of the 1000 years of stoicism. For that "empire", the Universal Catholic empire of the Pope, the fall was again marked by the license society given to opening the society to a pursuit of pleasyre. Martin Luther was only 2 centuries away. zThe pleasure objects did not cause the change per se, but it was concurrent once again and by contrast with the previous mores, it must have seemed rampant. Canary Syndrome again.For that theocracy, again, hedonism once more present at the very moment of its fall.Of course, you are correct in implying that that fall was different. Stoicism (Monasticism) went to hedonism... most certainly caused de facto BY hedonistic philosophy in the peoole of the culture. If it were not for the opposition of the Inquisition, this fall eould have been without violence and mayhem.
But, as were all other falls, it was nevertheless accompanied by a replacement, Italy in this case, which would risie up in the ashes of a failed stoicism.In this case, the very reappearance and emerging devotion to pleasure was the philosophical force, both the end and fall of Stoicism, by definition, and, concurrently, the seed which would grow to fall with Italy before a rising Spain.4) In England, about thev19th century the rage of philosophical conversatin and the popular promotion of hedonism took the form of what seemed tge new idea of Utilitarianism, fuped zBritish common sense in smug social gatherings. Badu=ically, the argument was that every physical pleasure was to be a devotion unless it harmed others. The idea was pleasure by majority rule, all was oermisdible as long as most people felt it was ok. Thevproblem was, of course, no one really could tell when the majority excesses where hurting others , especially if people looked the other way.The point being, to answer your last question,... yes, in this we see the hay day of Britainia and the canary syndrome in together once more.This time, however, the Chambelains of Nazi appeasement and the draft dodging Englishmen would get help, and a second life, because of its "son" over seas, America....Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away (in the spirit of thought), into the
wilderness (of my imagination) and I saw (as if) a woman, (those who have institutionalized a system of sexual seduction into a failed matrimony), sit upon a scarlet coloured beast (of a brazen and corrupt sexually misdirected economic system), full of names of (Pagan) blasphemy, having seven heads, (which existed in (1) Egypt, (2) Assyria, (3) Babylon, (4) Persia/Mede, (5) Greece, (6) Rome (7) the whole of Western Culture to follow) having ten horns upon these seven heads:
(1. Anarchy, 2. Lombard-Vandalism, 3. Papacy, 4. Charlemagne, 5. Holy
Roman Empire, 6. Italy, 7. Spain, 8. France, 9. Britain, 10. Nazi Germany).Is Pan America next... the Canary Syndrome certainly is singing the Wedding March in Ametica, is it not?

Greetings, It seems then we're meeting with a definition of hedonism as presented by psychology and, yours, by open acceptance of the philosophy behind it. Yours is now noted. I do not concede 100% because during the continual arrival of northern invaders, and finally the latter invaders such as the Vikings during the falling of Charlemagne’s Empire, there existed tribal groups of these people, who often pillaged towns, within Europe who were still worshiping pagan gods. Through time, though, they were assimilated like those of the past. Other then that I would agree with a universal acceptance of Catholicism. The continual remarks of the military conflicts were in reply to your earlier statement referring to the Dark Ages as peaceful. Again, I wanted to make clear that the word peaceful is certainly not a good choice to describe these times. If you’re using it as some type of metaphor for cultural unity it was obscure. Yes, this is understood. However, you earlier mentioned that the height of the hedonism took place during the height of these said Empires. As per the example of Rome, hedonism seems to reach its height close to Rome's fall while Rome's actual height is attributed to be around 117 AD.It appears that the height of an Empire does breed the beginnings of hedonism due to the prosperity of its people, i.e. prosperity often brings idleness, or leisure time, among the middle-class. Though the height of the hedonism doesn't necessarily have to be during the height of the empire.Thanks,Garf[This message has been edited by Garf, 04-10-2004]

Taken to the personal level, at 56 I can attest after a 40-year stint of extreme hedonism, the first effects were related to shortened sexual interludes, followed by no sex, and now cardiovascular disease that requires a double bypass and valve surgery hopefully followed by many years of post-hedonistic moderate restorationism.Screw the Empire. Save the Person.Peace in the Pulminary

You can no doubt see why this conversation is not unique to us, the question of why Rome fell.
The book shelves are full of both modern and still being developed theories on that subject. Every historian who touches upon the subject seems to couch his own take in a blanet statement that no one knows.
For sure, they mean. They give a list of items in every case, failed citizenship, anti-Roman sentiment, taxs, invaders, .... All symptoms in my opinion.I see that the Canary Syndrome is a red light, a flash of High Temperture on the social thermometer of a sick empire. Just another symptom, but notable in that it is a Cultural symptom, whereas the others are political symptoms. Politics and religion, agrument is endless, Empire is not.That the Cultural Canary Syndrome is present now seems a red light to us, culturally. Maybe instead of suspecting outside cause we need to do what culture suggests, look in the mirror. What are "we the people of the government... for and by tge government... are we irresponsible and child-like?If the psychological definition of Hedonism produces individual behaviors in so many people tgat social philosophical attitude is hedonistic, tgen are most people under tge influence of that cauldron of impulses, that human Id, source of the Pleasure Priciple?Consider the defintion of the psychic aparatus of The Pleasure Principle:
"I want what I want. And, I want it now. I believe it won't hurt me or others to have it, so I want it. Right now. But, even if it will hurt me or others, I still want it."Pain/pleasure is a necessary and useful mental facility... especially for infants. But, now we are grown up, and hedonism seems make youthfulness and an extended adolescence the reality of the "times." Does it not?One would be hard pressed to deny that culture is a function of Attitude.What is in the present cultural attitude that contains the seeds of failure?If the present success was a family business, what is the dufference in attitude between grandpop who built tge business, and us, his heirs and benefactors?Rev. 17:6 And I saw the woman, this cultural institution, drunken with the blood of the (Old Testament) saints, and with the blood of the (Christian) martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration (for her deception was insulated from criticism).