Okay, Cris' part in this is minor until he gives us his opinions. Something he wrote grabbed my attention. :D

The following quote is extracted from a post by [b]Cris[/b], from the [i]Crumbling Foundations[/i] thread. (Post 2/12/2001, 8.27 pm)
[quote]Last week I saw the movie ‘The name of the Rose’ (I think that’s the title), with Sean Connery as a past reasoned inquisitor who is investigating murders at a monastery. What struck me was that a lot of the plot revolved around banned books, or in other words anything that might be seen as criticism of Christianity. I think that we can be quite sure that many books and texts that could have proved the mythology of Jesus was quite indiscriminately destroyed in the early centuries by those early zealots.[/quote]

Well, it got me to thinking. I have been reading through Arthur Koestler's [i]Darkness at Noon[/i], which I have noted in passing in other debates. The novel is a dramatization considering the faults of the Communist Revolution. The following excerpt, taken from pp. 78-79, is an "extract from the diary of N.S. Rubashov, on the fifth day of his imprisonment".
[quote]The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood. He who will be proved right in the end appears to be wrong and harmful before it.

But [i]who[/i] will be proved right? It will only be known later. Meanwhile he is bound to act on credit and to sell his soul to the devil, in the hope of history's absolution.

It is said that No. 1 has Machiavelli's [i]Prince[/i] lying permanently by his bedside. So he should: since then, nothing really important has been said about the rules of political ethics. We were the first to replace the nineteenth century's liberal ethics of 'fair play' by the revolutionary ethics of the twentieth century. In that also we were right: a revolution conducted according to the rules of cricket is an absurdity. Politics can be relatively fair in the breathing spaces of history; at its critical turning points there is no other rule possible than the old one, that the end justifies the means. We introduced neo-Machiavbellism into this country; the others, the counter-revolutionary dictatorships, have clumsily imitated it. We were neo-Machiavellians in the name of universal reason--that was our greatness; the others in the name of a national romanticism that is their anachronism. That is why we will in the end be absolved by history ....[/quote]

The passage runs on, but frankly it becomes a little more specific to the plot of the novel.

But the passage occurred to me when I read Cris' quote cited above. [i]I was wondering why the words seemed so important, and then it hit me to look at the top of the page in Koestler.[/i]

I have often compared Christianity and Communism as large organic social movements, and also as a comparison 'twixt the two in which both have forfeited founding ideals for modern politics. A couple of posters have noted the terrors of Communism in other posts as well. And, given what I found at the top of pg. 78 in Koestler, I think an idea or two might rise to the surface.

The following excerpt is quoted by Koestler. Consider, please, that in 1411, the writer of this passage, Dietrich von Nieheim, Bishop of Verden, was well familiar with the Inquisitory wrath which seems such a rough topic here at Exosci. Von Nieheim wrote, in [i]De schismate libri III[/i], ca. 1411, that
[quote]When the existence of the Church is threatened, she is released from the commandments of morality. With unity as the end, the use of every means is sanctified, even cunning, treachery, violence, simony, prison, death. For all order is for the sake of the community, and the individual must be sacrificed to the common good.[/quote]
[url="http://www.exosci.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000456.html"]http://www.exosci.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/000456.html[/url] is a topic I posted which received no response. Oh, well. But I dredge it up here as a place to start: Why did the clay birds fly away? I think the parallel is reflected in the collapse of Communism, including Koestler's characterization of mid-century partisans, and also in the struggle of the Christian churches to maintain their political influence.

At worst, it gives us a chance to think a bit about two of the most awesomely affecting social movements of the last century.

Hope it makes some sense ... ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
[i]No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone?[/i] (Floater)