What Were The NOBLE PAGANS? w/ John Daniel Davidson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 май 2024
- Full Episode Coming Soon!
John Daniel Davidson answer's a question Matt Fradd asks him about how his thesis about paganism fits with the idea of the noble pagan. John talks about their lack of power and what that says about the Pagan cultures.
🟣 Join Us on Locals (before we get banned on YT): mattfradd.locals.com/
📖 Fr. Pine's Book: bit.ly/3lEsP8F
🖥️ Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
🟢 Rumble: rumble.com/c/pintswithaquinas
👕 Merch: shop.pintswithaquinas.com
🚫 FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔵 Facebook: / mattfradd
📸 Instagram: / mattfradd 
Развлечения
![Darren Waller - Who Knew (Her Perspective) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GytDjB8u6bM/mqdefault.jpg)
Watch the full interview NOW on Locals mattfradd.locals.com/post/5591397/neo-paganism-abortion-and-the-fall-of-the-west-w-john-daniel-davidson
Was Thomas Aquinas considered a Humanist?
Noble pagans exist today. I sponsored one into the Catholic Church last year: a born mystic interested in philosophy, knowing sin and temptation and virtue firsthand, from a harsh background with little Christian influence. We're going to see a lot more of them in the near future, emerging from the big new God-free zones of America and Europe, and they will be marvelous specimens even before the Church gets to work on them. There probably won't be any Catoes or Aristotles since the world doesn't value clarity of thought that much anymore, but we'll have impressive converts of every kind, from Mortimer Adler to John Wu to Red Cloud.
Cato didn't rule? He was a very prominent politician. Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great. Trajan was considered a noble pagan by Dante too.
Ceasar ruled. Pompey ruled. Aristotle did not rule, Alexander did. They will have influence, but they never rule.
Alexander the great left his kingdom too whoever was strongest. Also he idolized diogenes, so he couldn't have been _that_ smart even after learning from Aristotle.
Just because a man is a Great man of history doesn't make him a good man.
@@marvalice3455 He may have said "Krateros" (the name of one of his generals), but Krateros was not around, and the others may have chosen to hear "Kratistos". Another, more plausible, story claims that Alexander passed his signet ring to Perdiccas, a bodyguard and leader of the companion cavalry, thereby nominating him as his official successor. The story about Diogenes is of dubious historicity as well.
Marcus Aurelius was a noble Pagan and he was Emporer of Rome for about 20 years.
Virgil was a noble pagan poet. In Eclogues, some say he predicted the coming of Christ.
I agree. And yet, Dante, in his "Divine Comedy," placed Virgil in Limbo.
When Pagans clash with Pagans the worse one usually wins because of whom their “gods” back
This is straight out of "The Road to Serfdom" (Hayek).
List of Noble Pagans Who Ruled
Hector of Troy
Alexander The Great
Julius Caesar
Marcus Aurelius
Trajan
Darius The Great
King Leonidas of Sparta
Aurelian
King Conchobar mac Nessa of Ulster
Some of these maybe but many no. Julius Caesar noble? Certainly not. The more one reads about him the more certain that he was a megalomaniac willing to kill thousands just for his ego. There’s a reason they said Cato was, who was Caesar’s rival
@@alexander3034 I do agree that he is a rather ambiguous figure and whether he was noble or not depends on your interpretation of his character.
Was he an egomanic who was only in it for himself? Or was he a man who saw his country falling apart and was doing what he had to do to save it?
During the medieval era he was seen as one of The Nine Worthies, on par with King David and King Charlemange, and I think that counts for something.
Great men are not synonymous with noble men.
Often they are the opposite.
Christopher Check did a great talk for the ICC using a section of Chesterton’s Orthodoxy as a guide about the noble pagans. Good stuff!
Do you plan on releasing the full interview? Soon?
How can you compare Jordan Peterson to Aristotle.
Exactly. I like Jordan Peterson, but he is nothing compared to Aristotle. None of JPs ideas are original. Don’t get me wrong I love him. However, I think his contribution to the social moment is mostly over unless he continues to move towards the theist position. I haven’t heard him say anything in recent years that wasn’t already expressed in his text Maps of Meaning. He’s a stepping stone to truth for many people, but he is caught in limbo. I get pretty tired of hearing his various stories of chimp communities and play among rats.
I think it’s an analogy by a type or category and not in magnitude.
He’s just listing examples.
If he said Cicero and Trajan, that doesn’t mean he’s saying they’re equal.
Both would be better if the accepted Christ.
In pagan Rome the discarding of babies was condemned by everyone that wrote about it e.g. Musonius Rufus and Julius Paulus
And Saint Augustine. I am currently reading City of God. Being opposed to abortion is fundamental to the Christian faith.
What about Marcus Arulius
Having the evolution of the "arguments" by the baby killers and the child mutilators laid out like that really makes my mins boggle at how this is allowed to happen.
Peterson is Christian Catholic. He just hadn't said it
The Roman Empire was awesome
Such embarrassing ignorance of history. Abortion became illegal in Roman law as the deprivation of a man’s right to an heir. Exposed children were more than likely picked up at appointed spots by people who wanted one. This fellow lacks basic knowledge, ‘like, you know’, of classical culture.
So your word vs his huh?
@@marvalice3455 And is he widely published in scholarly classical journals both here and in Europe?
The exposure of infants, very often but by no means always resulting in death, was widespread in many parts of the Roman Empire. This treatment was inflicted on large numbers of children whose physical viability and legitimacy were not in doubt. It was much the commonest, though not the only, way in which infants were killed, and in many, perhaps most, regions it was a familiar phenomenon. While there was some disapproval of child-exposure, it was widely accepted as unavoidable. Some, especially Stoics, disagreed, as did contemporary Judaism, insisting that all infants, or at least all viable and legitimate infants, should be kept alive. Exposure served to limit the size of families, but also to transfer potential labour from freedom to slavery (or at any rate to de facto slavery). Disapproval of exposure seems slowly to have gained ground. Then, after the sale of infants was authorized by Constantine in A.D. 313, the need for child-exposure somewhat diminished, and at last - probably in 374 - it was subjected to legal prohibition. But of course it did not cease.
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 84 , November 1994 , pp. 1 - 22
not always but often resulted in their deaths.
Once the child was delivered, the midwife checked the newborn for any deformities. The father, who held the legal right to expose the newborn child, would then decide whether or not to rear the infant. An unwanted infant might be exposed, that is abandoned. Seneca the Elder (4 BCE to 65 CE) notes in his De Ira that many fathers have the custom of abandoning babies who are weak or deficient in body parts (1.15.2). The infant could also be exposed if it was a female and was seen as more of a financial burden, but male children might be exposed, too, to avoid the costs of raising them or to prevent family property from being divided. Additionally, where the abortion route may have been unwanted, or due to illegitimacy, pregnancy may have been brought to term with the newborn then exposed to die. Exposure, however, did not always mean the death of an infant, it could also include having the unwanted child being raised by others.
John does 0 research into anything. His whole "Pagan ethos" of "Nothing is true and everything is allowed" is from a video game. He doesn't actually know anything.