How Politics Hijacked Science and Religion
- Thread starter Michie
- Start date
- Status
probinson
Legend
- Aug 16, 2005
- 22,314
- 2,954
- 46
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
This is exactly what gaslighting looks like. Real-world results literally all over the world have demonstrated that masks have completely and utterly failed to control the spread of COVID-19. But look at my laboratory controlled study! Don't look at actual real-world results! All of this is "cherry-picking" data, doncha know?
And so, the propaganda continues.
And so, the propaganda continues.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 26,083
- 11,394
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Back to cherry-picking. But in an apples-to-apples comparison, we find masks were effective in reducing infection rates. Would you like me to show you, again?
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 26,083
- 11,394
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
The reason you don't want to look at the real-world results is that they don't support your assumptions. As you learned, the average infection rate of states with mask mandates is significantly lower then the average infection rates of states without mask mandates. If you like, I can show you again.
The lab results merely explain why masks work to protect other people.
Upvote
0
Ignatius the Kiwi
Dissident
- Mar 2, 2013
- 7,056
- 3,767
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
It's not a matter of holier than thou but an enforcement of the law. The people were not wrong that this woman deserved death (she did deserve death under the law of God). Jesus was not wrong to point out that we are all equally sinners and that none of us really has the right to cast the first stone. Yet we're not talking about a specific incident in the life of our Lord, but the application of Christian morality to the whole of society. If we were to apply this broadly, then there can be no lawful use of force in any case. Not just adultery, but in any crime because none of us has the right to condemn the other. The end result of this sort of interpretation is paralysis. Thus I don't see how this can pertain to the Christian understanding of secular law or how we ought to rule or be ruled.
If this is your argument that we ought not have Christianity as a standard for law it seems weak to me. Because here does not address what a Christian polity or people should do. He addressed the first century and he revealed a new path forward. Adultery was no less a serious crime when Christians came to power. Now, under the liberalism you promote, it is common, accepted and not a crime at all. Mainly because there are no serious consequences for adultery in a society which views the sexual autonomy of individuals as it's highest value.
I don't recall Chesterton ever saying that or limiting Christian participation in the influence of secular law. He certainty didn't view individual liberty as the greatest concern, if he did, he wouldn't have opposed women's suffrage.
It ultimately results in no standards at all and the blending of boundaries in order to achieve unity. In a societal context this breaks down established beliefs and practices instead of encouraging a multiplicity of beliefs and practices. If the rules are not held, then there are no rules. This is true of any group context. The religious community, the monastery, the club, the town, the nation.
The USA is the perfect example of this. Initially Protestant in it's moral ethos by allowing Catholics to widely enter and integrate this diminished the Protestant vitality of the USA. Then when continuing to expand the franchise to all sorts of dissident non-Christians the trend only continued, only in a decidedly non-Christian direction. Now you have the circumstance in the USA that we see now. Christianity is failing, partly because of fabric of the country in trying to hold such a wide coalition of peoples and ideas.
The exclusive claims of Christianity are simply not fit for a society that values the liberty of the individual at all costs to the governing of society.
If you want to call me a Pharisee for supporting the notion of prayer in public school, would you then do me the curtesy of calling me a Pharisee along side the rest of the Christian past and tradition? Go back to the earliest schools run by Christians. did they not pray before classes? Was it not their goal to put God in the forefront? I agree they did not care so much for the liberty of the person but were concerned more to honour God. As I understand it also, prayer in public schools was widely practiced before it wasn't in the USA. Were they all pharisees until liberals
Certaintly Catholic educational institutions which were tied up with the states of Europe didn't mind forcing students to pray before class. Probably still happens in some parts of backwards and primitive Europe. Bottom line, if I'm a pharisee for this, you're own Catholic Church is equally pharisaical in the excercise of it's religious duties and you need to do everything in your power to ensure the liberty of the students within not just public institutions, but Catholic institutions to not participate in prayers. If the Gospel is about tolerance, breaking down all walls of division, why should Catholic seek to instruct their students in the faith? It's a hyperbolic argument but I think it follows from your idea of the Gospel, which I think you ought argue the Church should implement rather than the state. The consequences would be the destruction of Catholicism, but that's the gospel so why should that matter?
On a personal note I recall the only religious things I was taught in school was the time in primary school a bible teacher would come and share stories about Moses and God. It's a little thing and it goes against USA liberal norms to have such a thing be part of a public school's education. Yet it seems to me such a teaching laid a seed in me, one which would blossom into the bud of faith years later when I was in the end of high school. I won't attribute that basic religious education to my conversion but It was just one thing that helped drag me along in that direction. Why should I view it as a bad thing?
The consequence of the tolerance you advocate has been the decline of Christianity in the west. Would you at least accept that as the outcome?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 26,083
- 11,394
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Yes, that's what it is. It's not a nice story someone made up.
No, that's wrong, too. The purpose of government is to prevent people from harming or otherwise oppressing others. It's not for enforcing your religious preferences.
Doesn't matter. Reality isn't subject to your opinions. The fact is, we don't have Christianity as a standard for government, and it's not something Jesus advocated. It's always men who want to do for God that which He has not chosen to do Himself.
The United States rose to be a world power and an affluent nation after a great influx of Catholic immigrants came to America. Many of them enriched the nation in science, law, literature, and so on. So I'm thinking you've got the facts against you.
There's nothing wrong with religious schools requiring prayer or other worship. It's just illegal in cases of public schools which are supported by the taxes of all.
If you want to have your own religious schools, there's nothing wrong with requiring prayer.
One doesn't seem to connect with the other. I don't think you've thought this through very well.
Mark 12:7 And Jesus answering, said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marveled at him.
Given that we've seen case after case of religious intolerance by Christians who think that the Kingdom of God must be somewhere public rather than where Jesus says to look for it, I would say that it's people of your persuasion who are responsible.
BTW, Chesterton, as a Roman Catholic in an officially Anglican nation, probably wouldn't agree with your disparaging comments about religious tolertion.
Upvote
0
Ignatius the Kiwi
Dissident
- Mar 2, 2013
- 7,056
- 3,767
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
I don’t understand how you think this is relevant.
That’s a remarkably libertarian idea of government and from your previous posts I know you aren’t a libertarian. You view it as acceptable and preferable for the government to take taxes through the use of force to fund welfare programs, abortion and various other endeavours you are not doubt personally opposed to as a Catholic.
Yet when it comes to the running of society yours is a rather novel idea. It is the modern democratic liberal idea and in it is the destruction of Christendom. Why should I support it? Why should I condemn the entire history of the Church?
What do you mean reality isn’t subject to my opinions? I’m fully aware how out of step I am with the current liberal democratic world order. You keep saying Jesus never advocated for Christian government, but he never spoke against it either. The unique distinction Christianity brought ot this world was the difference between the secular and the sacred, but this was understood to mean that both had their realm of authority and power. The Church In the middleages had power, the power to govern society towards a Christian end. Horrible I know but your opinion was nowhere on the radar of their thinking. Your justification for doing away with it (religious violence) is especially weak when we see the destruction of purely secular liberal democratic regimes.
This is irrelevant to what I said. Did the bringing in of Catholics unite America or divide it more? Did it strengthen the majority protestant population or cause them to weaken over time? I’m not speaking in terms of Americas material wealth or position of power in the world but the current makeup of the USA and what bringing in groups has done to it. It would be the same if you were to put ten million Arab Muslims in Ireland. Would this strengthen the position of native Irish Catholics? Absolutely not. Did the position of Coptics under Arab Islamic rule lead them to prosper or slowly fade into being a minority?
This is a pretty basic understanding of how people groups interact and effect each other. You might think it a wonderful example of cultural exchange that the Copts were displaced in their native Egypt. I’m sure they don’t see it that way themselves.
On a base level there is something wrong with religious schools isn’t there? Let’s examine it from a principle of tolerance, this being the highest virtue. Why should the Catholic school inculcate Catholic identity and Catholic differences in a multi religious nation? Won’t this just lead to people like myself? People who believe in the tenants of their religion and will want to see Christian social standards applied generally in society? This is an existential threat to women and minorities and shouldn’t be tolerated. There are many pro-life Catholics who threaten the liberties of abortion rights and access to the termination of the womb parasite. Why tolerate this potential danger? In order to ensure liberty (because not all Catholics can be trusted to be as tolerant as you are on the issue of abortion), Catholic teaching within Catholic schools needs to be abolished. It’s only right.
Thankfully there are private religious schools, yet aren’t they problematic for teaching things at odds with the liberal principles of modern American society? Things like the differences between the sexes for instance. We live in a new time, where we have understood sex differences are social constructs and it’s up to the individual to decide what they want to identify as. Not to mention how horribly bigoted Catholic teaching on Homosexuality is, since your Church teaches Homosexuals are intrinsically disordered. There is a problem with religious schools. A big problem.
If the message of the Gospel is toleration, not the propogation of the good news of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not the idea that Christian principles are the best way to lives one’s life and that it is in fact dangerous to seek to implement them into society and in fact the best example of the Gospel we have is the USA government which tolerates so many people and allows them to do whatever they want, why doesn’t the thought connect?
How is it that the USA government and it’s institutions are a better representation of the Gospel than your own Catholic Church and it’s canon law? The Catholic Church doesn’t tolerate a great many things. Women can’t become priests. Divorce is not allowed (why can’t the Catholic Church tolerate sexual autonomy?) Homosexuality is called intrinsically disordered and the sexual freedom of women is limited by their Church refusing to sanctify sex outside of marriage, refusing to sanctify sex with condoms and refusing to allow the mistake of conceiving a child to be fixed via abortion.
How intolerant of the Catholic Church.
Of course there are things which belong to Caesar and things which belong to God. Why then conclude as you would that everything belongs to Caesar? Social standards, law, power. The Church used to have some of these things but never all of them. Its power was never purely material but spiritual, to the point where Kings had to repent publically before Bishops and the Pope because they had sinned. I could never imagine something like that happening today, no matter what the politician did. It would be viewed as the Church becoming political and unsuitable for the religious officials to exert such an influence.
Well yes, Christians do have to be intolerant to a certain degree. I pointed out all the intolerant positions of your own Church, of which you no doubt agree with and submit to as a faithful Catholic. But that’s how a community of any kind holds itself together. There are some things which cannot be allowed because it would destroy the integrity of the community.
Mount Athos cannot allow women Monastics or women visitors on it, because they would be a source of temptation. Very intolerant. The Amish cannot allow certain technologies into their communities without it damaging the fabric of their community and altering their way of life. Very intolerant but effective for stability and growth. Saint Paul could not tolerate the man who slept with his Father’s wife and so he cast him out into Satan. Perhaps the most intolerant of all the examples I’ve given.
So when you argue that Christians are intolerant, that much is obvious. Of course we’re intolerant of some things. We have to be, just as the liberal must be intolerant of some things.
I don’t know what Chesterton would have said regarding this subject. I don’t think I’m that well enough read in him but I think he would see my point. There’s an interesting analogy he uses about fences. That before we tear down the fence, perhaps we ought to ask why the fence was put up in the first place. Chesterton was not for the complete liberalization or toleration of everyone. He was against the suffragettes and you should honestly read his opinion of the feminists. Made me smile when I first listened to it.
Yet there is an interesting example in the case of England what toleration of the Catholics lead to. It lead to the weakening of the Church of England. The influence of Catholicism, however small, grew in England and particular contributions of great English Catholics were made to the Catholic tradition. G.K Chesterton and John Henry Newman come to mind. The latter of which was especially harsh in his critiques against the liberals of his day.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 26,083
- 11,394
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Really? You're not very observant.
Hm... you seem to be arguing with yourself here. I'm just pointing out that Jesus was remarkably tolerant of other faiths, compared to His contemporaries. To extrapolate that fact to the primary message of the Gospels seems a bit odd to me.
You don't live here, do you? In fact, there are too many laws and too many rules.
You seem to like making up weird things and then insisting that other people believe them.
I must have missed those. Which ones? Remember, tolerance is having your own principles but not imposing them on others. Tell us about it.
They are Eastern Catholics, who are indeed an apostolic Church, but who are not in union with the Roman Catholic Church, presently. Again, in their own institutions, they have the right to set rules. They just don't try to force others to do it their way in other places. That's what tolerance is.
Most of us are not intolerant. We are, remember, expected to be an imitation of Christ. Some Christians forget that.
Upvote
0
Ignatius the Kiwi
Dissident
- Mar 2, 2013
- 7,056
- 3,767
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
You’re a libertarian then?
You haven’t established Jesus’ tolerance of other faiths at all. If we’re going to believe that Jesus guided the Apostles and Saint Paul we would be left to conclude that he was remarkably intolerant of other faiths. Why weren’t Christians free to eat the meals sacrificed to idols that Pagans bought them? Why did Paul discourage marriage between unbelievers and believers except in the case they were already married if one of them converted? Why did the Church separate from wider Roman society and instead harbouring harsh attitudes towards Roman Gods and idols? Christianity was remarkably offensive to the Roman people in denying their ancestral gods and believing in this strange foreign cult with strange foreign philosophy.
There are many laws within the Canon of the Catholic Church, yet I only pointed out that fact because it seems to the USA as a state more accurately reflects the Gospel as you understand it. The Canon law of the Catholic Church is designed in part to give guidance to Catholics and seperates them from other kinds of people. It is not universal and not tolerant. I presume for instance you support women in the workforce. The USA mandates that you cannot discriminate against women for being women, while the Catholic Church does. The USA mandates that you cannot teach a specific religious code in it’s own educational environment. The Catholic Church does. The list goes on and on but it seems to me, the true Gospel is the USA government. It’s wildly more tolerant than the Catholic Church and that is the point of the Gospel. Right?
From my post #72
“How is it that the USA government and it’s institutions are a better representation of the Gospel than your own Catholic Church and it’s canon law? The Catholic Church doesn’t tolerate a great many things. Women can’t become priests. Divorce is not allowed (why can’t the Catholic Church tolerate sexual autonomy?) Homosexuality is called intrinsically disordered and the sexual freedom of women is limited by their Church refusing to sanctify sex outside of marriage, refusing to sanctify sex with condoms and refusing to allow the mistake of conceiving a child to be fixed via abortion….
Mount Athos cannot allow women Monastics or women visitors on it, because they would be a source of temptation. Very intolerant. The Amish cannot allow certain technologies into their communities without it damaging the fabric of their community and altering their way of life. Very intolerant but effective for stability and growth. Saint Paul could not tolerate the man who slept with his Father’s wife and so he cast him out into Satan. Perhaps the most intolerant of all the examples I’ve given.”
Thank you for defining tolerance. Still doesn’t convince me why I should be tolerant of onlyfans and not let my religious convictions come into play when thinking such operations should be outlawed. Tell me why I should tolerate and support the right of onlyfans as a website to exist? Or tell me why I should tolerate a crucifix in urine?
The Monks of Mount Athos are Orthodox, but why does that excuse them from the need to be tolerant and open to women? You have made the argument that the essence of the Gospel is tolerance. You haven’t qualified this statement or said that we are allowed to be intolerant of certain things and thus I am left to conclude that a majority of Christianity for a majority of its history has misunderstood the gospel. There are so many rules, so many limitations placed on people by the Church all of which mark an intolerance for a certain idea of practice. The Nicene council was intolerant of Arius. The Spanish Christians were intolerant of the Muslims in Iberia. Why shouldn’t these have accepted everyone freely and without condition? Why should the monks of Athos, if tolerance is the goal, be allowed exclude women from the sanctity of the holy Mountain? Would Jesus separate himself from women, didn’t he have women ministering to him and his companions?
I hope you see my point.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 26,083
- 11,394
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
He advised his followers to emulate a Samaritan who had charity for others, as opposed to a Levite, who did not. This is entirely consistent with His word in Matthew 25, when he simply says that your eternal home will depend only on whether or not you did for the unfortunate.
Doesn't sound like a bigot at all.
Only if they tried to prevent pagans from eating those meals would it be intolerant. Tolerance would be "no, I can't eat that food", without trying to stop pagans from eating it.
You haven't shown us yet that they aren't. Remember, they get to decide how they will live, and others get the same right. That's what tolerance is. Perhaps it's a category misunderstanding for you.
tolerance
noun
willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them:
This period in history is not noted for its religious tolerance.
Some members of the party would like to see it develop a greater tolerance of/towards contrary points of view.
tolerance
It's not what you seem to think it is.
Only insofar as Arians claimed to be orthodox Christians. It merely noted that they were not orthodox Christians. Arius was briefly exiled by the civil authorities, but was later allowed to return. Doesn't sound much like persecution. Read the definition of "tolerance" again and think about it.
Remember when I cautioned you about thinking up weird ideas and then attributing them to other people? You just did it again.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Ignatius the Kiwi
Dissident
- Mar 2, 2013
- 7,056
- 3,767
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
Conflating intolerance with bigotry is a misuse of the word since to be intolerant of something is to not necessarily to be bigoted about it. I think we should be clear in our use of words if we're actually having a discussion here. Which I think we are so far.
I'm not opposed to the example of the good Samaritan, I would however caution in taking the teaching of Jesus and applying it to matters of the state. The Good Samaritan describes the necessary actions required of us as individuals, not what the state should do for the man the Samaritan helped.
Pagans were prevented from eating and taking part in the most important meal, the Eucharist. On top of that, Christians refused to eat food sacrificed to the gods or Caesar. These might seem like small actions to us moderns but this was a rather radical rejection of Roman civics and was an action which deliberately set Christians at odds with the state. In many ways I don't blame the Romans for being angry with us Christians, we were trampling on the things which kept their society together and made it classically great.
Christians in their refusal to eat with Pagans and refusal to admit Pagans to their own religious meals were being rather intolerant of their neighbors. They were saying in effect, you are not part of our family.
You are aware that the monks of Athos aren't tolerant of lazy men? Men who refuse church discipline, men who violate the rules and compromise the spiritual health of the community? This intolerance extends to the whole sex of women and trans men, refusing them access to the Holy Mountain.
How does this make the monks tolerant exactly? But my point isn't specifically about the monks themselves, but that any idea if it wants to orient itself to a common goal must have a limit at which it will say no. No to outsider, no to the man or woman who threatens the traditional way of life.
I wouldn't call exile tolerance. It's a lesser sentence than that of the death penalty, but it is an attempt to remove from society a person who is perceived to damage the fabric of that society. Had Arius been given free reign, had he been able to consolidate political and religious support, had they tolerated him enough for that to be the case he might be remembered today as something more than a mere byword for heretic. As a result of his exile and marginalization, he was never able to garner the support necessary. Arianism as an idea while it owes it's name to him developed without the specific influence of Arius. Men like Eunomius and other heterousians tried and for a time were succesful in spreading their religious influence.
It was ultimately Theodosius who settled the manner in favour our common creed and made Nicene Christianity the religion of the Empire. None of that would have been possible if it were against the faith to tolerate heretics, at least in the sense of giving them free reign to spout their ideas.
Would you then say there is a limit to the amount of tolerance we should exhibit? Would it be something akin to the idea that we should tolerate everything that does no physical harm?
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 26,083
- 11,394
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
We should leave people alone unless they impose on us. Why is that hard to understand?
Nope.
Upvote
0
Ignatius the Kiwi
Dissident
- Mar 2, 2013
- 7,056
- 3,767
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
Because society is a matter of imposition and influence. There is no such thing as neutral universal values.
Upvote
0
Derek1234
Active Member
- Mar 11, 2021
- 143
- 36
- 51
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
But there are such things as universal human rights under international law, and nation states should be committed to upholding these. These are not God-ordained rights - for example, there is no Biblical injunction against slavery - but we are committed to them. Aren't we?
From allowing an individual agency over who they are - they are not the property of another person or of a state - it logically flows that they should also be free to do what they wish, provided it does not harm other people. The state should only interfere when it does not believe that a person can meaningfully exercise that agency. For example, if an underage person consensually engaged in sex with an adult, they would not be considered to have agency.
But people having extramarital relationships? Not the state's business. [Edit to add: I know this is off topic, but it's just one example of where the state does not have dominion over individual freedoms.] That's between those people and God. Our role as Christ's disciples is to live and preach the Gospel in the hope that God's Kingdom will shine through us, and win people to Him (Matt 5v16, 2 Cor 5vv18-19, Acts 2 vv 37-41)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Ignatius the Kiwi
Dissident
- Mar 2, 2013
- 7,056
- 3,767
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
What exactly are universal human rights? Are they liberal democratic rights? Islamic rights? Chinese rights? Indian rights? African rights? When I look at the laws and customs of any given society there is a wide divergence between what is considered acceptable and what is not. Today many people think it is a child's right to castrate themselves and identify as the opposite sex and under the idea of liberal democracy I don't see how one could deny children this right or allow children to remain in the custody of their parents who refuse to go along with that. Liberal democracy seeks to increase the autonomy of the individual and in the end this only breaks down established tradition and practice. People need rules to guide themselves by. When Christianity was ruling Europe people governed themselves naturally according to the standards of Christianity. Why be shocked now that Christianity rules nothing that the faith is failing in the west? Giving way to consumer culture and all sorts of degeneracy?
On the point of having extramarital affairs, I would say it is the state does have an interest, because it is the community's business. What is marriage when compared to compared to a casual relationship? It is a declaration of commitment and a means of legitimizing children. It's a matter of binding together, restricting the man and woman only to each other. Just as a many marries one woman he gives up all the others. That rule makes no sense in our decadent age. Historically at any rate that has been part of the of the point of marriage. It is meant as a restraint on human sexual activity and thus the various taboos and rules that used to be traditionally part and parcel of it helped society.
If those rules no longer matter, faithfulness, monogamy and the state will enforce a different view of marriage, well are we surprised in the family's collapse in the 21st century? Are we surprised that when modern democratic states help single mothers with benefits that this only incentivizes mothers to remain single?
Thus I don't see how Christianity keeping out of politics or remaining neutral and passive benefits Christianity and Christendom.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
