The State Religon

[Suzannah]

Lemme think you don't think the Church didn't have 'purges' throughout Europe? Come on! The Cathars? Does that ring a bell? How about the extermination of pre-xian pagan religions[Cult of Kybele/Magna Mater]? And what about the persecution of Spanish jews to consolidate power in Spain?

Wow those never happened. You learned the new-speak very well, young padawan...

-- Bridget

This is just priceless. Truly, 'tis! But I admire your zeal.

 

[Norea]

Well I'm being rational, reasonable and effective in my statements. It's clear you cannot accept a secular, human centered system of governance. That's fine. You and your buddies can make a United States of [Fill in your religion right here.] country but don't expect compliance from non-adherents to your faith. Expect resistance and revolution.

-- Bridget

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, a State Church is truly a great boost to weakening of faith. But to have the State limited in its power by the Church has the contrary effect.

I'm not convinced that such a throw-back to the kind of strong Church that existed under monarchism is possible in modern societies -- I suspect that any such attempt to recreate this scenario will only result in the secularization of the state churches -- but I'll grant that you've made an unexpectedly strong argument. I will ponder it.

 

[Suzannah]

Well I'm being rational, reasonable and effective in my statements. It's clear you cannot accept a secular, human centered system of governance. That's fine. You and your buddies can make a United States of [Fill in your religion right here.] country but don't expect compliance from non-adherents to your faith. Expect resistance and revolution.

-- Bridget

You can keep the United States. I don't want it. I certainly do not accept self centred, and arrogant polemics from Americans. Very true.

 

[Norea]

You can keep the United States. I don't want it. I certainly do not accept self centred, and arrogant polemics from Americans. Very true.

Ahh dun wanna be an egoist? Don't make me quote the All-Mighty All-Powerful Ayn Rand(tm)!

-- Bridget

 

[Norea]

Dumb and off-topic question here. What in the world is that reputation thingy about. I started of course at I think 1 and then I rose to 12 and now I'm like 68 out of the blue... Please posters some linkies about the board's features please. ^__^

-- Bridget

 

[Suzannah]

Nah. You can keep Rand too. I'll take Dostoyevski.

But I happen to like the American who wrote this:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/3455

and the American who wrote this:

http://www.kings.edu/womens_history/witch/werror.html

 

[Norea]

I actually prefer Max Stirner on egoism and value systems.

-- Bridget

 

[Norea]

Sorry I don't accept Dots[com, edu, gov, and etc] due to that there is no guarantee of peer review on said articles. Although I'll take a Wiki article. But I much prefer articles from published works say like on Infotrac or Wilson Web, scholarly journals please.

-- Bridget

 

[Suzannah]

Sorry I don't accept Dots[com, edu, gov, and etc] due to that there is no guarantee of peer review on said articles. Although I'll take a Wiki article. But I much prefer articles from published works say like on Infotrac or Wilson Web, scholarly journals please.

-- Bridget

Well, your stay at CF will prove to be quite boring, if that is the case.

 

[Norea]

Hey I have my standards.

-- Bridget

 

[Blackmarch]

Do most christians think christianity should be made the state religon? If it were, what would the punishment be for not following it?

If everyone was the same religion, then such would be great and should be employed. Unfortunately it is not so, and to attempt to make it to be the case, it would cause much persecution of those who are not of the state religion.

 

[Caylin]

Nah. You can keep Rand too. I'll take Dostoyevski.

But I happen to like the American who wrote this:
http://www.americandaily.com/article/3455

and the American who wrote this:

http://www.kings.edu/womens_history/witch/werror.html

Ah yes, good old Ann. I think someone whos writings on the DNC were so hate filled they couldn't be published is hardly in the postion to write a book about slander.

 

[The Bellman]

In a theocracy, the State itself is seen as a Divine institution. God, or someone who is his supreme representative (or chosen directly by God), is in power (in the eyes of the people, at least), and the secular laws are the religious laws.

Such is not a case with a Catholic government. First, the leaders come to power through secular means: monarchy, aristocracy or democracy each have different secular means of passing down power. Likewise, the law seeks to repress those vices which are more harmful to society, and which can be repressed effectively; this means that not all vices are repressed by it; not the institution of Divine law (which is a law that demands perfection) to the general population, which is far from perfection.

Sorry, but this is simply false. From dictionary.com:

the·oc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
A state so governed.

What you advocate is PRECISELY a theocracy.

 

[Lifesaver]

The Cathars? Does that ring a bell?

Yes, it rings a strong bell.
The Cathars were a heretical group, very rebellious, violent and which incited suicide. They considered existence itself to be evil, and were against reproduction.
Not only did they imposed their resistence against the Church, but the against the secular governments.
Even atheists like you should give thanks to people such as St. Simon of Montfort for helping to contain such an anti-social sect.

Unless you too defend revolutions and the destruction of Western society, in which case you would indeed be in the Cathars's side.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03435a.htm - if you want to learn more from them, you should read the Catholic Encyclopedia.

How about the extermination of pre-xian pagan religions[Cult of Kybele/Magna Mater]?

Thank God people converted from their old and idolatrous religions.

And what about the persecution of Spanish jews to consolidate power in Spain?

This cannot be but a lack of knowledge on your part.
The persecution of the Jews was ordered by the Queen of Spain, not the Church.
This is what the Pope himself, in the XIII century, wrote about persecution of Jews:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg10/g10jprot.htm - surely, there is no such thing as "peer review" to the Pope, nor was there such a thing in the XIII century (and philosophy then was so much superior to the incoherent mesh of marxism and freudian thought we have today...), but you'll find his words (or those of any other Pope) very enlightening anyway.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

Bump.

Anyone?

Does that mean what I think it means?!?

 

[Norea]

Yes, it rings a strong bell.
The Cathars were a heretical group, very rebellious, violent and which incited suicide. They considered existence itself to be evil, and were against reproduction.
Not only did they imposed their resistence against the Church, but the against the secular governments.
Even atheists like you should give thanks to people such as St. Simon of Montfort for helping to contain such an anti-social sect.

Unless you too defend revolutions and the destruction of Western society, in which case you would indeed be in the Cathars's side.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03435a.htm - if you want to learn more from them, you should read the Catholic Encyclopedia.

No thanks I'll go to a peer-reviewed journal for my references. Such as what I can find about in my local university's circulation library. Btw, I've read thoroughly on the Cathars and your facts are wrong same with the Encyclopedia's references. Considering of course the Church exterminated and burned all references to the Cathars. Sorta like what some Egyptian priests did to the Aton cult which wasn't violent either, like the Cathars. I remember correctly it was the Church that incited the act of violence against it diplomatic onvoy due to rumors of the use of force running rampant throughout that region of France.

Thank God people converted from their old and idolatrous religions.

That is not for you to decide nor to enforce. Read your bible more closely Jesus taught a pacificist position whereas you seem to ENDORSE a MILITERIST position. It's rather sad that you support military action against non-Catholics and non-Xians.

This cannot be but a lack of knowledge on your part.
The persecution of the Jews was ordered by the Queen of Spain, not the Church.

Yes it was mostly political but the Church itself was political or why did Martin Luther find this repugnant? A former law student in his time? Also awarded the equivelent of a Masters degree in Law. I would have to say I side with the Luther chap over you. Atleast Luther renegged his anti-jewish stance on his deathbed unlike some militant Catholics.

This is what the Pope himself, in the XIII century, wrote about persecution of Jews:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg10/g10jprot.htm - surely, there is no such thing as "peer review" to the Pope, nor was there such a thing in the XIII century (and philosophy then was so much superior to the incoherent mesh of marxism and freudian thought we have today...), but you'll find his words (or those of any other Pope) very enlightening anyway.

Sorry if you bleed you're going to be under peer-review. Last time I checked your Popes weren't vampires or robots so I guess they can take a hit from peer-review like anyone else. Also, why do you infer I'm a Marxist or a student of Freud? Actually I'm a student of Rand, Stirner and company. Marxism is in opposition to the idealogy of Ego. And Freud isn't the mainstream of psychology. Much of psychology is either Behaviorist[Wilhelm Wundt, John Watson and etc] or Cognitivist camps. Course you probably don't know that since it seems from what you post you have yet to have an objectivistic education... See you later when you've learned some Locke, Aristotle and etc.


-- Bridget

 

[Lifesaver]

Sorry, but this is simply false. From dictionary.com:

"From dictionary.com"?

Will you always disregard depth in favour of the over-simplified and not rarely inaccurate definitions of the dictionary?
It is suited for searching for common everyday words, but when it comes to concepts with historical relevance and which carry a lot of ideas behind them, it is wholy unsuited.

And is my government ruled by a religious authority, or its actions subjected to the will of the Church?No.

By the way, I must also make it clear to all here that I do not dream of instituting such a kind of government. I don't think there's any chance of happening during my lifetime, and nor do I think it would solve all problems; on the contrary, the main problems we face today are moral and spiritual.
Even if we had holy leaders such as St. Luis of France or St. Edward of England, it wouldn't be of great help.
It is also important to say that, in our modern Western countries of today, I am completely against any kind of revolution or active resistence against the instituted order, as it is legitimate, despite its so many grave errors.
Rather than dreaming of political changes that will never happen, it is best to focus on the individual changes which are needed on everyone: on the revival of the Catholic faith and morality.

 

[Lifesaver]

No thanks I'll go to a peer-reviewed journal for my references. Such as what I can find about in my local university's circulation library. Btw, I've read thoroughly on the Cathars and your facts are wrong same with the Encyclopedia's references. Considering of course the Church exterminated and burned all references to the Cathars.

If all references to the Cathars were exterminated, it is impossible for you to know whether the encyclopedia is right or wrong.
Before putting forward our views, we should make sure they are do not carry inherent contradictions.

Yes it was mostly political but the Church itself was political or why did Martin Luther find this repugnant? A former law student in his time? Also awarded the equivelent of a Masters degree in Law. I would have to say I side with the Luther chap over you. Atleast Luther renegged his anti-jewish stance on his deathbed unlike some militant Catholics.

Of course you are with Luther. You don't believe in God.
However, if you were to learn more about the man and his work, I have confidence that even you would be against him, seeing as I believe you have an honest will to be a good person, misdirected as it may be.

Sorry if you bleed you're going to be under peer-review. Last time I checked your Popes weren't vampires or robots so I guess they can take a hit from peer-review like anyone else. Also, why do you infer I'm a Marxist or a student of Freud? Actually I'm a student of Rand, Stirner and company. Marxism is in opposition to the idealogy of Ego. And Freud isn't the mainstream of psychology. Much of psychology is either Behaviorist[Wilhelm Wundt, John Watson and etc] or Cognitivist camps. Course you probably don't know that since it seems from what you post you have yet to have an objectivistic education... See you later when you've learned some Locke, Aristotle and etc.

Wait...
You won't read an official Church document from the XIII century because it doesn't go through the usual "hit" of modern academy (which itself does not give any credibility to anything, given the level of so many scholars throughout the world)?
One who adopts such a posture cannot possibly claim to have any sort of education, objectivist or otherwise. And I hope you will re-consider.

PS: "Idealogy" of Ego? Whether or not you have studied Marx or not, you are Marxist (but don't worry, most of them never studied him anyway, nor are they aware that their beliefs are based on him).

As for Freud not being given importance in psychology in USA and England anymore, that is true, and never did I claim otherwise.
But were you to look around the world, to continental Europe or even a lot of what is produced in your own country, you'd find a sociology estabilished drowned in concepts which, originally, stem from Freud.

 

[Norea]

If all references to the Cathars were exterminated, it is impossible for you to know whether the encyclopedia is right or wrong.
Before putting forward our views, we should make sure they are do not carry inherent contradictions.

There are few references to the Cathars. All come from [gasp] YOUR CHURCH[Catholic] and not from any objective or unbiased sources. Like the equivelent of a newspaper of a local municipality like we have in most nations today.

Of course you are with Luther. You don't believe in God.
However, if you were to learn more about the man and his work, I have confidence that even you would be against him, seeing as I believe you have an honest will to be a good person, misdirected as it may be.

Sorry but Luther was a Xian and a bit of a nutter yes. I remember reading about that somewhere. But still intelligence isn't always linked to sanity and vice versa. Nor is logic merely contained or restricted to a particular set of people.

Wait...
You won't read an official Church document from the XIII century because it doesn't go through the usual "hit" of modern academy (which itself does not give any credibility to anything, given the level of so many scholars throughout the world)?
One who adopts such a posture cannot possibly claim to have any sort of education, objectivist or otherwise. And I hope you will re-consider.

Lemme explain here for ya, bucko. If it's not peer-reviewed it has no ethical or moral grounding. It must be considered with a grain salt if it cannot be considered an ethical/moral source.

PS: "Idealogy" of Ego? Whether or not you have studied Marx or not, you are Marxist (but don't worry, most of them never studied him anyway, nor are they aware that their beliefs are based on him).

Do you know what you're talking about? Look Marx supported the destruction of Capitalism[I'm a Libertarian, DUH!!!!]. He also was against the Socratic method and many scientific principles. And said humans were purely irrational. And he had a significant existential view on life.
How can a Libertarian[political party] be supportive of a Statist[pro-government] position? It's like saying I can defy gravity and still weigh x amount of pounds[due to gravity]. I REALLY SUGGEST YOU ASK ME MY VALUES BEFORE YOU STATE WHAT MY VALUES ARE, BOY. Or are you like some troll looking for flames?

As for Freud not being given importance in psychology in USA and England anymore, that is true, and never did I claim otherwise.
But were you to look around the world, to continental Europe or even a lot of what is produced in your own country, you'd find a sociology estabilished drowned in concepts which, originally, stem from Freud.

Wrong yet again, much of Freud's views are not even taught but as examples of the humorous side of psychology. I really wish you study some valid sources for your claims and to chill with the Ad Hominens to my person[e.g. claiming that I am a Marxist without asking my political/philosophical values are...].

Pretty much I'm done with you since you have all the markings of a troll.

-- Bridget