|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 06 2018 01:18 Plansix wrote:
Manafort is fucked. He lied to the investigation team, so he is worthless as a witness. They are going to throw the book at him because he has no value to the investigation.
Mmmmm, no to the 'no value' thing. Yes to the 'throw the book at him' part.
Throw the book: yes, Mueller is going to push for the max possible punishment and as many on the record confirmation of anything Manafort lied about. The key here is that his lies go on the record because ...
No value: no, those on the record lies are going to be key. Manafort cooperated with Trump when Trump was answering his questions to Mueller. Anything that matches between (Trump's answers) and (Manafort's lies on record) are evidentiary bases for impeachment, and proof that Trump was lying at every single point about his Russia entanglement. We can be confident that whatever Manafort and Trump were lying about had to be the black hole at the center of this whole affair that everyone was protecting.
|
|
|
On December 04 2018 06:48 Plansix wrote:
Given that the title of Duke has been around for well over 1500 years, you kinda need to narrow down what version of a Duke you are talking about.
Actually I kinda don't, because I was using the word as an analogous comparison. I never suggested we should have actual dukes. This was read into the comment in an effort to strawman me.
On December 04 2018 08:41 RenSC2 wrote:
Very roughly, in the Dark Ages people were so upset at living under a Catholic theocracy that they were comitting suicide so much that it was becoming a problem for the lords (less workers and soldiers to exploit). So the Catholic Church made suicide a sin and said you won’t get into heaven if you do it.
I like how this case of historical illiteracy goes completely unchallenged...
I guess St. Augustine was a time-traveling member of the Catholic theocracy when he wrote City of God and condemned suicide on religious grounds. I guess all the other Church Fathers from the Second, Third, and Fourth centuries who condemned suicide on religious grounds were time-traveling theocrats from the Middle Ages.
On December 05 2018 02:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Not just any theocratic monarchy, it has to be a Catholic one. Who is the monarchy, why this is preferable, why hereditary position of basically absolute authority within the State, would be part of his prefered form of government, never mind that actual Catholic theocracy (but not theocratic monarchy, because that never occured under Catholic states, but did in other parts of history around the world including parts of Europe, but reditsun notably doesn't recognise history) that actually occured in European history cause some of the greatest disasters in history, and were the most corrupt governments in the entire history of the world, are questions that remained unanswered. Instead he proudly beats his chest over his own intranscience. In fact the greatest question and assumption, that the aim of an ideal government is one that is not corrupt and looks after the wellbeing and freedom of their citizens appear to not have occured to him at all, so what is there to discuss?
At least the technocratic government discussion that which arose as a sideline was interesting in that it opened up people to display their thoughts. Thoughts that are somewhat rooted in a version of reality that we can profess to have some overlap with. For is that not the whole point of a forum?
Once again I must protest. You have repeatedly read words into my posts that simply don't exist, all in some strange effort to prove... something. I never said there has been a Catholic theocratic monarchy in Europe. I don't know why you keep suggesting that I did. Though the Papal states could be described as such. (Note, please, that I said "could be described as such" not that they would absolutely fit that definition). I never made any appeal to the history of Europe in any way, shape, or form as justification or even as an example to be followed. I mentioned, in passing, that the theoretical Governors of the various states would be hereditary positions, and compared them in a way to dukes, but this was, again, an analogous comparison, and was not in any way a suggestion that we transplant some actual political position from the past and shove it into the modern world.
You suggested that "actual Catholic theocracy (sic) that actually occured (sic) in European history cause (sic) some of the greatest disasters in history, and were the most corrupt governments in the history of the world" which I think is laughable at best, and terrifyingly ignorant at worst. I suppose you could try to come up with some kind of examples and then show how they are uniquely terrible and corrupt among all human governments in all ages of the world, but I think you'll quibble and mention a few well-known incidents, pretending to have some historical expertise, and ignore your silly hyperbolic description.
Thus let us discuss the only thing of value in your post.
"the aim of an ideal government is one that is not corrupt and looks after the wellbeing and freedom of their citizens"
I disagree with this entirely. The primary aim of the ideal government is the maintenance and protection of Christian morality among the citizenry, with the secondary aim being the protection and well-being of the citizenry. A lack of corruption cannot properly be described as an "aim" of the government, but rather a general requirement for the government to achieve its purpose. Your idea here is symptomatic of post-enlightenment thinking. I reject such notions of a separation of Church and State.
On December 05 2018 04:07 Plansix wrote:
He made the post 2 days ago and didn’t bother to do much with it after that. In the absence of his response, people are going to infer what they can. One cannot expect people to just let a hot take like “The Enlightenment is the worst thing to happen to humanity” at face value. Especially when the poster can’t be bothered to back that flaming hot take up with anything of substance.
I didn't explain it because our value systems are obviously so different that my explanation would have zero influence upon your thinking. I am a religious. In my conception, the fundamental aim of all men's lives and actions are purely religious. Therefore the Enlightenment, which is the secularization of society and has led to freedom of religion, freedom of social morality, secularization of government and philosophy, scientism, materialism, and rising atheism is contrary to the highest aim and purpose of man and since it is the most effective attack on the ultimate supremacy of the Church to date it is necessarily "the worst thing to happen to humanity" (since the Fall, but I exclude that in the interest of preventing an evolution/creation debate. let us presume evolution and thus no actual "Fall") Obviously the modern secular thinking would see this is absurd. Our values are simply so different as to be entirely incompatible.
I will say that the reaction my comment got, which was to largely misrepresent what I actually wrote and make wild assumptions as to my education, knowledge, motives, and character also contributed to me abandoning the conversation. It showed a distinct lack of charity.
|
On December 06 2018 06:39 ReditusSum wrote:
I didn't explain it because our value systems are obviously so different that my explanation would have zero influence upon your thinking. I am a religious. In my conception, the fundamental aim of all men's lives and actions are purely religious. Therefore the Enlightenment, which is the secularization of society and has led to freedom of religion, freedom of social morality, secularization of government and philosophy, scientism, materialism, and rising atheism is contrary to the highest aim and purpose of man and since it is the most effective attack on the ultimate supremacy of the Church to date it is necessarily "the worst thing to happen to humanity" (since the Fall, but I exclude that in the interest of preventing an evolution/creation debate. let us presume evolution and thus no actual "Fall") Obviously the modern secular thinking would see this is absurd. Our values are simply so different as to be entirely incompatible.
I will say that the reaction my comment got, which was to largely misrepresent what I actually wrote and make wild assumptions as to my education, knowledge, motives, and character also contributed to me abandoning the conversation. It showed a distinct lack of charity.
If you cannot be bothered to explain yourself, I question why you are even attempting to engage with discussion in the first place. Or that you have any intention of engaging in a discussion in good faith. The excuse that your value system is so different that it precludes any explanation is the sort of hand waving excuse that one uses when they couldn’t be bothered or never intended to explain themselves. Or have never examined their views critically.
I am also religious. So I do not find your reasoning, or lack of reasoning, to be compelling in any way. In fact, I find it sorely lacking in any real substance as to why the Enlightenment was a negative for humanity or humanities connection with God. Has Salvation somehow become less available to humanity since the Enlightenment? Are the teachings of God not available to us all in this modern era? Or is it simply that Catholicism’s dominance over Christianity has been greatly reduced since the Enlightenment due to the faults of the Church itself?
As for a lack of charity, one might say we lacked faith in your commitment to a real discussion.
|
I didn't explain it because our value systems are obviously so different that my explanation would have zero influence upon your thinking.
Do you realise how dumb this is, or does someone need to spell it out?
|
If we really dig into that theory, all history classes should be canceled and we should never read about other nations or cultures again. They are all to far from our own experience to have any influence on our thinking to be worth any time spent on them.
|
I absolutely would see no reason to go into that rabbit hole further. He made plenty clear what kind of thought process is behind it.
It's basically a third theocratic reich. Funny enough, these kinds of people are the ones that screech over "sharia police" etc, which is literally what he's suggesting, just the white version of it.
I mean, how do you even discuss with someone that's so disconnected from reality stating
In my conception, the fundamental aim of all men's lives and actions are purely religious.
without chuckling?
|
On December 06 2018 06:39 ReditusSum wrote:
I disagree with this entirely. The primary aim of the ideal government is the maintenance and protection of Christian morality among the citizenry, with the secondary aim being the protection and well-being of the citizenry. A lack of corruption cannot properly be described as an "aim" of the government, but rather a general requirement for the government to achieve its purpose. Your idea here is symptomatic of post-enlightenment thinking. I reject such notions of a separation of Church and State.
I will bite. How is the government going to maintain and protect the Christian morality? What policies? What tools should it use?
On December 06 2018 08:05 m4ini wrote:I absolutely would see no reason to go into that rabbit hole further. He made plenty clear what kind of thought process is behind it. It's basically a third theocratic reich. Funny enough, these kinds of people are the ones that screech over "sharia police" etc, which is literally what he's suggesting, just the white version of it. I mean, how do you even discuss with someone that's so disconnected from reality stating Show nested quote +In my conception, the fundamental aim of all men's lives and actions are purely religious. without chuckling? C'mon, I actually want him to spell out how sorely we need the Inquisition again.
|
On December 06 2018 08:05 m4ini wrote:I absolutely would see no reason to go into that rabbit hole further. He made plenty clear what kind of thought process is behind it. It's basically a third theocratic reich. Funny enough, these kinds of people are the ones that screech over "sharia police" etc, which is literally what he's suggesting, just the white version of it. I mean, how do you even discuss with someone that's so disconnected from reality stating Show nested quote +In my conception, the fundamental aim of all men's lives and actions are purely religious. without chuckling?
the thing is, the caliphate looked okay especially when you look at it compared to europe after the fall of the roman empire.
|
On December 06 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2018 06:39 ReditusSum wrote:
I didn't explain it because our value systems are obviously so different that my explanation would have zero influence upon your thinking. I am a religious. In my conception, the fundamental aim of all men's lives and actions are purely religious. Therefore the Enlightenment, which is the secularization of society and has led to freedom of religion, freedom of social morality, secularization of government and philosophy, scientism, materialism, and rising atheism is contrary to the highest aim and purpose of man and since it is the most effective attack on the ultimate supremacy of the Church to date it is necessarily "the worst thing to happen to humanity" (since the Fall, but I exclude that in the interest of preventing an evolution/creation debate. let us presume evolution and thus no actual "Fall") Obviously the modern secular thinking would see this is absurd. Our values are simply so different as to be entirely incompatible.
I will say that the reaction my comment got, which was to largely misrepresent what I actually wrote and make wild assumptions as to my education, knowledge, motives, and character also contributed to me abandoning the conversation. It showed a distinct lack of charity. If you cannot be bothered to explain yourself, I question why you are even attempting to engage with discussion in the first place. Or that you have any intention of engaging in a discussion in good faith. The excuse that your value system is so different that it precludes any explanation is the sort of hand waving excuse that one uses when they couldn’t be bothered or never intended to explain themselves. Or have never examined their views critically. I am also religious. So I do not find your reasoning, or lack of reasoning, to be compelling in any way. In fact, I find it sorely lacking in any real substance as to why the Enlightenment was a negative for humanity or humanities connection with God. Has Salvation somehow become less available to humanity since the Enlightenment? Are the teachings of God not available to us all in this modern era? Or is it simply that Catholicism’s dominance over Christianity has been greatly reduced since the Enlightenment due to the faults of the Church itself? As for a lack of charity, one might say we lacked faith in your commitment to a real discussion.
people are less godly now its true
|
Which god?
But lets be serious. Despite being from the USA, reditus has missed the Protestant reformation, where the Catholic church has the dubious honour of being so corrupt that it was the only large religion that through sheer corruptness had lost massive amounts of their own adherants. In what could be called a civil war of the Catholic domain. For over 100 years. Where no one ever expects the godwrath inquisition. Where upon it was so corrupt that it essentially sold the promise of a more comfortable afterlife for sinners if they pay money directly into its coffers.
Republican gerrymandering and elction fraud and Mueller's filed documents are so much more interesting than his fanfic.
|
On December 06 2018 09:12 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2018 06:39 ReditusSum wrote:
I didn't explain it because our value systems are obviously so different that my explanation would have zero influence upon your thinking. I am a religious. In my conception, the fundamental aim of all men's lives and actions are purely religious. Therefore the Enlightenment, which is the secularization of society and has led to freedom of religion, freedom of social morality, secularization of government and philosophy, scientism, materialism, and rising atheism is contrary to the highest aim and purpose of man and since it is the most effective attack on the ultimate supremacy of the Church to date it is necessarily "the worst thing to happen to humanity" (since the Fall, but I exclude that in the interest of preventing an evolution/creation debate. let us presume evolution and thus no actual "Fall") Obviously the modern secular thinking would see this is absurd. Our values are simply so different as to be entirely incompatible.
I will say that the reaction my comment got, which was to largely misrepresent what I actually wrote and make wild assumptions as to my education, knowledge, motives, and character also contributed to me abandoning the conversation. It showed a distinct lack of charity. If you cannot be bothered to explain yourself, I question why you are even attempting to engage with discussion in the first place. Or that you have any intention of engaging in a discussion in good faith. The excuse that your value system is so different that it precludes any explanation is the sort of hand waving excuse that one uses when they couldn’t be bothered or never intended to explain themselves. Or have never examined their views critically. I am also religious. So I do not find your reasoning, or lack of reasoning, to be compelling in any way. In fact, I find it sorely lacking in any real substance as to why the Enlightenment was a negative for humanity or humanities connection with God. Has Salvation somehow become less available to humanity since the Enlightenment? Are the teachings of God not available to us all in this modern era? Or is it simply that Catholicism’s dominance over Christianity has been greatly reduced since the Enlightenment due to the faults of the Church itself? As for a lack of charity, one might say we lacked faith in your commitment to a real discussion. people are less godly now its true
I would call you a low content, bargain bin Socrates again, but he would use punctuation.
And who decides what is godly?
|
On December 06 2018 09:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2018 09:12 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2018 06:39 ReditusSum wrote:
I didn't explain it because our value systems are obviously so different that my explanation would have zero influence upon your thinking. I am a religious. In my conception, the fundamental aim of all men's lives and actions are purely religious. Therefore the Enlightenment, which is the secularization of society and has led to freedom of religion, freedom of social morality, secularization of government and philosophy, scientism, materialism, and rising atheism is contrary to the highest aim and purpose of man and since it is the most effective attack on the ultimate supremacy of the Church to date it is necessarily "the worst thing to happen to humanity" (since the Fall, but I exclude that in the interest of preventing an evolution/creation debate. let us presume evolution and thus no actual "Fall") Obviously the modern secular thinking would see this is absurd. Our values are simply so different as to be entirely incompatible.
I will say that the reaction my comment got, which was to largely misrepresent what I actually wrote and make wild assumptions as to my education, knowledge, motives, and character also contributed to me abandoning the conversation. It showed a distinct lack of charity. If you cannot be bothered to explain yourself, I question why you are even attempting to engage with discussion in the first place. Or that you have any intention of engaging in a discussion in good faith. The excuse that your value system is so different that it precludes any explanation is the sort of hand waving excuse that one uses when they couldn’t be bothered or never intended to explain themselves. Or have never examined their views critically. I am also religious. So I do not find your reasoning, or lack of reasoning, to be compelling in any way. In fact, I find it sorely lacking in any real substance as to why the Enlightenment was a negative for humanity or humanities connection with God. Has Salvation somehow become less available to humanity since the Enlightenment? Are the teachings of God not available to us all in this modern era? Or is it simply that Catholicism’s dominance over Christianity has been greatly reduced since the Enlightenment due to the faults of the Church itself? As for a lack of charity, one might say we lacked faith in your commitment to a real discussion. people are less godly now its true I would call you a low content, bargain bin Socrates again, but he would use punctuation. And who decides what is godly?
I just assumed he was saying less people believe in god now when compared with 100 years ago
|
On December 06 2018 09:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2018 09:26 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2018 09:12 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2018 06:39 ReditusSum wrote:
I didn't explain it because our value systems are obviously so different that my explanation would have zero influence upon your thinking. I am a religious. In my conception, the fundamental aim of all men's lives and actions are purely religious. Therefore the Enlightenment, which is the secularization of society and has led to freedom of religion, freedom of social morality, secularization of government and philosophy, scientism, materialism, and rising atheism is contrary to the highest aim and purpose of man and since it is the most effective attack on the ultimate supremacy of the Church to date it is necessarily "the worst thing to happen to humanity" (since the Fall, but I exclude that in the interest of preventing an evolution/creation debate. let us presume evolution and thus no actual "Fall") Obviously the modern secular thinking would see this is absurd. Our values are simply so different as to be entirely incompatible.
I will say that the reaction my comment got, which was to largely misrepresent what I actually wrote and make wild assumptions as to my education, knowledge, motives, and character also contributed to me abandoning the conversation. It showed a distinct lack of charity. If you cannot be bothered to explain yourself, I question why you are even attempting to engage with discussion in the first place. Or that you have any intention of engaging in a discussion in good faith. The excuse that your value system is so different that it precludes any explanation is the sort of hand waving excuse that one uses when they couldn’t be bothered or never intended to explain themselves. Or have never examined their views critically. I am also religious. So I do not find your reasoning, or lack of reasoning, to be compelling in any way. In fact, I find it sorely lacking in any real substance as to why the Enlightenment was a negative for humanity or humanities connection with God. Has Salvation somehow become less available to humanity since the Enlightenment? Are the teachings of God not available to us all in this modern era? Or is it simply that Catholicism’s dominance over Christianity has been greatly reduced since the Enlightenment due to the faults of the Church itself? As for a lack of charity, one might say we lacked faith in your commitment to a real discussion. people are less godly now its true I would call you a low content, bargain bin Socrates again, but he would use punctuation. And who decides what is godly? I just assumed he was saying less people believe in god now when compared with 100 years ago
Why would you do that when you can just insist that he stop shit posting and engage in a real discussion?
|
Depends what you mean by the concept of "god" or "godly". By any accounts people are not particularily any more or anyless religious by any one religion in the entirety of human history. In fact people don't seem to be anymore or anyless religious, except that people are generally more tolerant of other faiths nowadays.. But in any case even if one was to accept the argument that people are less "godly", whatever than means, that in no way diminishes the argument that reditus is just typing pure trash and by association is igne's argement pure trash.
|
On December 06 2018 09:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2018 09:26 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2018 09:12 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2018 06:39 ReditusSum wrote:
I didn't explain it because our value systems are obviously so different that my explanation would have zero influence upon your thinking. I am a religious. In my conception, the fundamental aim of all men's lives and actions are purely religious. Therefore the Enlightenment, which is the secularization of society and has led to freedom of religion, freedom of social morality, secularization of government and philosophy, scientism, materialism, and rising atheism is contrary to the highest aim and purpose of man and since it is the most effective attack on the ultimate supremacy of the Church to date it is necessarily "the worst thing to happen to humanity" (since the Fall, but I exclude that in the interest of preventing an evolution/creation debate. let us presume evolution and thus no actual "Fall") Obviously the modern secular thinking would see this is absurd. Our values are simply so different as to be entirely incompatible.
I will say that the reaction my comment got, which was to largely misrepresent what I actually wrote and make wild assumptions as to my education, knowledge, motives, and character also contributed to me abandoning the conversation. It showed a distinct lack of charity. If you cannot be bothered to explain yourself, I question why you are even attempting to engage with discussion in the first place. Or that you have any intention of engaging in a discussion in good faith. The excuse that your value system is so different that it precludes any explanation is the sort of hand waving excuse that one uses when they couldn’t be bothered or never intended to explain themselves. Or have never examined their views critically. I am also religious. So I do not find your reasoning, or lack of reasoning, to be compelling in any way. In fact, I find it sorely lacking in any real substance as to why the Enlightenment was a negative for humanity or humanities connection with God. Has Salvation somehow become less available to humanity since the Enlightenment? Are the teachings of God not available to us all in this modern era? Or is it simply that Catholicism’s dominance over Christianity has been greatly reduced since the Enlightenment due to the faults of the Church itself? As for a lack of charity, one might say we lacked faith in your commitment to a real discussion. people are less godly now its true I would call you a low content, bargain bin Socrates again, but he would use punctuation. And who decides what is godly? I just assumed he was saying less people believe in god now when compared with 100 years ago
I mean considering India alone outnumbers the entire world from 1900 I'm gonna call bullshit on that.
|
On December 06 2018 10:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2018 09:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2018 09:26 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2018 09:12 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2018 07:00 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2018 06:39 ReditusSum wrote:
I didn't explain it because our value systems are obviously so different that my explanation would have zero influence upon your thinking. I am a religious. In my conception, the fundamental aim of all men's lives and actions are purely religious. Therefore the Enlightenment, which is the secularization of society and has led to freedom of religion, freedom of social morality, secularization of government and philosophy, scientism, materialism, and rising atheism is contrary to the highest aim and purpose of man and since it is the most effective attack on the ultimate supremacy of the Church to date it is necessarily "the worst thing to happen to humanity" (since the Fall, but I exclude that in the interest of preventing an evolution/creation debate. let us presume evolution and thus no actual "Fall") Obviously the modern secular thinking would see this is absurd. Our values are simply so different as to be entirely incompatible.
I will say that the reaction my comment got, which was to largely misrepresent what I actually wrote and make wild assumptions as to my education, knowledge, motives, and character also contributed to me abandoning the conversation. It showed a distinct lack of charity. If you cannot be bothered to explain yourself, I question why you are even attempting to engage with discussion in the first place. Or that you have any intention of engaging in a discussion in good faith. The excuse that your value system is so different that it precludes any explanation is the sort of hand waving excuse that one uses when they couldn’t be bothered or never intended to explain themselves. Or have never examined their views critically. I am also religious. So I do not find your reasoning, or lack of reasoning, to be compelling in any way. In fact, I find it sorely lacking in any real substance as to why the Enlightenment was a negative for humanity or humanities connection with God. Has Salvation somehow become less available to humanity since the Enlightenment? Are the teachings of God not available to us all in this modern era? Or is it simply that Catholicism’s dominance over Christianity has been greatly reduced since the Enlightenment due to the faults of the Church itself? As for a lack of charity, one might say we lacked faith in your commitment to a real discussion. people are less godly now its true I would call you a low content, bargain bin Socrates again, but he would use punctuation. And who decides what is godly? I just assumed he was saying less people believe in god now when compared with 100 years ago I mean considering India alone outnumbers the entire world from 1900 I'm gonna call bullshit on that.
Well I more so mean in terms of percentages. What % of society is determined by religion vs not? I'd say that has gone down. The idea of "but the Bible says!" just doesn't matter nearly as much as before.
But from a Stargate perspective, the Ori would be more powerful today than 1900 years ago since I think their power just came from number of people worshipping them.
|
On December 06 2018 09:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Which god?
But lets be serious. Despite being from the USA, reditus has missed the Protestant reformation, where the Catholic church has the dubious honour of being so corrupt that it was the only large religion that through sheer corruptness had lost massive amounts of their own adherants. In what could be called a civil war of the Catholic domain. For over 100 years. Where no one ever expects the godwrath inquisition. Where upon it was so corrupt that it essentially sold the promise of a more comfortable afterlife for sinners if they pay money directly into its coffers.
Republican gerrymandering and elction fraud and Mueller's filed documents are so much more interesting than his fanfic.
Did you miss the fracture of Islam shortly after its birth? The "dubious honour" you speak of is largely an illusory construct of your dubious framing.
|
On December 06 2018 14:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2018 09:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Which god?
But lets be serious. Despite being from the USA, reditus has missed the Protestant reformation, where the Catholic church has the dubious honour of being so corrupt that it was the only large religion that through sheer corruptness had lost massive amounts of their own adherants. In what could be called a civil war of the Catholic domain. For over 100 years. Where no one ever expects the godwrath inquisition. Where upon it was so corrupt that it essentially sold the promise of a more comfortable afterlife for sinners if they pay money directly into its coffers.
Republican gerrymandering and elction fraud and Mueller's filed documents are so much more interesting than his fanfic. Did you miss the fracture of Islam shortly after its birth? The "dubious honour" you speak of is largely an illusory construct of your dubious framing.
Maybe its a problem inherent in using an outdated text with a wide variety of possible interpretations as a tool to decide how to organize the behaviour of other people.
|
On December 06 2018 14:46 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2018 09:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Which god?
But lets be serious. Despite being from the USA, reditus has missed the Protestant reformation, where the Catholic church has the dubious honour of being so corrupt that it was the only large religion that through sheer corruptness had lost massive amounts of their own adherants. In what could be called a civil war of the Catholic domain. For over 100 years. Where no one ever expects the godwrath inquisition. Where upon it was so corrupt that it essentially sold the promise of a more comfortable afterlife for sinners if they pay money directly into its coffers.
Republican gerrymandering and elction fraud and Mueller's filed documents are so much more interesting than his fanfic. Did you miss the fracture of Islam shortly after its birth? The "dubious honour" you speak of is largely an illusory construct of your dubious framing.
What exactly does the fracture of Islam have to do with corruption?
But anyway, arguing that modern-day Catholicism is awful because ~500 years ago it was filthy corrupt doesn't really seem to contradict reditus' point either. Lets face it, a theocracy (leaving aside whether that is reigned over by a monarch or not) isn't a terrible idea because it's catholic, it's a terrible idea regardless of what religion is "in charge".
Let's not forget that the Protestants were perfectly happy to continue Catholic traditions of stoning heathens and burning witches, it's just that the Catholics were now heathens instead of the Protestants (and the witches were still the same women who disagreed with their neighbours).
Anyway, reditus' proposal is pretty awful for anybody who isn't a devout catholic (and probably for quite a lot who are as well... it's not as if the secret police in Iran is particularly interested in whether you are or are not a devout Muslim in your own eyes: if you disagree with the Ayatollah, you are by their definition not a devout Muslim), which is why it's a terrible idea. Another terrible idea is because many of the rules that were a good idea when the Bible was written approximately 2000 years ago, are no longer good ideas now. Why try to adhere to them?
Which brings me to the final point, which is that underlying all the theocratic monarchy stuff lies a desire to undo the enlightenment. We should not strive to create an environment where multiple ideas and ideologies can coexist, and in fact flourish, simultaneously, and the people with different worldviews live there in peace. Rather we should go back to the times where the supreme leader decided what everybody should think, and if you thought differently then you were prone to be punished (horribly). This is an absurdly dangerous idea, and I would strongly urge reditus to read some history books on what Europe (or even the US) was like pre-enlightenment. If you want Catholic monarchy, I suggest starting with the Reyes Catolicos. That was a fun time (especially for non-Catholics, but as I mentioned above, devout Catholics were not entirely safe either).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
