VitalSigns posted:So still not interested in answering what happens to sexual minorities in Glorious Russian Orthodoxia? Catholics, and probably Orthodox Christians too, are more likely than average to be pro-gay in the USA. The position outlined is one of religiously-oriented rule, not adopting the structure of the church into the government. Therefore, the proposed liturgical theocracy would have more support for gay rights than the USA does currently. Who What Now posted:Anime is made exclusively for pedophiles. You like anime. You are a pedophile. Ironclad logic.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:24 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah, it's all good. I tell you what, when I hear "benign theocracy", the first thing that comes to mind is the institution that clung to serfdom and feudalism until a German empress finally shoved some slivers of change down their throats at gunpoint. Supporting the Tsars as they threw millions of men into the meatgrinder against the Turks, the Japanese, and the Germans in various centuries bodes well for the pacific nature of our proposed Orthodox theocracy as well. First of all, I would appreciate it if you would respond to my post instead of engaging in this sort of moral cowardice. Second of all, this is vaguely racist against Slavs and I have to ask if you are now, or have ever been, a member of the American National Socialist Party. Thirdly, you fundamentally do not understand the structure of the Orthodox Church and I have to question why we should treat your obvious ignorance with any respect.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:04
|
|
E-Tank posted:So you say you're a christian, but you deny one of the big things of the faith. Namely, hell exists and god will totally condemn you to it if you so much as glance at him the wrong way. Hell is not mentioned in the Nicene Creed, nor is it said to be a place of torment in the Apostle's Creed. These were specifically written to sum up the faith in a few sentences.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:06
|
|
Who What Now posted:This only applies the laypeople. The Catholic Church as an organization doesn't support equal rights for homosexuals, even if now they have the good sense to tap dance around actually saying as much. Again, this is not suggesting that the hierarchy of the American Orthodox Churches take over the government, nor the Catholic Church, from anything that I can see. And I would like some proof that Steven Spielberg is a child molester.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:08
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Did you seriously just ask me if I'm an Nazi because I am opposed to the violent oppression of LGBT people? No, I asked if you were a member of an organized antiSlavic organization given your hatred and contempt for Russians expressed in the idea that a German had to "force change down their throats". In addition, abortion would be legal in this same scenario because the majority of Catholics support broadly-available abortion and so do half of Orthodox Christians.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:13
|
|
Who What Now posted:Do you have any idea what a Theocracy is? Theocracy means rule by religious law. It does not say anything about the Church hierarchy serving as the government. This would make Sunni theocracies impossible otherwise. And good job with the accusations of public figures as pedophiles. Truly, a logical process free from error.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:21
|
|
BrandorKP posted:This is spot on. But Christians can say the exact same thing and then we can go onto say that be theocratic is against the spirit of Christianity, as it's certainly not the example of Jesus. Or we could say that the gospels were written by people who had just been utterly crushed by a Roman state built on a state religion, a theocracy (of a cult of emperor). And that the context that most of the apocalypses of the New Testament are written in, are of a Roman state/emperor cult doing pretty lovely things to people not participating in the theocracy. The Romans required people to follow the state religion. This is not the same thing at all, and the idea that theocratic rule always ends in the extermination/violent oppression of religious minorities ignores vast parts of Islamic history.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:24
|
|
Who What Now posted:We're not talking about Sunnis now are we? Even if the church hierarchy wouldn't be in positions by law, they would almost certainly find those positions in a weird coincidence (it wouldn't actually be a coincidence). Theocracy only applies to Christians? This is surely not reasonable.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:28
|
|
Who What Now posted:In America it does, yes. This is an asinine position to hold. Definitions should not shift so broadly when we talk about one specific country if we are to have meaningful communication.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:30
|
|
Who What Now posted:I don't know what to tell you then, but that's the way it works. Different cultures can mean that similar terms have vastly different meanings. So what would we call a hypothetical USA that was ruled by Buddhist law? What should we call this proposed society, which separates out religious authority and secular (an example of a word that genuinely shifts meanings in this context) authority but still has the secular authority informed by religious values? Because saying "Theocracy requires popery!" is not convincing as a response to this system without outlining the means by which it is impossible to establish this system outlined in the prior sentence.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:34
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Exploitation such as providing food, water, medicine, education, and protection from murderous Muslim hordes. Or in the case of that one priest in the CAR, protection for Muslims against anti-Islamic violence.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 01:29
|
|
Who What Now posted:I bet that's exactly what southern slave owners told themselves to make them feel better about owning blacks, too. You seem to have confused the Catholic Church in California circa 1500 with the Catholic Church in Africa circa 2014. I'm not sure how this sort of mix-up happens.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 01:55
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So you're telling me that in your ideal theocracy, women will have complete bodiy autonomy and access to contraceptives and abortion, women will have full political equality to include eligibility for the priesthood and the Papacy, there will not be a jizyah for non-believers, and that sexual minorities will likewise be fully protected by the legal system and have full equality to include marrying the person of their choice and freedom from economic discrimination? Jizya exists/existed in Muslim countries because believers are compelled to give alms and nonbelievers are not and so a tax was laid on nonbelievers to make up for this missing fund. In a situation like much of modern Christianity where almsgiving is deprecated, there would be no need for jizya, and in a situation where almsgiving is as socially required as it is in Islam, it would be necessary for people who didn't contribute (and in any case there would need to be a public utility-styled charity to make alms meaningful on a society-wide scale). So there's that. Medieval Catholicism contended that abortion wasn't murder as the fetus lacked a human soul until close to the moment of birth, and in any case it is necessary to separate out the secular power from the religious power so I don't see why abortion wouldn't be left to the conscience of the individual woman. And opposition to contraception is also a fairly recent phenomenon and also falls under the question of the individual conscience. The early Christian Church had no problem with homosexuality as far as anyone can tell, beyond separating procreative and non-procreative sex, and would eagerly support gay marriage. Now, polyamorists would probably be poo poo out of luck. Economic discrimination is a fairly obvious category of injustice and a government run on truly Christian principles would take sharp aim at it.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 23:56
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:I can't wait for the first angry schism to occur in the new United Christian States. Hopefully we'll get a truly spectacular body count to finally do away with that "atheism caused more deaths in the 20th century..." talking point. See if you can get it to 30-years-war levels; aim for wiping out at least half the population of the most contested areas. The theocratic regime being outlined by Who What Now et al is one that would be eagerly supported by evangelical laity. The one outlined by Smoking Crow is one that would be eagerly supported by mainstream Protestant and HBC Protestant laity. You do realize that the Reformation was more about power struggles between Church/Imperial and local authority and that the doctrinal issues were mainly justifications for the uprisings, right? Because otherwise you'd think the Lollards, Fraticelli, Hussites, or any of the other dissenting religions would have provoked similar schisms if it was just a matter of religion and religious authority.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 01:17
|
|
rkajdi posted:Well, there is the idea of a Just War, which suggests that violence is allowed in some circumstances. Opening the door to violence is pretty toxic to the idea of pacifism. Would you be of the opinion that resistance to Nazi occupation was wrong, then? I mean, you're saying that the notion of justifiable violence is irreconcilable with pacifism in a context that suggests that the notion is wrong, so this should logically disallow the Maquis, let alone the vast majority of anticolonial movements.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 14:26
|
|
Barlow posted:As for pacifism: I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn sons against fathers, mothers against daughters, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law, and people's enemies will be of their own household. If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--they cannot be my disciple. My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my followers would be fighting to free me. But my kingdom is of another place.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 02:13
|
|
Barlow posted:First off, quoting disparate bits of various gospels out of context is a poor way to derive meaning from the Bible. Take Matthew 10:34-36 for instance, which is part of the instructions for the Twelve Apostles and about the trials they will endure while engaged in doing their work and not couched as a general command. Statements like "all who take the sword will perish by the sword" are also a lot clearer as instructions. The point is that taking Jesus as an absolute pacifist is something that isn't supportable by the texts, and relies on treating Jesus as though he expected everyone to be able to follow his commands universally. This is something that has about as much writing in the gospels contradicting it as there is material supporting peacefulness. You also neglect the quotation from John which should be enough to counter the notion of Jesus as absolute pacifist, but of course John is not synoptic.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 14:29
|
|
Who What Now posted:In the passages you quoted Jesus was not endorsing violence between families. He was acknowledging the fact that at the time his teachings were considering both radical and heretical. He was not making a proclamation of intent but a prediction of the immediate future. His messages would cause arguments and possibly even violence along the highly Orthodox Jews of his time. These were predictions of great sadness for the Christ, not a gleeful proclamation of fratricide. I think that you're jumping to conclusions. The basic element here is that Jesus isn't absolutely pacifistic. He's saying that his teachings will bring strife, but strife requires two sides. He's not telling his followers to just knuckle under, or to do whatever it takes to avoid violence. In fact, you're not just jumping to conclusions, you're making poo poo up entirely. If you're not willing to treat people with honesty, should you really be trying to discuss things?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 17:12
|
|
Barlow posted:Not sure I understand your interpretation of that verse. Jesus clearly says that those that follow him should not be fighting. John 18:36 is almost always taken as a verse in support of pacifism. Jesus is saying that there are circumstances under which violence is acceptable/justifiable. This is incompatible with the sort of absolute pacifism which is attributed to Jesus. VitalSigns posted:
Personally, I believe that the Mau Mau Uprising was a just war. How about you?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Jesus heals the Canaanite woman's child because she abases herself and says that she's like a dog compared to the Jews, the chosen people of God. I dunno how you're going to read that particular scene as Jesus saying that all religio-ethnic groups are equal but I'm sure it will be a good time.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 17:58
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm not a Christian. My personal opinions on wars are irrelevant to what Jesus commanded us to do. I also think it's perfectly moral to have sex outside of marriage. VitalSigns posted:The biblical knowledge by some Christians in this thread is shockingly bad. Between the guy who claimed the KJV is the authoritative bible, the guy claiming adoption is sick because the biological mother isn't raising the child, and this guy trying to resurrect Just War theory, I'm starting to suspect they're trying to make Christianity look bad on purpose. So is justifying war a bad thing or not? Don't wait for the translation, Mr. Zorin!
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:04
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I've explained how I read that particular scene. But here's some more, Jesus is one satirical fucker. Many, many, of his actions and parables/sayings are pretty biting (and often irreverent) satire, (the most clear example is the triumphant entry). It's something rather important to keep in mind. I think he's loving with his disciples for keeping her away, and he does that a lot (fucks with his disciples). And what language are these gospels written in, and what groups are the authors probably from, and who in this passage do they probably identify with, and what's already happen to Israel? Start asking those questions and it makes more sense than just going, lol, he literally called her a bitch. This is far more complex, and fits far more poorly with the text, than assuming Jesus was inconsistent and had no real reason for consistency and plenty of reasons to be inconsistent.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:08
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Saying "some Christians in this thread are posting stupid poo poo" is not the same as saying most Christians in the world don't know how to do something. You're tilting at windmills. So are Christians required to de/convert in order to resist imperialistic oppression? Is this truly a reasonable demand to make of people?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:11
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't know man, take it up with God. But I hear he's pretty forgiving, so if you end up taking up the sword to defend your loved ones, he'll probably understand if you repent. What I'm getting from this is that Christians alone, or perhaps theists if I am generous, have a stricter scrutiny applied to their adherence to moral doctrines. Why not apply the same level of scrutiny towards atheistic utilitarians, or nihilists?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:17
|
|
BrandorKP posted:He's pretty consistent in basically going: You guys really don't get it do you, to his disciples. And he's actually joking, like a lot, in the gospels. When you look at the actual text, the disciples are only mentioned in one account. The important element of the story between Matthew and Mark is "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the children's crumbs underneath the table."
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:21
|
|
Miltank posted:yeah I guess it is racist if you read the parable contextless without the rest of the chapter and in a time period after Christianity has already completely changed the way we understand our relationship to each other. I'm not watching that all the way through, is it arguing that it's racist because it supposedly singles out a single "good samaritan" or what?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:23
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What no, we're all sinners. If you can't turn the other cheek or give away all your possessions, that's between you and God. When people want to twist Christianity into supporting war with Just war or greed with the Prosperity Gospel, it's perfectly reasonable to point out those theories aren't justified scripturally. Arguing that Jesus's extreme demands are meant to be taken 100% seriously is asinine in light of what Jesus actually says about who will receive salvation.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:31
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This guy just gave the Iraq War his official Jesus Stamp of Approval, I don't know why you're bringing up a few oppressed minorities as if that will sway him. Please don't cheerlead here in the Disco. BrandorKP posted:Who are the authors of Mark and and Matthew and who would they identity with in this passage. And does the version in Mark or Matthew matter more (Mark probably because this isn't in Luke). Mark's audience is gentile (because the Jewish traditions have to be explained). So again who would the author and intended audience identify with. And is my interpretation in line with Mark's larger themes of "the failure of the disciples" and the "messianic secret"? I'm arguing from the perspective of assuming the gospels are recording and transmitting stories of Jesus first, so the question of whether the authors of Matthew and Mark are simultaneously writing this elaborate satire versus Jesus reaffirming the notion of Jews as God's chosen people is one that will be biased towards the latter answer.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 18:47
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm imagining a wave of neoconservative 20-year-old post-2010 regdates about to lecture us smugly on the necessity of wars that took place when they were children. They'll all be berry unique of course, with rationales that span the gamut from theocratical to atheist. I think that you are misinterpreting what was said in such a blatant way that it almost must be deliberate. I was, of course, younger than you during the lead-up to Iraq, but what people criticized was not removing Saddam Hussein from power, but rather the prospect of imperial exploitation of Iraq afterwards, the utterly insane occupation/reconstruction proposals, the use of constantly-shifting lies to drum up support for the war, etc. If you think it's leftist to support the Ba'ath Party of Iraq, which purged all of its leftists before Saddam took power, you may be a jackass in politico's clothing. If you think it's just to believe that removing a mass-murderer and tyrant that had repeatedly invaded other nations was an inherently immoral action, you may be a crass rear end in a top hat. If you've the opinion of many cod-leftists, that having done the wrong thing once, nations/the USA should never do anything again, you've all the brainpower of a particularly stupid amoeba.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Even if blatantly refusing to read a post isn't against the rules, it's still childish behavior, especially when your response makes no sense in comparison to what was actually said.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 14:23
|
|
SedanChair posted:You think it takes more than four minutes to read a paragraph of neoconservative barf? That's not a neoconservative position. Neoconservatism is about the imposition of American/western power on other nations, on the grounds that American democracy is the best form of government. Saying that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a good thing is not inherently neoconservative, unless we are to take the position that the USA was opposing neoconservatism when it supported the Pinochet government and the Brazilian junta. Please, explain the justification under which removing Saddam Hussein, as an action in and of itself, is a morally neutral or immoral action.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 14:31
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The problem here is that viewing the removal of Saddam Hussein from power without reference to the context in which it happened is next to pointless, the equivalent of saying "it is good to do good things, and to oppose bad things" (hey, I just realized why this Iraq garbage fits in this thread so well!). To ignore that context, particularly as it was (at least) the third excuse offered up by the neo-cons for why we invaded in the first place, after "they've got WMDS!" and "they helped with 9/11!" both were shown to be complete lies, misses the point and threatens to whitewash the whole nightmarishish shitshow that was the Iraq War in a way that would make Cheney the Deathless proud, were he capable of admiring the actions of pitiful humans such as us. I don't see why it's necessary to take classify the removal of Saddamn Hussein as a negative outcome of the invasion of Iraq, though. You can still point out how the American government relied on shifting lies to sell the war, attempted to institute a thorough system of imperial exploitation in Iraq, destroyed most of the country's infrastructure, annihilated political stability, and all the evil consequences of our attack on Iraq. The added bonus is that you're no longer implicitly endorsing mass-murders and invasions so long as the wealthy countries don't do them. Or, to put it another way, would it be an immoral action for the USA to use its intelligence apparatus to destabilize Vladimir Putin's government and support dissident elements within Russia? This is apart from it being a smart or stupid action. emfive posted:How exactly is the selection of which foreign leaders to topple by invasion and occupation to be made? I don't see what this has to do with what I'm saying.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Boy, I wish we could go back to the 1980s, when we firmly opposed neoconservatism by supporting the Khmer Rouge in their efforts to resist the Vietnamese invasion.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 14:50
|
|
SedanChair posted:Guys let's overthrow governments, and replace dictators we installed with other dictators, but let's do it a little more smartly this time, yes? How are democratic and open governmental systems to be established without removing the authoritarian and closed systems that currently exist? What is the means by which the USA, or I guess if you're particularly intelligent for a vulgar leftist, the Global North, is incapable of fostering said governments?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 14:52
|
|
emfive posted:If the removal of some head of state is a moral thing to do in some circumstances, what exactly are those circumstances? I believe that a democratic and open system of government is best, so governments that oppose these means, by killing, imprisoning, or terrorizing dissenters, committing mass-murders, removing or minimizing the ability of the people to influence the government, committing abuses of human rights, invading other countries, engaging in imperial exploitation of other countries, supporting other countries that do any or all of these things, etc. should be opposed to their destruction. This of course covers the United States of America's government (and those of many wealthy countries), and what a wonderful thing it is that the USA is only partway down the scale on the domestic end so it can be opposed and changed more easily.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
I'm glad that so many supposed leftists and liberals think that Vladimir Putin's government should remain in power, and that the house of Saud should forever rule over the people of Saudi Arabia as an absolute monarchy, and that the coup in Thailand will only do good as it eliminates western nonsense like the freedom of speech and elections.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 15:00
|
|
SedanChair posted:See, now you regret calling me neoconservative. Neoconservatives might think it's a bad idea to start a nuclear war because you don't like the leader of Russia, whereas I Finally, someone who can come out and say that whether a government is open and democratic or not is just a matter of taste. Maybe they should start offering package tours for pseudoleftists to visit Russian prisons and beat the poo poo out of imprisoned communists.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 15:03
|
|
Conservatives of history would include Jack Kirby, with his disgusting propaganda about violently assaulting Germany and its duly-chosen leader, Adolf Hitler, just because he didn't like the guy. Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel went even further by having their (fascist) stand-in Superman overthrow the government of Germany entirely and turn Hitler over to the imperialist institution of the League of Nations.McAlister posted:Television. Imperialism is a bad thing, actually, and this is Friedmanist nonsense. This only works for a society where democratic institutions exist in sufficient form for people to change things simply through yelling loudly enough. Overthrowing a tyrannical regime like the Fiji junta requires things like coordination.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 15:10
|
|
McAlister posted:So you come from an alternate reality where things like the Haitian slave revolt, the American revolution, the French Revolution, etc never happened? You are responding to another person, clearly, so I think you should quote them in your reply. This has little, if anything, to do with what I actually wrote, and if you did intend a response, what you wrote is too choked in assumptions for a meaningful dialogue to develop. Who What Now posted:Your whitewashing the deaths of civilians. That is what you are doing. You're saying that it's ok to violently kill innocent people because "Well you can't make an omelette without making a couple thousand orphans and cripples." Clearly, the Allies should have rolled over rather than inflict civilian casualties in the Second World War.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:24 |
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't know, this thread has already exposed the vicious misogyny, homophobia, and authoritarianism that lurks in the souls of theocrats, might as well bring the full-on racism and Dominionism out in the open too. Fine, I'll admit it. I believe that white people are morally, physically, and spiritually inferior to all other kinds of humanity.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 16:08
|
|