|
Smoking Crow posted:Especially a Catholic/Orthodox Christian theocracy. There would be no rich or poor, as St. Basil the Great said that "For if we all took only what was necessary to satisfy our own needs, giving the rest to those who lack, no one would be rich, no one would be poor, and no one would be in need." If we could decouple the theocratic state from far right politics, we could have a perfect ruling class. Another good point of a theocratic government would be that war would be a complete last option as killing is banned by almost all religions. I don't know how many times I have to tell you but Priest really isn't Paul Bettany's best work.
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:That almost never causes a decades long schism You know what, I'll change my position on the whole deal if Smoking Crow can guarantee another cadaver synod.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I do. Welcome to the team! Nah I was just messin' with you, there is no God and theocracy is for squares. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:The Aztec religion is false because there haven't been sacrifices since the time of Cortes and yet the sun still burns. Unless they count war death as sacrifice, but I'm not sure what the codices say. Neither does anyone else, since the Spanish priests burned them all!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:Christianity is fanfiction and WH40K does the source material better justice. Well maybe they can stuff you in a golden chair after you die!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:But you can kill tons and tons of elves in WHF. While the red onz still go fasta in WHF, they don't go as fast as in WH40k though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I don't think that is true, op Pretty much is, sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Miltank posted:seems like a bit of a cop out to me. Unless it's right. Which it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Did you seriously just ask me if I'm an Nazi because I am opposed to the violent oppression of LGBT people? Pretty sure he didn't get the Catherine reference. quote:So you're saying your idealized theocracy will not discriminate against sexual minorities the way it will discriminate against women? Hell, the OP's claim really isn't anything more than "Wouldn't it be nice if everything was nice, and bad things didn't exist? Makes you think, man." Alexzandvar posted:Does a theocracy have freedom of speech? Do people still get to voice their opinions if it's critical of god or the church? Hail satan.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I bet that's exactly what southern slave owners told themselves to make them feel better about owning blacks, too. Probably not the islamophobic part, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:You think the church is in trouble because it refused to accept a bunch of Marxist babble? I don't know if you've been paying attention but outside internet forums Marxism has been dead a long time now. Your god has been dead far longer and that hasn't shut you up now has it?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:That's no one's business but the Turks. This doesn't on its own justify this abortion of a thread, but it sure does come close. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Word to the wise: unaccountable authority figures always end up being corrupt. The idea that if you could only get the good guys in power, and keep the bad guys out, is historical fantasy. What makes this doubly disgusting is that it claims that religious figures are more moral than other people, which as we've seen with the church abuse scandals, is not true. Or, you know, the last time the Papacy actually held temporal power.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:VitalSigns is purposely using a misleading translation. If you look at the KJV, for example, it's clear the passage is not about pregnancy, babies, or abortion at all. Hahahahah, yes, yes. Because when I think "accurate translation," it's the loving King James I go to first.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Women would be allowed to be government leaders, as the state, while influenced by the church, would not be identical with it. There are number of fine, devoutly Catholic women who would make great leaders, even if they are not priests. This got missed in the abortionchat, but I want to be clear here: you're advocating women being able to hold offices that are separate from the ruling priesthood, but equal to it somehow? Gosh, what a fresh new idea who's time has come!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:In general, men and women are essentially different, yet equal. I don't entirely agree with how the Catholic doctrine cashes that observation out, and as I've said, my theocratic utopia would probably include the D&D-approved notion of gender equality, but this really isn't the killer objection you're making it out to be. So when you said that women could have government jobs that were separate from the priesthood but equal to it, you really meant they could be ordained the same as any man and rise as high within the church as any man? You should probably stop posting until you've improved your communication skills, and also stop posting even after that point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Miltank posted:So is the NIV a liberal plot on the unborn? It literally says "miscarriage" He cited the King James as a more accurate translation of all loving things, what they hell do you think?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Natural rights? What is this, Wigton where everybody wears a powdered wig? You sayin' I shouldn't be wearing a powdered wig, jack?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Goons have no reason to condescend to anything, in my honest opinion. Speak for yourself, heh. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:It turns out that I'm actually really, really bad at willfully controlling my behavior. We've read your posts, we know.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
buttcoin smuggler posted:Some democratic checks and balances would be necessary. But on average, priests are better than ethical reasoning than laypeople. Man, that must mean the Popes during that period were, on average, better at ethical reasoning than the secular rulers of the same time. Gosh, I wonder whether the historical record bears this out or not...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
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. I'd rank the beatification of Cardnial Stepinac, supporter of the Croatian Ustaše and convicted war criminal, in that same category. That happened in 1998, in case anyone was wondering. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:What are you talking about? The church has nothing against medical c-sections. I am shocked, just shocked I say! To discover that you missed the story McAlister posted about how Catholic hospitals in Ireland preferred breaking women's pelvises rather than resorting to c-sections, as the latter can complicate later pregnancies, while the former merely cripples the
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:I never said that I was giving an example of a modern theocratic state. You are arguing against someone in your own head that has my face and voice, but isn't me. Speaking of which, what would your theocracy's policy be regarding replicants? This is as serious a matter as any addressed so far in this thread, I assure you.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Bad idea, robots are an affront to God. You will not be spared when the uprising begins.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Peta posted:I'm not Christian, but anyone who is/was ideologically opposed to the Iraq War - I'm not talking about the propaganda surrounding it, the execution, or the outcome - is at best ignorant and at worst morally monstrous. Hussein caused around a million deaths in a span of 24 years, committed genocide against the Kurds, invaded Iran, invaded and annexed Kuwait, created a monumental environmental catastrophe with the Kuwaiti oil fires, funded terrorists in the Levant, attempted to acquire ballistic missiles from North Korea, and insisted (even if at the time he lacked the ability to do so) that he would one day acquire nuclear weaponry. You could forget about half these feats and the remaining list would still constitute one of the most prolifically appalling regimes in history. You have no excuse for hiding behind phrases like "support of imperialism" when you dispute the moral and political legitimacy of the campaign against him. You are just adorable. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Fucker posted:This post does not a refutation of his point make, also, the Yes, truly it is I who is the fool for not engaging with a clear troll post in a thread already at least half gone to poo poo. If only I'd not used casual sarcasm to indicate that I thought he was a twit who no one ought take seriously, then surely we could pursue the burning question of whether the Iraq War a great idea, or the greatest possible idea, here in a thread ostensibly about theocracy! This is a good point to make, forums poster "Fucker." I am not being sarcastic. You are not a total loving moron.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Effectronica posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Ah dismissing my argument as a troll. What now, ad hominems? Great discourse level here on Debate Disco. Good point, latecoming poster who's entry to an already-lovely thread was "  b-b-but Stalin and Pol Pot! " I can't imagine why people might not take you all that seriously, and instead suspect that you're intentionally trying to rile everyone up. An unfathomable mystery, truly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Well if can't find the divine in poo poo where else am I going to find it? I'd not normally endorse the anime, but if revulsion from it will also finally bring you to cast aside your feverishly impenetrable theology then I guess I'm left in an awkward spot.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:It takes a distinguished mind for both pursuits. So what's your excuse, then?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:07 |
|
|
Ephemeron posted:Direct theocracy (i.e., a society ruled by an actual god or godlike entity) is a different matter. The closest implementation I can think of would be a society governed by a benevolent self-programming super-AI. However, at that point, I would expect humanity to evolve into a new posthuman species that would have no need for rulership or gods anyway. We don't talk about the regrettable Deus Ex sequel, dude.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 20:40
|
|