|
Wait why is we taken the Roman word on the issue before all others? We should at least give equal voice to Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria. Also the Armenians and Georgians of course.
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Why not use the method of islam, and declare that the earlier a revelation from jesus was received, the more weight it holds and less corrupted it was by human interests? I am okay with that part of Islamic jurisprudence. I think the Roman Bishop needs to stand back in the line, but Francis seems pretty easy going.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Its one method of jurisprudence. It does, however, incentivize the destruction of any potential for evidence which precedes the practices of current power structures, and you wind up with wholesale destruction of culture and antiquity which doesn't fit your current narrative agenda. That's why its an inappropriate method of jurisprudence, because it assumes everything is known and acticely seeks to repress evidence of potential unknowns. Depends government, era and school of thought, and to be honest there is always differing interpretations of already established Islamic precedent. Either way, a government can always choose to suppress culture or history regardless of if there is a precedent or not. If you want to establish your own history, it probably makes more sense to destroy everything to begin with and then move on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Oh, definitely. However, its made easier when you're able to hand-wave away anything uncovered which goes against your state narrative. Hence the need for democratic systems: You can change the state narrative on the basis of evidence and data uncovered through best-practices research, and hold hypocritical political agendas without suffering the negative impacts of hypocracy. It is the old which is most intimidating to humanity, for it goes against our acceptance of political hierarchy. Democratic systems, respect for different cultures and limits to state suppression can not exist without attention paid to material interests, in order to have a state structure that will balance these interests you need an economy stable enough to promote a civil (enough) society. Ultimately, these will likely only become rarer across the 21st century, and ISIS is only a early example of the way things will look, and not only in Muslim societies.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I mostly agree, except I would add that organized religion with developed jurisprudence allows your ethnicity to survive during prolonged periods of economic instability with sporadic bouts of unanticipated or unintended transitions of authority. A well organized civil society can serve as a hub-and-spoke network for social order which in times of hierarchical state structures supplements and strengthens state development while during times of weaker state authority serves to ensure cultural survival. Granted, we aren't really talking about developed or undeveloped jurisprudence but how it is formed in the first place. You can say as time as gone on this developed has "unraveled" but I believe in part it of an evolution of the process. If we talking about Islam over all, Ottoman dominated Hanifism was quite stable and it took the state to fracture then the necessities of the Cold War to actually set the stage in this case.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:That's the issue, isn't it? Organized religion which will survive on the mezzo-level without central state authority and be able to police its affairs with other faiths, while thriving and synergizing with developed political orders during times of state development, is hard to find in this world. In fact, there are very few that I can think of which do this. Hanifism collapsed with the collapse of centralized state authority and the exertion of foreign influence; foreign influence has a tendancy to always interact with a power vacuum, and has for all of recorded history. State authority waxes and wanes; the goal of religious institutional development must be to survive the periods of waning central authority while allowing adherants access to the necessary tools to continue jurisprudence and advance human development. Ultimately, if you look at the Roman Catholic Church itself, through its history it generally acted as a state if not was outright one. The Church just never collapsed like the Ottomans did or the Byzantines (although the Ottomans in that case took over the reins themselves). If you want to call it a silent state after the early modern period thats fine, but ultimately you ultimately have to fully accept the Church and its authority isn't replaceable for a reason.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 21:48
|
|