Printable View
Well, Christianity as an organised religion (as opposed to the faith and true church of all believers, which I see seperately) has had good and bad political associations. In Europe, it was often used to uphold far-right regimes. Yet in the USA, Protestant principles were at the root of the revolution its whole concept of political rights etc.
It's certainly better than communism, which has a 100% success rate for supporting oppressive regimes so far.
You tell that to Rosa Luxemburg.
Slavery is not a bad example. It had to be "sanctioned" with reference to Blacks because it was considered offensive to God in general. That is why Blacks were defined as sub-hman, so that they could be possessed along with any other beast. On the other hand, slavery was absoultely fine by anyone else's God at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Ultimately, however, Blacks were domonstrated not to be significantly different and the theological acrobatics fell mid-backflip; with orthodox, not heretical, Christians often being the ones to prove the point.
France used France to control people. Anyway, it was the Catholic King that restored democracy. So, obviously monarchies and religion are a good thing, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Oh, just thought I'd pick up on this; I'm neither stupid nor naive. Had you bothered to read my posts on Biblicalism in the past you would know I have a (probably better than you) nuanced understanding of the context of the construction of the Bible. For starters; most of the constituant books, and all of the NT, were written by authors under subjugation to non-Christian powers.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Bah! I die on the inside with these arguments where people shout "religion causes wars and oppression", and Christians return with "religion gives us morality and stops bad things like slavery".
Altough I've often heard slavery is only an OT thing and that it is no longer acceptable in Christianity, I don't know how they came to this conclusion. Jesus never actually condemns the institution of slavery, in fact IIRC he tells slaves to be obedient to their masters, and masters to treat their slaves well. Of course, slavery in ancient Palestine was very different to the Atlantic slave trade, and I don't see how an Atlantic slave trader could be comfortable with how their slaves were treated if he was a Christian. But there doesn't seem any ground for condemning it outright.
Again, I don't think this is a bad thing, since normally it's seen as a good thing if a religion isn't political and instead sticks to the spiritual side, which exactly what Jesus does here.
well, Christianity should be a wholly positive thing, shouldn't it. Lets not excuse Christians their failings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Just to be clear: I am not saying religion only brings death and destruction and all that :daisy:. I'm merely saying that it can be used just as easily for those purposes as any ideology can.
What does that have to do with anything I said? I'm commenting on how many Christians ignored their own teachings and then you say something about who wrote them and under what regime? If they were written on the moon, it wouldn't have anything to do with what I'm saying. It's about following them or not, and abusing them. Not writing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Many Christians, the most learned at the forefront, apparently had no problems whatsoever with the idea, LOL. They didn't have any trouble blissfully ignoring half of what Jesus had said, and happily jumped a few rings to give their conscience a bit of a break. Which underwrites my point: when push comes to shove, Christianity is no less suitable than any other ideology to justify wrongs with.Quote:
Originally Posted by PVC
Oh, and I'm sure the Christian master's slave'll appreciate the fact that his master had to do some mental gymnastics to justify his owning a slave. That'll make him feel much better, I'm sure.
Hebrew's used to have slaves in the Old Testament, look at Abraham, for incidence. Also, the Christian Roman Empire also instituted Serfdom and had no qualms with slavery either.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
In short: Slavery isn't against the bible.
it is really a oppressive piece of work, in many respects.
The Catholic King also established the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, and the only reason why the Spanish King didn't take power after that was because he was a complete idiot and had no hope of retaining power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The Spanish King Juan Carlos I is famous for not only restoring, but maintaining, democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Get a grip.
Wiki is quite comprehensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Carlos_of_Spain. Just because you hate your King doesn't mean the Spaniads hate theirs.
Not really, it's not oppressive or progressive, simply because it doesn't deal with wordly things such as political rights etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
As I said earlier, Jesus didn't cry out against slavery, he simply tried to comfort the victims of it.
Irrelevant. One semi-good king does not excuse the idiots before, Alfonso XIII who like I said before, instituted the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera and was unable to take power himself because he was an incompetent inbred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And it should be noted that the Carlist Requetés were Franco's 3rd best troops, after the Condor Legion and Yaque's Moroccans, and certainly a key factor in his victory and subsequent dictatorship.
"Semi-good"? Spain is a Constitutional democracy because of King Juan, not because of Liberals or Socialists, but because of the King!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And his grandfather instituted a dictatorship. What was your point again?
I'm sure the Spanish people had no role in this ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Of course not. You see, The Wizard, those of lower birth, the commoners, are irrelevant in the world, their only role is to obey their betters and God.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
Show me a bad King; I'll show you a good one. Show me a monster; I'll show you a hero.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Yes, and again, your point was?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
The good ones can get elected in a democracy anyway, but the bad ones won't. And even if they do get elected somehow, they won't rule for more than a few years, compared to the decades a bad king can rule.
This is why sensible people prefer a republic. That, and of course the idea that we are all equal at birth, that it is our merits, abilities and achievements that should decide our place in life, not who our mother was pounded by.
Well, they are pretty much determined by whoever your mother got pounded by. You can get political equality, but nature doesn't care about our egalitarian views.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
In any case, monarchy had its role in the development of society, and was probably the best form of government once upon a time. Although, I agree it has few merits nowadays.
That's very deterministic of you....Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Anyway, while nature does not care about our egalitarian views, it doesn't care about our titles either. If an Einstein is born in a democracy he can become the leader even if his parents are working class, in a monarchy, the village idiot will become the leader if his father is the king.
I used to be a Marxist and now a Calvinist, determinism is just how I roll.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
But as for the monarchy/democracy thing, I'm not going to argue with you. The primary advantage of monarchies were not to ensure maximum efficiency through a meritocratic system, they simply offered a more stable form of government, at a time when the central power didn't really have any important roles beyond keeping order in his lands.
Of course, that is no longer a relevant issue nowadays, hence why democracy is better (although a constitutional monarch along with a parliamentary sovereignty does have a few plus points).
the argument has totally derailed. all the posters are banned for 10 years and receive 52 million warning points and this thread is locked into oblivion.
The threadstarter doesn't mind....Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stranger
Meh. Monarchy is just an institutionalized form of the rule of the playground bully. It never served any higher purpose than to make the life of the king as comfortable as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Really now? If it has "a few plus points", then constitutional monarchies must be doing better than republics like France, Germany, USA, Canada or Italy, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
I honestly can't say that we do.
Let's call this a good effort and end the meanderings. New discussion topic in mind, start a thread!