Theology III

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

While I reject your arbitrary dates,

Here are a few links supporting the dates I gave for the Renaissance.
http://www.humanitiesweb.org/human.php?s=c&p=i&a=l&ID=2
http://www.essentialsofmusic.com/eras/renaissance.html
http://www.teonline.com/renaissance-...450-1600).html

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

it's worth noting that the changes to the common law mindset sis is referring to here begin in the 1500s. The common law begins to be considered the equivalent of "natural law," and superior to church law, then, during your, still arbitrary, period, in the work of Christopher St. German (for example, his Doctor and Student of 1528).

Similarly, while yes, the humanists believed their principles to be compatible with Christianity, as I would say most learning is, they also began to consider the value of tolerance of other faiths AS WELL. See for example Sir Thomas More's Utopia, where the citizens admit any religion that accepts certain points (they really don't like atheists). Tolerance did not spring out of intolerance fully formed like Athena from the brow of Zeus. It proceeded by slow steps, as people recognized the value of allowing others freedom of speech, conscience, and action. We can see a step with More, Erasmus, and the northern humanists around 1500; another in the 1500s with Montaigne; another in the 1600s with Locke; and so on through to modern times. Even by the 1600s the main objection to atheists was simply that you could not trust their oaths, as they had nothing to swear by, not that they were inherently worse than other people (see for example Locke's pamphlet on toleration). Would you not believe BJ's promise just because he's an atheist?

In the 17th century, I have no trouble believing that this is the case. There were a lot of advances in this kind of thinking taking place then. And it makes sense that the ideas in the 17th century didn't spring fully fledged out of nowhere. They would have had to have had some roots to build on. However, many of those roots, for example humanism, were not contrary to the Christian system of the time. Humanism only bore the vaguest resemblence then to modern humanism.

Most of the thinking that contradicted Christianity and the older system came from the Enlightenment, though there may well have been some philosophers that came before, who these thinkers were able to draw from. The roots those philosophers established didn't flourish until perhaps the later 16th century and then certainly the Age of Reason and Enlightenment. Religious tolerance largely was the result of the religious wars. When Christians were brutalizing one another over such a widespread area in Europe for such a long period of time, the horror of that experience caused many to look toward man rather than God for answers, and to reject religion as a source of unspeakable violence.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

17th-century philosophy in the West is generally regarded as seeing the start of modern philosophy, and the shaking off of the medieval approach, especially scholasticism. It is often called the "Age of Reason" and is considered to succeed the Renaissance and precede the Age of Enlightenment. Alternatively, it may be seen as the earlier part of the Enlightenment.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Religious toleration grew by small steps, beginning, as sis rightly says, in the Renaissance; and I'm only an expert on England, so I can't speak to other places where it may have progressed more or less rapidly, but in England at any rate it seems to have been hotly debated at every turn, and yet never stopped.

I'm just saying that most of those steps came post-Renaissance, in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. Some of the initial thoughts may have come in the 16th century, though. Particularly the later 16th century. And heck, maybe one can draw on the philosophers the 16th century thinkers drew on and say it goes back even further. My point is just that the main leap and change was in the Enlightenment and Age of Reason, though I can certainly accept that there will be some overlap with the end of the Renaissance. There's a reason why historians set the dates for these different ages where they do, though of course the edges will always be somewhat blurred.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I'm proud to live in a country in which, for example, you can tell us all that you don't believe in the fundamental basis of the nation and, while you will get an argument, the state need take no part. It is only by such discourse that we can arrive at the truths of reason; for revelation without reason is a waste of one of God's gifts.

I believe in the value of reason, for sure. I can't see anything wrong, either, with freedom of speech on secular matters. As it says in Proverbs, plans fail for want of advisors. Difference of opinion is very valuable, and many people can see perspectives that others can't.

I also can see the value in permitting different interpretations of Christianity, because the Holy Spirit can reveal many truths through one Bible. Hence many of the differences between denominations. Reasoning within Christianity, on religious matters, is very valuable.

It's where we get into freedom of religion that things get yucky, from my perspective. In my view, people's ideology is a crucial part in determining their manner of behavior. If they are full of the Holy Spirit, then your behavior will be in accord with God's nature. And Jesus said that he is the truth. If a person is not close to God, that person is not close to truth, and that person's words, coming from a mistaken ideology, can have a negative impact on other people.

So restricting the person's ability to expound upon such ideologies is not necessarily going to help that one person, but it might protect the people around him from receiving and believing that kind of negative view.

The natural response is, "oh, is your religion so weak that you have to use force to protect it from questions?" I would say that people who have questions should certainly ask them to clergy or perhaps other Christians to work through them and learn from them, and I believe that there is always a sound answer available, for I believe Christianity to be fully true. However, some people really don't get it, and when this happens, at least the laws would prevent them spreading their problems and outright attacking Christianity.

I think that the Christian religion can stand up to any challenge on the level of reason. However, knowing human nature to be sinful, I don't believe humans to be always capable of accepting the truth. So one person's error can spread to others and they'll accept it and it will become their own error. Laws can stop that from happening.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Oh, and have you ever looked at the Biblical Israel you found your model on? It's citizens are constantly falling away from God. That's why we have the writings of the Prophets, because God had to berate them.

That's human nature, yes. And God is constantly having to punish them to bring them back to himself. One could argue that this happened in the Medieval Ages (and later as well, before the modern era) too . . . frequently, when haunted by diseases of various kinds, most notably the Black Death, the people believed that they were being punished for their sins.

I view those societies, for all their sins, as a heck of a lot better than modern societies though. At least Israel had just laws, and the Christians what I think were generally just laws, even if they sometimes didn't follow them. They won't follow because they're human, but there also are periods of time where they did follow those laws and do right.

Hmm. It's a really, really interesting history.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I am actually not sure it was a more moral state,

When they weren't following the laws, I think you probably are right. But hey. If people fail under good laws, what'll they do under bad laws?

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

and it had the institutional advantage of having a central Temple as focus of religion, which I assume your Christian state would not have, seeing as sacrifice dropped out of Christianity.

Hmm. Christians are the Temple, and Christ is its head. I believe that Christ is real and alive, and very active, the cornerstone of his Temple. So I see the Temple as very, very much alive and more powerful than ever. I actually see it as having been absolutely amazing, especially as I look at various episodes from history and see their correspondence to that principle.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

And then there's this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark 10
[42] But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.
[43] But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
[44] And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
[45] For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Yes, but then Revelation chapter 20 refers to Christ reigning a thousand years over the Earth. Christ ascended onto a throne, after his resurrection. I believe that his time of reigning a thousand years has come and gone, and that now the devil is deceiving the nations, as was prophesied.