Theology III

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Why do you start with the Enlightenment? Your POV predates the Renaissance. It hasn't been current since then.

I started my POV at the crowning of Constantine in 305 AD. He made Christianity the state religion I think a couple decades after he was crowned.

The collapse started with the religious wars and Enlightenment, and the World Wars finalized it.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I started my POV at the crowning of Constantine in 305 AD. He made Christianity the state religion I think a couple decades after he was crowned.

The collapse started with the religious wars and Enlightenment, and the World Wars finalized it.

You misunderstood me, pardon. The "collapse" has to date from the Renaissance, if I understand your theory. Humanism, and falling away from the "One True Church" became the dominant theory of influence and intellectualism then. The Enlightenment was much smaller, in terms of philosophical impact and geographical spread.

[Butterbeer]

you mean 'finalised'???

That would be the correct spelling.

I think that using force to preserve the integrity of a nation that already has chosen God as its chief rather than man is valid.

You advocate a theocracy, Lief?

and how, prey, do you care to interpret God's will if not by man, as per previous discussions here and your previous arguments?

ergo - either, by your previous arguments, it is anarchy or Man?

Or are you perhaps being pedantic in the extreme, in the hope that such weak but circular convolution might pass for true debate?

Then any force however so given and for any damnable evil intentions is justifiable, merely and simply because of, and more glaringly, perhaps essentially in part in the name of, if not the spirit of, GOD?

Is this your claim?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

and how, prey, do you care to interpret God's will if not by man, as per previous discussions here and your previous arguments?

The Holy Spirit is a Counselor who speaks to men and reveals to them the will of God. Man doesn't have to rely on his own interpretations.

But if man chooses to disobey God and if the appointed rulers disobey God's laws, there is a penalty, for God is just.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You misunderstood me, pardon. The "collapse" has to date from the Reanissance, if I understand your theory. Humanism, and falling away from the "One True Church" became the dominant theory of influence and intellectualism then. The Enlightenment was much smaller, in terms of philosophical impact and geographical spread.

Humanism at the time of the Renaissance wasn't very similar to its current form. It might be the root of the current version, but it wasn't the same. It focused on the glorification of man, saying pretty much, "look how cool man is and what we're capable of doing," but it didn't put this to the extreme that it denied God and his control over events.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

humanists saw pagan classical works such as the philosophy of Epicurus as being fundamentally in harmony with Christianity, rather than as a nemesis to be pitted against Christianity. Although Renaissance humanists were more accepting of pagan philosophy than their Scholastic contemporaries, they did not necessarily object to the idea that Christian understanding should be dominant over other modes of thought. Some humanists were even churchmen, most notably Pope Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, Pius II.

Another couple helpful quotes:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Renaissance humanists believed that the liberal arts (art, music, grammar, rhetoric, oratory, history, poetry, using classical texts, and the studies of all of the above) should be practiced by all levels of "richness". They also approved of self, human worth and individual dignity.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

By the mid-fifteenth century humanism described a curriculum - the studia humanitatis - comprised of grammar, rhetoric, moral philosophy, poetry and history as studied via classical authors. It was only later in the twentieth-century that humanism was interpreted as a new philosophical outlook which encompassed human dignity and potential and the place of mankind in nature, since these were the kinds of themes on which humanists practised their skills.

Humanism back in the Renaissance time doesn't seem to have been opposed to Christianity in any significant way, really.

Turning away from the "One True Church" began in the form of Protestantism, but I don't see that as a falling away from Christianity. I don't think that the Catholic Church sees it that way anymore either, though, as you know, there are still Christians in both denominations that view each other as in a state of heresy.

The Enlightenment existed throughout Europe, and also impacted the United States. That's a huge geographical spread. And the philosophical impact was incredibly dramatic. One could argue that the division between Protestants and Catholics was more dramatic, but I don't know. The Enlightenment was the intellectual birthplace of modern secularism, for it put reason above religion as the guiding principle for mankind.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Humanism at the time of the Renaissance wasn't very similar to its current form. It might be the root of the current version, but it wasn't the same. It focused on the glorification of man, saying pretty much, "look how cool man is and what we're capable of doing," but it didn't put this to the extreme that it denied God and his control over events.

Humanism back in the Renaissance time doesn't seem to have been opposed to Christianity in any significant way, really.

The Enlightenment was the intellectual birthplace of modern secularism, for it put reason above religion as the guiding principle for mankind.

The Discourse on the Dignity of Man (1486) by Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) is considered the "Manifesto of the Renaissance." Indeed, it exalts the human creature for his/her freedom and capacity to know and to dominate reality as a whole. Far from being simply that, however, the Discourse deals with the vocation of the human creature who, possessing no determinate image, is urged to pursue its own perfection. Such a pursuit begins with moral self-discipline, passes through the familiar, multifarious world of images and fields of knowledge, and strives toward that most lofty goal which defies representation. Pico believes that this paradigm, by virtue of the fact that it is to be found in every tradition, is universal.

The Discourse merits attention today precisely on account of its affirmation that human nature, which is in itself indeterminate and weak, comes alive and obtains its identity through the plurality of human cultures, each representing customs that, though distinct, are (in their essence, structure and function) essentially identical. Hence the possibility of harmony and grounds for "peace" among cultures. http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Ita...entaz/eng.html

The people who claimed to "educate" you completely punted the ball. It's the Renaissance you've rejected.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The Discourse on the Dignity of Man (1486) by Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) is considered the "Manifesto of the Renaissance." Indeed, it exalts the human creature for his/her freedom and capacity to know and to dominate reality as a whole. Far from being simply that, however, the Discourse deals with the vocation of the human creature who, possessing no determinate image, is urged to pursue its own perfection. Such a pursuit begins with moral self-discipline, passes through the familiar, multifarious world of images and fields of knowledge, and strives toward that most lofty goal which defies representation. Pico believes that this paradigm, by virtue of the fact that it is to be found in every tradition, is universal.

The Discourse merits attention today precisely on account of its affirmation that human nature, which is in itself indeterminate and weak, comes alive and obtains its identity through the plurality of human cultures, each representing customs that, though distinct, are (in their essence, structure and function) essentially identical. Hence the possibility of harmony and grounds for "peace" among cultures. http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Ita...entaz/eng.html

This doesn't say that all religions or societies are equal. It just says that an essential aspect of human nature allows peace between cultures and the spiritual development of man. It also says that humans gain from plurality. "Plurality" should not be viewed as saying that societies that engage in immoral activities will have a positive influence on others through the close proximity of those immoral activities. More likely, it's talking about different customs of differing cultures that have nothing to do with morality or immorality.

This quote doesn't contradict anything I said.

[Firenze]

If you are looking to create the ideal nation, it isn't possible. Precisely because of our fallen nature, we don't have the capacity for perfection. The only perfect place is heaven, and Catholics believe not even the saved can enter the presence of God without the purifying fire of purgatory, aside from saints perhaps. Even with the grace of God at Communion, we are not perfect. Confession and the Eucharist remove guilt and damnation to hell (and bring about the gifts of the Holy Spirit), but we are by no means perfect. Look no further than those priests in our own country who were constantly before the Blessed Sacrament, yet still failed miserably and horrifically. We cannot be perfect, even while we are all called to be holy.

The Church believes, in addition, that people in other religions can go to heaven, so long as they don't outright reject Jesus. The Church cannot read another man's heart and soul. Only God can, and to judge another's salvation or damnation is to bring judgment upon oneslef. "Judge not lest you be judged."

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Hey, Firenze. And now infants aren't necessarily in limbo. You may not appreciate how big a deal that is, but it's really huge for some people I know. All part of that modernist breakdown Lief deplores, no doubt.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This doesn't say that all religions or societies are equal. It just says that an essential aspect of human nature allows peace between cultures and the spiritual development of man. It also says that humans gain from plurality. "Plurality" should not be viewed as saying that societies that engage in immoral activities will have a positive influence on others through the close proximity of those immoral activities. More likely, it's talking about different customs of differing cultures that have nothing to do with morality or immorality.

This quote doesn't contradict anything I said.

Lief, you're ... wrong again. Yes, it does. It points directly to the Renaissance as the time when human understanding became the gauge, and cultural plurality was something that furthered the individual's search for perfection. If you ever read anything more complicated than tracts or Wikipedia entries, you might grow to understand the written word. However, I wouldn't want you to endanger your fragile salvation by exposure to the impure influences of outside thought, so I'll restrict myself to praying for your understanding to increase by Divine Intervention, because a merciful God surely won't require me much longer to try to mine though your posts for enlightenment, big OR small "E".

I agree that Humanism, and the Renaissance in general was not opposed to Christianity. Neither is modernity. It's your whacked out version that anything pertaining to reason rejects. Actual Christianity remains safe.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And I'll mention that the reason I wouldn't accept the evidence you provide is because it's overwhelmed, in my opinion, by the evidence supporting the literal accuracy of the Bible.

Literary accuracy is meaningless in terms of proving theology. I could argue biblical historical accuracy, but even if every last point of something like the legends of King Arthur were confirmed by all kinds of reliable historical sources as having actually occured, would that prove that Excalibur was magical in some way? Would it prove that Merlin was a wizard with some kind of occult powers? Would it prove that the Holy Grail was some kind of god-imbued talisman?

Nine accurate historical depictions does not make the tenth by a given author correct. The question of biblical historical accuracy has nothing to do with the things that can be proven, but rather the things that can not.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't view the Catholic-Protestant religious wars as having been inevitable, and they were the cause of the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment was the cause of the collapse of the system. If people stopped believing in Christ, they stopped practicing Christianity, which results in behaviors that damage society badly, and that damage produces further unbelief, which produces deeper damage- and it all came to a head with the World Wars in the twentieth century. That was really the end.

But it's not the system that was the problem.

In my view, success of a system is not how long it survives, but if it survives. If classic christianity was designed in such a way that people would decide to modify or give it up over time, then it's classic form failed.

What survives is what works, and history has proven that not to be any one theological system, but a melding of the good points of all those systems that have come into play.

Christianity added a lot of positive aspects, but it is not the end of the evolution.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Firenze

If you are looking to create the ideal nation, it isn't possible.

I think that's part of the problem, though maybe not for the same reason you do. Too many people think about "ideals", and not enough think about "better".

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

*psst* BJ used the "E" word. *snigger*

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Firenze

If you are looking to create the ideal nation, it isn't possible. Precisely because of our fallen nature, we don't have the capacity for perfection.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Firenze

The only perfect place is heaven, and Catholics believe not even the saved can enter the presence of God without the purifying fire of purgatory, aside from saints perhaps. Even with the grace of God at Communion, we are not perfect. Confession and the Eucharist remove guilt and damnation to hell (and bring about the gifts of the Holy Spirit), but we are by no means perfect. Look no further than those priests in our own country who were constantly before the Blessed Sacrament, yet still failed miserably and horrifically. We cannot be perfect, even while we are all called to be holy.

We become steadily more and more sanctified, but I agree that we won't be perfect here on Earth.

Originally Posted by Firenze

The Church believes, in addition, that people in other religions can go to heaven, so long as they don't outright reject Jesus.

I also think that some people can come to heaven through Christ without having been Christian. But I am wary of that route. Christ clearly instructed his followers to go and baptize the nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. He wouldn't have done that for no reason, so evangelism is clearly very important. I think that the exceptions do exist, though.

Originally Posted by Firenze

The Church cannot read another man's heart and soul. Only God can, and to judge another's salvation or damnation is to bring judgment upon oneslef. "Judge not lest you be judged."

There also is the scripture that says, "By their fruit, you shall know them." I think that we can know important things about a person's spiritual state from their behavior, but there's no guarantee that that spiritual condition won't change, and you're right that we certainly don't see everything about them, and we may very possibly not know how God is working in the person's life. We don't know the final destination, I agree.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Literary accuracy is meaningless in terms of proving theology. I could argue biblical historical accuracy, but even if every last point of something like the legends of King Arthur were confirmed by all kinds of reliable historical sources as having actually occured, would that prove that Excalibur was magical in some way? Would it prove that Merlin was a wizard with some kind of occult powers? Would it prove that the Holy Grail was some kind of god-imbued talisman?

Yes. If you had a lot of reliable eyewitness accounts describing such magical and mystical events, yes. That's why eyewitness testimony is admissable in courts of law. Because eyewitnesses are valuable sources of evidence.

But I don't like the word "prove." Prove beyond reasonable doubt, yes.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Nine accurate historical depictions does not make the tenth by a given author correct.

Depends what the nine tenths that have been proven are . For instance, if the resurrection and ascension of Christ was proven, and it was also proven that he had said that the scripture was fully accurate, then that would be a strong indication that the rest is fully accurate, provided a bunch of errors haven't been shown to exist.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The question of biblical historical accuracy has nothing to do with the things that can be proven, but rather the things that can not.

On the contrary. If you can prove one extraordinary miracle described in the Bible, there's good reason to believe the rest. Biblical historical accuracy is very important. Prove the Bible historically correct, and you've proven Jesus to be God and Christianity to be true.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In my view, success of a system is not how long it survives, but if it survives.

Sounds to me like it's you who's asking for the ideal system, rather than the better system. You want a system that's impervious to human errors and failings, wars, and environmental problems. You're being exceedingly idealistic. The fact that the system worked for that length of time shows its strength. Compare that to democracy in ancient Rome and Greece, which went under after a far shorter period of existence.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If classic christianity was designed in such a way that people would decide to modify or give it up over time, then it's classic form failed.

Or the people failed. You know, I expect, how teenagers sometimes grow up in good homes and were well taken care of. If they abandon the household, squander their money and become drug addicts, it's not always the parents' fault. Sometimes it is, but they can't receive all the blame. They might have offered a very good system, and the teenager, being young and an idiot, rejected it. That doesn't mean their system failed or that they failed, but rather that the teenager failed.

Sometimes home and parents do fail their children. Other times, children fail their parents. Sometimes the system fails the people. Other times, the people fails the system and degrade it through their own errors. One can't generalize and always blame the system.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

What survives is what works,

Then why do cultures and nations become more and more corrupt as they age? Let us take Rome, for instance. They were incredibly strong and disciplined in the beginning, but they became corrupt.

Your words also seem to indicate that Hitler's dictatorship worked better than democracy.

Your statement, indeed, seems to indicate that whoever wins a war had a better, more functional society. Whoever comes out on the top was more functional. That makes sense, I guess, considering your utilitarian perspective. But it is certainly completely amoral. Often, winners were fiends who destroyed culture and civilization in favor of a more barbarous way of life. The Aztecs (prior to the Conquistadors), the Babylonians, or the Assyrians, above all the Assyrians, are good examples.

If you lived back then, at the time the Assyrians had a huge empire, I suppose you would be saying that they were the best form of government known?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and history has proven that not to be any one theological system, but a melding of the good points of all those systems that have come into play.

History has shown that that's where Western society is right now. It has not proven that it'll stay that way, and evidence shows that it's suffering for its way of life because of opening too much freedom, and the freedom to be immoral is destroying society.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

It points directly to the Renaissance as the time when human understanding became the gauge,

It does not say anywhere in that quote that human understanding became more important than divine revelation. Your claim remains entirely unfounded.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

and cultural plurality was something that furthered the individual's search for perfection.

That's not against Christianity, whether that be my view of Christianity or your "real" Christianity. Individual Christians today search for perfection too. I do. As God leads me. The statement that individuals were seeking perfection does not mean that individuals didn't interact with God in that quest. Neither did it mean that God didn't dominate that quest for individual seekers.

This article does not support your claims.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

The piece supports my claims. Reality supports my claims. A study of history supports my claims. Is the sequence of words you're holding out for in the excerpt I posted? No, and if it had been, you'd have chosen another sequence. If you actually knew anything about this piece of literature, or the Renaissance in general, you'd know that the begin of the 'decline' you lament is datable to the Renaissance, because it was in the Renaissance that people began to elevate their own understanding over the authoritarian "Word of God." That's the origin of the scientific method, of Protestantism, and of all the contentious mess of democracy. Dissemination of dangerous ideas was far easier after the invention of the printing press. The interpretive changes to the views of the Magna Carta in the 1600's are clearly the first serious attempt at a system of governanace that's civil and therefore separate either from ecclesiastical governance or the divinely throned king. That's "secular politics" for you. Galileo is your enemy.

“It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment.”

“I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.”

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

“The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go”

"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox."

[Lotesse]

The comparison, however loosely made, between Lief's argument for a christian theocracy as a mode of government and the ideologies of Osama bin Laden & his Taliban, I must say, are chillingly and creepily the SAME. All due respect, but hey, you are one scary em effer, Lief. Good thing our government is still working fine and well enough to keep folks such as yourself from turning the United States into some terrifying Orwellian religious theocratic fascist nightmare...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The piece supports my claims. Reality supports my claims. A study of history supports my claims. Is the sequence of words you're holding out for in the excerpt I posted? No,

The words in that text do not argue for people beginning to "elevate their own understanding over the authoritarian 'Word of God'". With or without the word "authoritarian." There is nothing in there that confronts Christianity. There is some material in there that challenges predestination, but none that attacks Christianity as a whole.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

and if it had been, you'd have chosen another sequence.

That is a personal attack, and not an argument.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

If you actually knew anything about this piece of literature, or the Renaissance in general,

More nasty personal attacks.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

you'd know that the begin of the 'decline' you lament is datable to the Renaissance, because it was in the Renaissance that people began to elevate their own understanding over the authoritarian "Word of God."

They began to elevate human own understanding then, I agree, and it ended up becoming elevated to a point that was blasphemous and opposed to the Word of God. But that did not occur in the Renaissance. Humanism, at that time, was not opposed to Christianity (as Christianity was practiced at the time).

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

humanists saw pagan classical works such as the philosophy of Epicurus as being fundamentally in harmony with Christianity, rather than as a nemesis to be pitted against Christianity. Although Renaissance humanists were more accepting of pagan philosophy than their Scholastic contemporaries, they did not necessarily object to the idea that Christian understanding should be dominant over other modes of thought. Some humanists were even churchmen, most notably Pope Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, Pius II.

And in case Wikipedia isn't good enough for you, here's another source:

Originally Posted by Washington State University

The Renaissance Humanists

In the 14th and 15th century there emerged in Italy and France a group of thinkers known as the "humanists." The term did not then have the anti-religious associations it has in contemporary political debate. Almost all of them were practicing Catholics. They argued that the proper worship of God involved admiration of his creation, and in particular of that crown of creation: humanity.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

That's the origin of the scientific method,

Original ideas of the scientific data date back to ancient Egypt and Greece, and developed very slowly, with stops and lurches, over the centuries. But I know that they began to come more to a head during the Enlightenment. Maybe it was also increasing in the Age of Reason, though.

20th century movements tend to trace the scientific method to the Enlightenment, however.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A variety of 20th-century movements, including liberalism and neo-classicism, traced their intellectual heritage back to the Enlightenment . . .

. . . This view asserts that the Enlightenment was the point when Europe broke through what historian Peter Gay calls "the sacred circle," whose dogma had circumscribed thinking. The Enlightenment is held to be the source of critical ideas, such as the centrality of freedom, democracy and reason as primary values of society. This view argues that the establishment of a contractual basis of rights would lead to the market mechanism and capitalism, the scientific method, religious tolerance, and the organization of states into self-governing republics through democratic means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_...ment#Influence

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

of Protestantism,

I have never denied that, and you're not responding to my point about humanism anymore.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

and of all the contentious mess of democracy.

I still am not sure what I think of democracy. I think that a government "by God, for God," is the best form and is the form our government should have, but I don't think that that premise is necessarily a contradiction of democracy. If Christianity was the state religion and only Christians were allowed in government, then the people might democratically elect people who would serve God well. He might raise those people up through the population's votes. That's not really any worse than monarchy, as far as I can see it now, though not necessarily better either. One can have good kings or bad kings, just as one can have good democratic politicians or bad ones.

I don't know. I'm still weighing this one.

But again, this is off-topic from our discussion of humanism, and plus you're again making a factually error. According to the Wikipedia article I cited above, the Enlightenment was the source of democracy in modern times:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

[The Enlightenment] helped create the intellectual framework for the American and French Revolutions, Poland's Constitution of May 3, 1791, the Latin American independence movement, the Greek national independence movement and the later Balkan independence movements against the Ottoman Empire, and led to the rise of classical liberalism, democracy, and capitalism.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Dissemination of dangerous ideas was far easier after the invention of the printing press.

Agreed. Not that I consider Protestantism to be or have been inherently dangerous. But the printing press was an important influence to the spread of the Protestant Reformation.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The interpretive changes to the views of the Magna Carta in the 1600's are clearly the first serious attempt at a system of governanace that's civil and therefore separate either from ecclesiastical governance or the divinely throned king. That's "secular politics" for you.

That's the Age of Reason you're talking about now, not the Renaissance. The Renaissance existed between 1450 and 1600.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Galileo is your enemy.

No, he is not.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

“It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment.”

The Catholic Church should have sought the scientific explanation for what Galileo observed, knowing that that might expand its knowledge of the Bible, since it assumed the Bible to be true. I can understand Galileo's frustration, and I wish that the church had worked with scientists to find out better how science connected with the Bible.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

“I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.”

Hmm. I have a problem with this, though I think experiments and demonstrations also are important.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

I absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

“The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go”

That's a half truth. One of the most important messages of the Bible is on "the way to go to heaven," but there are some astronomical and scientific events described too.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox."

True.


I'll tell you what, sisterandcousinandaunt. I think that the Enlightenment did have its roots in the Renaissance, but many of those roots were not anti-Christian at that time. They would probably become more so toward the end of the Renaissance, in the 16th and 17th centuries. They definitely were anti-Christian during the Enlightenment. The preceeding Age of Reason

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

More nasty personal attacks.

.

There is nothing personal, nor nasty, that I have ever seen in all my careful reading of sistercousinaunt's postings toward you, or toward any other person, entity or instgitution, at all, ever. This member is about the most genteel, non-nasty, generous, honest, and respectful person wee've had around here in aeons, so, Lief Ericson, you might want to look to pull the logs out of your own eyes before you go picking at sawdust in the eyes of your intellectual and "spiritual" adversaries.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

The comparison, however loosely made, between Lief's argument for a christian theocracy as a mode of government and the ideologies of Osama bin Laden & his Taliban, I must say, are chillingly and creepily the SAME. All due respect, but hey, you are one scary em effer, Lief. Good thing our government is still working fine and well enough to keep folks such as yourself from turning the United States into some terrifying Orwellian religious theocratic fascist nightmare...

Your use of the word "religious" is rendered redundant by your choice of the word "theocratic."

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

There is nothing personal, nor nasty, that I have ever seen in all my careful reading of sistercousinaunt's postings toward you, or toward any other person, entity or instgitution, at all, ever. This member is about the most genteel, non-nasty, generous, honest, and respectful person wee've had around here in aeons, so, Lief Ericson, you might want to look to pull the logs out of your own eyes before you go picking at sawdust in the eyes of your intellectual and "spiritual" adversaries.

Hear *blinking* hear!!! I'm tired of seeing leif's constant belittling of anyone who ever DARES disagree with his viewpoint. You'd think he was the ONLY person who had attended college around here, the way he goes on about how his sources are somehow more valid than other peoples. Well, BUB, I got YOU beat. I've got 10 years of university experience. That means by your yardstick, my newfangled 'college' sources and 'professors opinions' beat yours hands down.

Hey leif? Pride's one of the 7 deadly sins, doncha know?

[Lotesse]

Grazie, bella, & so awesome to see you here... so, on topic here - Lief - Is arrogance a deadly sin, too, or just one of the lesser ones? And standing in judgement, is that a sin? As I recall, someone for whom christianity was named once said something along the lines of "Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself" or something but I could be wrong - or not.