Theology III

[The Gaffer]

Poor old Lief! So young and idealistic. Bless.

You know, if you did a find and replace on "God bothering" with "socialism" you'd probably have me aged about 18...

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief

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

While I reject your arbitrary dates, 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?

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 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.

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

And then there's this:

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.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

While I reject your arbitrary dates, 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?

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 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.

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

And then there's this:

*applause*

The "breakdown of the family"
Date 1555, establishment of the Bridewell Workhouse in London. Juveniles found begging or loitering were sent to the workhouse to be leased out as convict workers. Elizabeth I presided over Poor Laws that indentured children (on behalf of the state) until 21. In 1601 more laws were passed to construct workhouses specifically for juveniles. This clearly represents a shift from what you would consider "traditional families" as the center of discipline of children to "the state" as the overall parent.


In contrast, in England and across the pond, the Puritans had a different system. But they were REJECTING the system in place in England, and what they saw as the diminuation of Bible authority, and the failure of the Church of England to sufficiently differ itself from the Roman Catholic Church.. In fact, their first separation was in 1608, when they left England for Holland. In their colony in the New World, the father had complete jurisdiction over his household and the laws referenced the 10 commandments and other biblical sources. If you were a disobedient 16 year old son, you could be brought by your parents to the magistrate and be put to death. For English Puritans *When William Laud, an avowed Arminian, became Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633, the Church of England began to embrace beliefs abhorrent to Puritans: a focus on the individual's acceptance or rejection of grace; a toleration of diverse religious beliefs; and an acceptance of "high church" rituals and symbols was a breaking point. Go figure.

But the Puritans were anomalous. They reacted against a pre-existing movement towards more open societies.

*http://www.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/purdef.htm

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Poor old Lief! So young and idealistic. Bless.

You know, if you did a find and replace on "God bothering" with "socialism" you'd probably have me aged about 18...

lol Everyone has a "find and replace" for that age, I think.

[The Gaffer]

* Joins in the round of applause for CC*

(You a Bacon fan, then, CC?)

Well, it makes a change from the cultivated cynicism or outright apathy you get elsewhere.

Personally, I would like to see more "christian" values put into political action, not less. Meaning compassion, alleviating suffering, not killing each other, that sort of thing. Unfortunately it seem that the politicians who most overtly avow a christian perspective are furthest away from these values.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I don't agree that that's the important point. If you'd like to tell me that Lief used to be a mass murderer, and, now that he's found Christ, he only beats his kids, go ahead. But that won't get him anywhere I accept him as an authority on a system of government that applies his faith to ME.

I wasn't talking about government at ALL, sis. I was only talking about THIS aspect of your post - the bit I quoted:

Originally Posted by sis

I've known people who are better people because of their faith. You ain't made my list yet.

... and pointing out that in order to know if someone is BETTER because of their faith, you have to know them BEFORE. That's why I said,

Originally Posted by Rian

You didn't know him BEFORE he was a Christian! And that's the important point, IMO. As Jesus said, (paraphrase) - "it's those who are sick that need a doctor."

I was ONLY dealing with the NON-government part of your post, IOW (since this is the theology general thread, and not only about government and theology)

Originally Posted by Lief

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

What kind of a catty comment is that?!

[Tessar]

I am going to close this thread for 24 hours.

You are almost all, without fail, being catty, rude, obnoxious, and generally acting like children. I respect many of you who are posting in this thread greatly as people, but please, take a look at what you're saying and ask yourself why you chose to phrase it that way.

Is this really the tone you want to set for Entmoot?

I said that I don't want personal attacks, and I meant it. I've warned you all before that I will close the thread, and I believe that it's time I do so, if only temporarily.

Calm down, take a deep breath, and please refrain from doing this again .

[Tessar]

Thread unlocked.

Back to debating you monkeys! *cracks the whip*

[Rían]

Rawr!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Thread unlocked.

Back to debating you monkeys! *cracks the whip*

Who do I complain to when I'm flamed by the mod?

*mutters* monkey, yourself.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Prove the Bible historically correct, and you've proven Jesus to be God and Christianity to be true.

No you haven't.

Even if you could prove every last miracle attributed to Jesus, which you cannot, and which is too extraordinary a claim to verify through eyewitness testimony alone, all it proves is that Jesus had some extraordinary powers, and he claimed that they came from god.

If I could fire lightning bolts from my eyes, and you were able to observe and verify my ability, then I claimed that this power was granted to me by the ancient Greek god Zeus, would this be proof that Zeus does indeed exist?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

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.

Ancient Rome and Greece were not democracies at all, they were societies ruled by a group of elite, not by the people, and by emperors during the years when they finally failed, but that is besides the point.

All I'm saying is that rule by christian theocracies, more or less, had it's time and failed. Some parts survived, just as some of the better parts of pre-christian civilizations survive.

It's not idealistic, it's simple reality. Bad forms of government cease to thrive over the longterm. No established democracy has ever fallen back into theocratic rule, and I don't think they ever will, even though a minority pushes for such from time to time.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

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.

It's always the parent's fault, short of uncontrollable mental disorders. And, in the case of the christian god, who controls everything, how could it be anything but his fault? Aren't you the same Lief who said humans can't take credit for anything?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's always the parent's fault, short of uncontrollable mental disorders.

Spoken like a parent.
A parent of a somewhat young family but a parent. *tips hat*

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Tessar

Thread unlocked.

Back to debating you monkeys! *cracks the whip*

"you monkeys" ????

Tessar: "Is this really the tone you want to set for Entmoot?"

The most intelligent, well-respected (just see the encorde since it was closed) and interesting thread for a fair while on the Moot -

and with many a good, reasonable, and fair mooter involved ... and you call us monkeys???

Is this your idea of the moot, then?

I have a fair amount of respect for you Tessar - and personally wish you well - but that is one huge insult to the intelligent and good meaning folk who have enlightened and debated on this interesting subject, from all viewpoints.

Shame on you for that!

Monkeys????

I ask you politely, to rephrase that, and sincerely too.

best, BB

[Earniel]

Yeah, Tessar, how dare you to jokingly call our good moot-members monkeys?!

When everybody knows it should at least be apes.

And maybe throw in a common ancestor to keep everybody happy.

*scratches under arm and goes off in search of a banana*

Anyway, RÃ*an, if you're reading this, I've looked into this immaculate conception-virgin birth thing we discussed a while back in the science thread. Still interested in what I found?

[Butterbeer]

... correct me if i am wrong ..but you are just asking to be called a Belgian Ape?

heh! happy to oblige!

*BB bows*

[Butterbeer]

...xx

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Anyway, RÃ*an, if you're reading this, I've looked into this immaculate conception-virgin birth thing we discussed a while back in the science thread. Still interested in what I found?

Yep! Doesn't it mean that Mary took a shower before she conceived?

[Butterbeer]

really Ri ...stick to trhe point! Showers or ancient spas ... or Cleopatrian baths ... it's not really just about who dropped the soap ...and what happened next!

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

really Ri ...stick to trhe point! Showers or ancient spas ... or Cleopatrian baths ... it's not really just about who dropped the soap ...and what happened next!

Awesome! Indeed, sah!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Even if you could prove every last miracle attributed to Jesus, which you cannot, and which is too extraordinary a claim to verify through eyewitness testimony alone,

It only seems extraordinary if you haven't personally witnessed such miracles. That depends some on where you live, and where you've been brought up.

But really, all one has to do is prove a handful of those miracles actually happened to have an impressive case. The disciples' witnessing the ascension of Christ into heaven will do.

There are many evidences in addition to the eyewitnesses, though.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

all it proves is that Jesus had some extraordinary powers, and he claimed that they came from god.

If I could fire lightning bolts from my eyes, and you were able to observe and verify my ability, then I claimed that this power was granted to me by the ancient Greek god Zeus, would this be proof that Zeus does indeed exist?

It would sure be powerful evidence.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Ancient Rome and Greece were not democracies at all, they were societies ruled by a group of elite, not by the people, and by emperors during the years when they finally failed, but that is besides the point.

The time when Rome was ruled by the elite was later on. Originally they were a Republic, and any Roman citizen could vote. Later, Senators started buying the votes.

One could argue that there was always corruption, I suppose, but there's always some level of corruption in any government.

And Greece certainly was a democracy.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

All I'm saying is that rule by christian theocracies, more or less, had it's time and failed. Some parts survived, just as some of the better parts of pre-christian civilizations survive.

It's not idealistic, it's simple reality. Bad forms of government cease to thrive over the longterm. No established democracy has ever fallen back into theocratic rule, and I don't think they ever will, even though a minority pushes for such from time to time.

I don't know about theocracies- my knowledge doesn't extend that far. But democracies have become dictatorships, historically. Russia is going that way now. Germany was a democracy before Hitler took over. Greece was democratic until it beat the Persians and then became more powerful and lost its democratic form of government. Rome is another example of a democratic system that changed, over time, to oligarchy and then totalitarianism.

And it's frequent for societies to change for the worse over time. That has been observed countless times. They frequently have dropped the better aspects of their culture and taken up worse things.

Take the spread of ideologies such as those of the Toltecs, for example. Those replaced a great swath of more peaceful and sophisticated civilizations, absorbing some, but destroying a lot and replacing it in the end with a truly barbarous form of government.

The Assyrians wiped out plenty of governments that weren't nearly as ruthless as theirs was. So did the Aztecs. So did Hitler. Russia, under the USSR, seized control of many countries and imposed a ruthless oligarchy on them that stripped them to the bone financially. Corruption from within countries also often happens. Just look at the Byzantine Empire. Or the Roman Empire. Or the British Empire.

There are countless examples of this.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's always the parent's fault, short of uncontrollable mental disorders.

I very, very strongly disagree with this generalization. Parents do not have absolute control of the brains of their children. Unless I now hear you favoring a form of totalitarianism . . . ?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And, in the case of the christian god, who controls everything, how could it be anything but his fault?

His "fault" in that he planned it that way for a better purpose. Of course he's responsible, but not having read all the way to the end of the story of human history, and not being aware of all its inner workings, we don't know what he's responsible for. We haven't read to the end of the book yet.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Aren't you the same Lief who said humans can't take credit for anything?

God is responsible for people's choices, and he might choose that they do good or that they do evil, but this has nothing to do with whether a political/religious system they operate under is good or bad.