Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Well, many people also say that some unwashed guy thousands of years ago died after being nailed to a tree and then woke up again to have a party 3 days later.
What I'm trying to say is, I'm not too bothered by what other people say. The guy's a guy and he has a right to his opinion.
I also see no problem with the Catholic church having an opinion on politics
it is up to individual catholics to determine if the words of the pope or the laws of their land are more important
also, I'm really happy to see the catholic church take such a hardline stance against fascism and racism (the cynical part of me wants to add, "this time")
no, I get that point, and I admit its hard to even imagine a system where the gains of the majority aren't at the cost of some minority...
indeed, though we may be talking about different levels. I'm talking about freedom of speech, free press, free science, free academia. Stuff that almost goes out of its way to challange power. I don't feel these are as open in a totalitarian society.
Like, what does the totalitarian do about the anarchists who teach people in universities that power corrupts and that a totalitarian system isn't what they want?
true, but I don't think objective groups of people are a end worth working toward. People are shaped by their experiences, and while this may create biases, it also is why they specialize and understand the world in ways that enlighten society.
Also, I feel in a system with less top-down power, benevolence between people becomes more necessary. Obviously I'm not saying if, in modern society, power was eliminated that we would all get along.
However, as rational people, it is not government that keeps people like you or me from murdering and rapeing others.
lol, way to look that gift horse in the mouth
I get what you are saying, I was trying to concede that you had a good point.
I see no reason why catholics shouldn't be in power...
are you insinuating that because I don't feel the government should enforce religion that I also don't think religious people should be involved in politics?
well, ok, but some people want there beliefs to be relevant
I have had conversations with a Jehovah's Witness guy when he comes my school, and he feels generally the same way, so I can respect what you are saying.
However, to an atheist, that doesn't make much sense at all... Especially given that politics and morality cross in many places
I sometimes visit a Jehovah's disciple once a week. (I'm no tgetting turned, I think they're too much of an extreme). From their beleives, humanity politics have failed, and it got things much worste in the world (a point of view that could be discussed). Therefore, they stipulate that God's governement (in the Bible) is the only perfect one, and that it must be embraced to have worldwide peace. It somewhat makes sense. Politics are governments these days are failures that will explode in our faces in a few years, even if I don't beleive the Bible holds all the answers.
Yes it is. Sometimes religion can be more humane than the state, but sometimes religon can be barbaric. Rules from Religion are not inherently superior.
Last edited by Deadline on Aug 20th, 2008 at 03:58 PM
I know, I agree with a lot of what the guy says about "the politics of man". But, the politics and the state in the bible are the politics of man, and history shows that it is not religion, but in fact secular values carried from the greeks, to the arab world, and then back to Europe to start the renaissance, that have made the world better for people. I think one would have a hard time, using history and fact rather than rhetoric, showing religion as more important than secularism in ending human suffering politically.
Throwing away state power is good. Replacing it with something less malleable, less free, with absolute and unquestionable authority seems to be like taking a complete step backward.
If for no other reason, religion is incapable of running a nation because it says "we already know the answer".
I understand your point of view. And I agree partly to it. What you say is true. I'm not going to fight about it because, frankly, my arguments are principally based on speculations. However, I truly beleive that we can be successful at looking back in history, take some elements, and apply them again with better use. For example, we can take a dictaturial example, That's what closely ressembles your description above. If, instead of giving absolute power to them, we give them only the right to guide us in the right directions. Instead of forcing things down upon us, wouldn't you think the world would be better if they just prepared us and provided consil. It would be far less dangerous.
What I am suggesting is for the government to turn from the authoritarian father figure, to a more explainatory type of father. I know that there are weaknesses in this system I pjust presented. I also beleive that with a bit of patching, something good can result out of this. That's where I see religion doing.
What we therefore have is a one powerful government for all, that still leaves freedom to the people.
Last edited by Mandos on Aug 20th, 2008 at 04:48 PM
unfortunately, one can play the infinite reduction game.
These values were born in Christianity, especially in Italy, because of Moorish influence. The Moors, and the Arab world in general, until the renaissance was the most free, affluent and enlightened on the planet. They began universities and hospitals and libraries while Christian Europe was stuck in the dark ages. The reason for such dominance? Greek Philosophy.
During the Christian Roman destruction of Greece, science, art and technology, all of which the Romans showed a complete lack of interest in, was snuck away to Alexandria and the Arab world.
Agreed, there are specific things about Christianity that allowed the ancient Greek ideas to be molded into what they are today (The Christian idea of a person being free to choose to sin is essential, and something not found in Islam) but to attribute it to Christians with such blanket absoluteness is completely to ignore the same logic it proposes.
One can then find the Pre-Vedic Indian influences on both Egypt and Greece and say that it was those who inhabited present day Western India/Kashmir that are responsible for modern society, and by the logic of the scholar you mention, it is absolutely correct.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 19th, 2008 09:10 PM
