A Religious Leader Was Removed from a Jeff Sessions Event for Quoting the Bible

[Politesse]

Not at all. Organized religions is about the leaders of the religion controlling the followers. What better way to do this than to control their thoughts through religious proclamations and their actions by control through government laws and enforcement? They have been meshed together quite a few times. Remember the Holy Roman Empire? The inquisition? The caliphate?

I do not feel that those developments were the best years of the church, nor in line with Christ's profoundly anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist actual teachings.

Your feelings and preferences aside, Christianity and empire are not at odds with one another on a fundamental level as history has shown.

You don't think a government can embody an obvious contradiction between its founding principles and its lived practice?

 

[skepticalbip]

Your feelings and preferences aside, Christianity and empire are not at odds with one another on a fundamental level as history has shown.

You don't think a government can embody an obvious contradiction between its founding principles and its lived practice?

I have no idea what you mean but both religion and government is focused on controlling the population. Ideally, religion does it through persuasion and government through enforcement but, people being people, power over others will corrupt those in power whether in government or religion. Again I would point to the inquisition.

 

[Politesse]

Your feelings and preferences aside, Christianity and empire are not at odds with one another on a fundamental level as history has shown.

You don't think a government can embody an obvious contradiction between its founding principles and its lived practice?

I have no idea what you mean but both religion and government is focused on controlling the population. Ideally, religion does it through persuasion and government through enforcement but, people being people, power over others will corrupt those in power whether in government or religion. Again I would point to the inquisition.

Those people are, however, obviously not following the teachings of an anti-establishmentarian hippie.

 

[skepticalbip]

I have no idea what you mean but both religion and government is focused on controlling the population. Ideally, religion does it through persuasion and government through enforcement but, people being people, power over others will corrupt those in power whether in government or religion. Again I would point to the inquisition.

Those people are, however, obviously not following the teachings of an anti-establishmentarian hippie.

You are living in ideal dreams, I am living in the reality of how people actually act as illustrated by history.

 

[Politesse]

I have no idea what you mean but both religion and government is focused on controlling the population. Ideally, religion does it through persuasion and government through enforcement but, people being people, power over others will corrupt those in power whether in government or religion. Again I would point to the inquisition.

Those people are, however, obviously not following the teachings of an anti-establishmentarian hippie.

You are living in ideal dreams, I am living in the reality of how people actually act as illustrated by history.

I'm not in denial of anything. I just think the terrible people who usually exist in reality are complete hypocrites.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are living in ideal dreams, I am living in the reality of how people actually act as illustrated by history.

I'm not in denial of anything. I just think the terrible people who usually exist in reality are complete hypocrites.

I didn't say you were in denial. But you are 'arguing' as though how you feel people should be has something to do with how people are. I have no argument that those in some position of power in either religion or government are hypocrites but that is a reality, the little boy fixation of Catholic priests and government corruption should make that obvious. It certainly does not have to be condoned but it has to be either recognized for what it is or expect to live a life of constant disappointment and frustration.

 

[Politesse]

You are living in ideal dreams, I am living in the reality of how people actually act as illustrated by history.

I'm not in denial of anything. I just think the terrible people who usually exist in reality are complete hypocrites.

I didn't say you were in denial. But you are 'arguing' as though how you feel people should be has something to do with how people are. I have no argument that those in some position of power in either religion or government are hypocrites but that is a reality, the little boy fixation of Catholic priests and government corruption should make that obvious. It certainly does not have to be condoned but it has to be either recognized for what it is or expect to live a life of constant disappointment and frustration.

I was merely pointing out the inconsistency, not suggesting that the problem would somehow correct itself.

 

[jab]

Odd... This thread, so far, seems to be advocating that the U.S. should become a Christian theocracy.

An incomprehensible combination of terms. Christianity and empire are at odds with one another on a fundamental level.

Multiple choice: who said the following words, or words to the same effect in the Bible: "Pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?
a)Satan
b)Pontius Pilate
c) Mary Magdalene
d) King James, by proxy
e) Jesus

 

[jab]

Not at all. Organized religions is about the leaders of the religion controlling the followers. What better way to do this than to control their thoughts through religious proclamations and their actions by control through government laws and enforcement? They have been meshed together quite a few times. Remember the Holy Roman Empire? The inquisition? The caliphate?

I do not feel that those developments were the best years of the church, nor in line with Christ's profoundly anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist actual teachings.

not all Empires are or have been capitalist: the original laissez-faire theorists and Marx both knew that.

 

[Politesse]

Odd... This thread, so far, seems to be advocating that the U.S. should become a Christian theocracy.

An incomprehensible combination of terms. Christianity and empire are at odds with one another on a fundamental level.

Multiple choice: who said the following words, or words to the same effect in the Bible: "Pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's"?
a)Satan
b)Pontius Pilate
c) Mary Magdalene
d) King James, by proxy
e) Jesus

Jesus, certainly, though King James is also a correct (if indirect) response. Do you think this is an endorsement of the state? It essentially denies any claim that the state has God's endorsement, if you think about it. If governments were instituted by God, then giving to the government would be giving to God. But Jesus here portrays them as non-overlapping opposites.

He doesn't just say it, he explains: the coin has Caesar's face on it; he mints it, he guarantees its value (in theory), he demands it back at exorbitant rates for his own benefit. It is just one of many cautions and warnings Jesus metes out against the use of coinage and the accumulation of wealth, described elsewhere in the same document as "the root of all manner of evil". Coming from an unashamed communist, describing an imperial government as the source of monetary value is neither a compliment nor an endorsement.

In my opinion, of course.

 

[Politesse]

Not at all. Organized religions is about the leaders of the religion controlling the followers. What better way to do this than to control their thoughts through religious proclamations and their actions by control through government laws and enforcement? They have been meshed together quite a few times. Remember the Holy Roman Empire? The inquisition? The caliphate?

I do not feel that those developments were the best years of the church, nor in line with Christ's profoundly anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist actual teachings.

not all Empires are or have been capitalist: the original laissez-faire theorists and Marx both knew that.

Not all empires have been capitalist, but no empire could be socialist in the sense that Jesus teaches to be moral, where society is level or in which mercy and compassion lead policy. I do not see how you could possibly possess a subject state, without also exploiting its citizenry unfairly and accumulating personal power in an aristocracy. An empire without subjects is not an empire.

 

[skepticalbip]

not all Empires are or have been capitalist: the original laissez-faire theorists and Marx both knew that.

Not all empires have been capitalist, but no empire could be socialist in the sense that Jesus teaches to be moral, where society is level or in which mercy and compassion lead policy. I do not see how you could possibly possess a subject state, without also exploiting its citizenry unfairly and accumulating personal power in an aristocracy. An empire without subjects is not an empire.

That sounds like an argument for some idealized anarchy... a state where there is no government and everyone is a saint.

 

[Politesse]

not all Empires are or have been capitalist: the original laissez-faire theorists and Marx both knew that.

Not all empires have been capitalist, but no empire could be socialist in the sense that Jesus teaches to be moral, where society is level or in which mercy and compassion lead policy. I do not see how you could possibly possess a subject state, without also exploiting its citizenry unfairly and accumulating personal power in an aristocracy. An empire without subjects is not an empire.

That sounds like an argument for some idealized anarchy... a state where there is no government and everyone is a saint.

Well, yes, but only sort of. Jesus was not overly interested in politics, his advice was always aimed toward individuals. Governments are treated with disdain in his sermons, they cannot create righteousness; that is up to you. At no point does he attempt to describe and ideal form of government, nor intimate that such a thing would even be possible, as following ruled of any sort is inferior to actually desiring what is good. It is not, to borrow another Christism, what is imposed on the body that defiles you, but rather what comes out of it.

There's a strong libertarian element there, to borrow yet more modern terminology. Stronger than what I would personally be comfortable espousing, by the way. I think it was foolish of him not to realize that his words might be turned to political ends later down the line and plan accordingly. Leaving blanks where others will later demand certainty is dangerous at best, perhaps irresponsible.

 

[skepticalbip]

That sounds like an argument for some idealized anarchy... a state where there is no government and everyone is a saint.

Well, yes, but only sort of. Jesus was not overly interested in politics, his advice was always aimed toward individuals. Governments are treated with disdain in his sermons, they cannot create righteousness; that is up to you. At no point does he attempt to describe and ideal form of government, nor intimate that such a thing would even be possible.

It is a nice dream but reality is that people are not saints. Organizing to try to to make everyone a caring, sharing saint gave us such atrocities as the Khmer Rouge control in Cambodia.

 

[Politesse]

Yes; see my revised thoughts above, I edited myself when I realized I hadn't addressed the obvious downside of this hands-off approach.