The Race For 2024

[bilby]

Christianity is a monarchic faith, not democratic. The verse says "every knee shall bow", not "every voter shall have a say." An Australian has the excuse, at least, of being obliged by law to vote.

Australians live in a monarchy, too.

We do, however, keep our king on a small island on the opposite side of the planet, which is quite effective in limiting the harm he can do to our democracy.

True, that. But at least the divine right of kings doesn't violate the basic order of the universe by allowing citizens to participate in their own governance. The king is the head of the church, and the Godhead rules the king, power and authority flowing ever downward from the heavens. What it is never supposed to do is flow up.

Well obviously. Wealth flows up. Authority flows down. The Pope will remit a tithe of the Vatican's vast wealth to God, just as soon as he works out how to achieve this; Hence the oft-repeated homily "We all have to learn to make sacrifices".

 

[bilby]

Republics may not be Biblical, but they are very, very popular in our century.

Indeed, even present day Iran pays lip-service to being an "Islamic Republic". Though more in the "We ditched the Shah" sense than the "We want to give all the Iranian people a voice" sense, natch.

 

[Emily Lake]

Generally, Christianity assumes the ruler of the state is not the leader of the church.

That is mostly true today, except in England, Vatican City, and (until 2017) Norway.

Crazy that I specifically mentioned Vatican City and you “missed” that. The monarch of England is titularly the head of the Anglican Church, but takes no actual part in defining church doctrine *or* leading the country.

Norway, I don’t know.

However, European Christianity was, until the reformation, more of a federal system, with the Pope as the supreme imperial power, and kings as the local governors in each nation state. The holder of supreme political power in Western Christian countries was, from its founding until the seccession of various Protestant factions, the holder of supreme religious power (at least, that was the official line - disputes over this were ultimately one of the causes of Protestantism, particularly in England).

Is it your assertion that the pope set the laws of the countries in Christendom? Actively involved in governing? I think you’re stretching it a bit, wouldn’t you say?

So your "generally" is true-ish if we only consider the present; But not if we consider the entire history of Christianity.

After the fall of Byzantium, leaders of the church were not leaders of government.

Unlike MODERN CURRENT Islamic theocracies.

Which I’ve been assured by several here are way more peaceful and less of a risk than modern Christians…

 

[Emily Lake]

Render unto Caesar and all that.

Does not mean that one should vote for Caesar, and it certainly wasn't an argument to overthrow Caesar and hand power back to the Senate or Sanhedrin. Quite the opposite. That was an argument for paying taxes and keeping their head down, not becoming a democratic political faction.

Your view of the world works doesn’t align with objective observations.

 

[Emily Lake]

On the other hand… several Muslim theocracies are currently operating right now, and those theocracies strongly believe that the entire planet should be subject to Islamic religious rule.

Based on... wait for it... mostly, the exact same Scriptures. Plus a famous little corrective coda of course, but the Holy Qur'an does not add in the heavenly endorsement of kingship, if anything it mediates it slightly by introducing the concept of ijna, consensus-building, to its portrait of a just king. No, Muslims are not monarchic because the Prophet (pbuh) invented kings. Islam is monarchic because Abrahamic religions are ALL monarchic, and they all tell the same stories about Abraham and his descendants to justify the rightness of that shared institution. The Hebrew God, who became in time the Christian and Muslim god, has never once offered to share power with mortals. Human authority is permitted only insomuch as the divine will is being communicated through it. Read your Bible, sometime! You'll be surprised how little of what the book says resembles what Christians claim to believe.

Mind you, concerning your portrayal of the present, I am not aware of any living Muslim state that invests all political and religious authority in one monarch. Like the Christendom, the Dar al-Islam has struggled to convince any modern populace that an unchecked autocrat is safe or desirable. Republics may not be Biblical, but they are very, very popular in our century.

You’ll do well once you convert.

 

[bilby]

Is it your assertion that the pope set the laws of the countries in Christendom?

No, it is not "my assertion", it is an historical fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law

Canon law includes the internal ecclesiasticallaw, or operational policy, governing the Catholic Church (both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches), the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, and the individual national churches within the Anglican Communion.
...
In the Church of England, the ecclesiastical courts that formerly decided many matters such as disputes relating to marriage, divorce, wills, and defamation, still have jurisdiction of certain church-related matters (e.g. discipline of clergy, alteration of church property, and issues related to churchyards). Their separate status dates back to the 12th century when the Normans split them off from the mixed secular/religious county and local courts used by the Saxons.

 

[bilby]

Crazy that I specifically mentioned Vatican City and you “missed” that.

Even more crazy that you assume that somebody repeating a point you made is attempting to contradict you but "missed" your point; Rather than the more obvious and charitable assumption that they simply agree with you.

 

[Emily Lake]

Crazy that I specifically mentioned Vatican City and you “missed” that.

Even more crazy that you assume that somebody repeating a point you made is attempting to contradict you but "missed" your point; Rather than the more obvious and charitable assumption that they simply agree with you.

Fair. You rarely agree with me

 

[Politesse]

On the other hand… several Muslim theocracies are currently operating right now, and those theocracies strongly believe that the entire planet should be subject to Islamic religious rule.

Based on... wait for it... mostly, the exact same Scriptures. Plus a famous little corrective coda of course, but the Holy Qur'an does not add in the heavenly endorsement of kingship, if anything it mediates it slightly by introducing the concept of ijna, consensus-building, to its portrait of a just king. No, Muslims are not monarchic because the Prophet (pbuh) invented kings. Islam is monarchic because Abrahamic religions are ALL monarchic, and they all tell the same stories about Abraham and his descendants to justify the rightness of that shared institution. The Hebrew God, who became in time the Christian and Muslim god, has never once offered to share power with mortals. Human authority is permitted only insomuch as the divine will is being communicated through it. Read your Bible, sometime! You'll be surprised how little of what the book says resembles what Christians claim to believe.

Mind you, concerning your portrayal of the present, I am not aware of any living Muslim state that invests all political and religious authority in one monarch. Like the Christendom, the Dar al-Islam has struggled to convince any modern populace that an unchecked autocrat is safe or desirable. Republics may not be Biblical, but they are very, very popular in our century.

You’ll do well once you convert.

You know, there's more to life than just hating other people.

 

[Politesse]

Render unto Caesar and all that.

Does not mean that one should vote for Caesar, and it certainly wasn't an argument to overthrow Caesar and hand power back to the Senate or Sanhedrin. Quite the opposite. That was an argument for paying taxes and keeping their head down, not becoming a democratic political faction.

Your view of the world works doesn’t align with objective observations.

I'm... confused as to what you think my post is even about. Do you need a citation to a classic Biblical commentary that describes the same thing I'm describing? I didn't invent this interpretation, it was the majority view for more than a millenium of Christian history. Only during the very tail end of the Enlightenment was Jesus reinvented as a social activist who was cool with revolutions, and his hippie social justice warrior mode is of even more recent invention.

 

[Emily Lake]

You know, there's more to life than just hating other people.

True. You should give it a try. I’m sure your life would have more contentment if you could learn to be more tolerant and inclusive.

 

[Toni]

You know, there's more to life than just hating other people.

True. You should give it a try. I’m sure your life would have more contentment if you could learn to be more tolerant and inclusive.

Wow.

 

[Emily Lake]

Render unto Caesar and all that.

Does not mean that one should vote for Caesar, and it certainly wasn't an argument to overthrow Caesar and hand power back to the Senate or Sanhedrin. Quite the opposite. That was an argument for paying taxes and keeping their head down, not becoming a democratic political faction.

Your view of the world works doesn’t align with objective observations.

I'm... confused as to what you think my post is even about. Do you need a citation to a classic Biblical commentary that describes the same thing I'm describing? I didn't invent this interpretation, it was the majority view for more than a millenium of Christian history. Only during the very tail end of the Enlightenment was Jesus reinvented as a social activist who was cool with revolutions, and his hippie social justice warrior mode is of even more recent invention.

I don’t even know if I should be annoyed by this. Maybe you aren’t cognitively capable of understanding the logical flaws in your argument.

For example… you’re saying average majority Christian’s today are violating doctrine by voting… because the majority view didn’t support voting between about 300 ad and 1300 ad… when nobody was allowed to vote in the first place.

 

[Politesse]

Render unto Caesar and all that.

Does not mean that one should vote for Caesar, and it certainly wasn't an argument to overthrow Caesar and hand power back to the Senate or Sanhedrin. Quite the opposite. That was an argument for paying taxes and keeping their head down, not becoming a democratic political faction.

Your view of the world works doesn’t align with objective observations.

I'm... confused as to what you think my post is even about. Do you need a citation to a classic Biblical commentary that describes the same thing I'm describing? I didn't invent this interpretation, it was the majority view for more than a millenium of Christian history. Only during the very tail end of the Enlightenment was Jesus reinvented as a social activist who was cool with revolutions, and his hippie social justice warrior mode is of even more recent invention.

I don’t even know if I should be annoyed by this. Maybe you aren’t cognitively capable of understanding the logical flaws in your argument.

For example… you’re saying average majority Christian’s today are violating doctrine by voting… because the majority view didn’t support voting between about 300 ad and 1300 ad… when nobody was allowed to vote in the first place.

Well, no. I'm saying they enjoy democratic republics because those are currently fashionable in the world for entirely secular reasons, despite generally claiming to follow theologies based on the Christian Scriptures, which for obvious reasons and in plain language endorse monarchy.

 

[ZiprHead]

[Admin hat on] This thread has gotten quite personal in nature. Cut it out. Don't make me turn this car around and go back home. [Admin hat off]

 

[Emily Lake]

You know, there's more to life than just hating other people.

True. You should give it a try. I’m sure your life would have more contentment if you could learn to be more tolerant and inclusive.

Wow.

If you observe actions rather than words, Poli is quite hateful in his interactions with people he disagrees with. He called me a racist spouting nazi rhetoric. He frequently directs outright contempt and vitriol at me. I’m done putting up with it. Reasoned discussion have been unsuccessful and have only resulted in him feeling empowered to treat me like shit. He gets what he dishes out now

 

[Emily Lake]

[Admin hat on] This thread has gotten quite personal in nature. Cut it out. Don't make me turn this car around and go back home. [Admin hat off]

I won’t start it. But I also will no longer tolerate personalized vitriol and contempt at me. Address the instigators, and this whole forum will be better for it.

 

[Politesse]

You know, there's more to life than just hating other people.

True. You should give it a try. I’m sure your life would have more contentment if you could learn to be more tolerant and inclusive.

Wow.

If you observe actions rather than words, Poli is quite hateful in his interactions with people he disagrees with. He called me a racist spouting nazi rhetoric. He frequently directs outright contempt and vitriol at me. I’m done putting up with it. Reasoned discussion have been unsuccessful and have only resulted in him feeling empowered to treat me like shit. He gets what he dishes out now

At least keep it to the thread where the "offense" occurred. Following me around from thread to thread spouting invective at me doesn't make your argument in the first one any more convincing, it just makes every other thread suck just as much as the first. I'm still annoyed at you for getting my Trump thread jettisoned to Elsewhere for no reason related to its actual topic, and I think a lot of people would be very annoyed if the same happened to our main 2024 election thread.

You know what? Why not just send me abusive DMs, if you need to get it out of your system? That way, you can address your emotional baggage, without disrupting every thread on the forum that I've posted some observation in. Or better yet, use the "block" feature.

 

[Toni]

You know, there's more to life than just hating other people.

True. You should give it a try. I’m sure your life would have more contentment if you could learn to be more tolerant and inclusive.

Wow.

If you observe actions rather than words, Poli is quite hateful in his interactions with people he disagrees with. He called me a racist spouting nazi rhetoric. He frequently directs outright contempt and vitriol at me. I’m done putting up with it. Reasoned discussion have been unsuccessful and have only resulted in him feeling empowered to treat me like shit. He gets what he dishes out now

Wow.

 

[Emily Lake]

You know, there's more to life than just hating other people.

True. You should give it a try. I’m sure your life would have more contentment if you could learn to be more tolerant and inclusive.

Wow.

If you observe actions rather than words, Poli is quite hateful in his interactions with people he disagrees with. He called me a racist spouting nazi rhetoric. He frequently directs outright contempt and vitriol at me. I’m done putting up with it. Reasoned discussion have been unsuccessful and have only resulted in him feeling empowered to treat me like shit. He gets what he dishes out now

At least keep it to the thread where the "offense" occurred. Following me around from thread to thread spouting invective at me doesn't make your argument in the first one any more convincing, it just makes every other thread suck just as much as the first. I'm still annoyed at you for getting my Trump thread jettisoned to Elsewhere for no reason related to its actual topic, and I think a lot of people would be very annoyed if the same happened to our main 2024 election thread.

You know what? Why not just send me abusive DMs, if you need to get it out of your system? That way, you can address your emotional baggage, without disrupting every thread on the forum that I've posted some observation in. Or better yet, use the "block" feature.

Your post highlights above was rude and hateful, Poli. Don’t pretend you didn’t intend it as a a friendly and respectful interaction. You know it wasn’t, I know it wasn’t, I know you know it wasn’t. Everyone knows it wasn’t civil.

I’m not going to meekly tolerate your inciviloty.