Anti-Protestantism . . .

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Anti-Reformation . . ?

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Enki wrote:
As the Roman church was essentially the 'Government', it was entirely political.
I think this would come as a big surprise to all those Popes and bishops who had problems with the Imperial throne.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Anti-Protestantism . . .

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Mr. Perfect wrote:What does that have to do with understanding that the Catholic Church was charging money to forgive sins?
Some people were charging money for sins already forgiven. An indulgence doesn't forgive sins, it is a temporal debt reduction for sins already confessed- think of it as a bailout for souls too big too fail. :P
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Indulgences . . .

Post by Marcus »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:What does that have to do with understanding that the Catholic Church was charging money to forgive sins?
Some people were charging money for sins already forgiven. An indulgence doesn't forgive sins, it is a temporal debt reduction for sins already confessed- think of it as a bailout for souls too big too fail. :P
—from Luther's 95 Theses:

27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.

28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.

"As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, The soul from Purgatory springs." —Johann Tetzel
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Indulgences . . .

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Marcus wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:What does that have to do with understanding that the Catholic Church was charging money to forgive sins?
Some people were charging money for sins already forgiven. An indulgence doesn't forgive sins, it is a temporal debt reduction for sins already confessed- think of it as a bailout for souls too big too fail. :P
—from Luther's 95 Theses:

27. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.

28. It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone.

"As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, The soul from Purgatory springs." —Johann Tetzel
Tetzel is another interesting topic, but I'm not sure why you posted Luther's words here.

Even if "they" (meaning the whole Catholic Church, which they didn't) preached point 27, that doesn't imply that it taught that an indulgence forgives sins not confessed. It isn't a get-out-of-jail free card. The practice started as a way commute on long penances given for grave sins committed. This aspect never changed.

To get into it from there would be to open up that whole can of worms we'd just rather disagree on. But I'm kinda surprised you'd not take my word for something that you don't believe in and doesn't affect you at all. ;)

In fact, the problem with Tetzel wasn't even a selling of indulgences directly but a selling of alms.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
An indulgence, (Tetzel) writes, can be applied only "to the pains of sin which are confessed and for which there is contrition". "No one", he furthermore adds, "secures an indulgence unless he have true contrition". The confessional letters (confessionalia) could of course be obtained for a mere pecuniary consideration without demanding contrition. But such document did not secure an indulgence. It was simply a permit to select a proper confessor, who only after a contrite confession would absolve from sin and reserved cases, and who possessed at the same time facilities to impart the plenary indulgence (Paulus, "Johann Tetzel", 103).

As much cannot be said about his teaching regarding indulgences for the dead. The couplet attributed to him —

As soon as the gold in the casket rings
The rescued soul to heaven springs,

like that attributed to Luther,

Who loves not wine and wife and song
Remains a fool his life long;

though verbally spurious, can in both instances be in substance unfailingly traced to the writings of their respective authors. By Tetzel they are substantially acknowledged in his Frankfort theses. Here he accepted the mere school opinion of a few obscure writers, which overstepped the contents of papal indulgence Bulls. This opinion found no recognition but actual condemnation at the hands of authoritative writers, and was rejected in explicit terms by Cardinal Cajetan as late as 1517-19. By the teaching he laid himself open to just censure and reproach. To condition a plenary indulgence for the dead on the mere gift of money, without contrition on the part of the giver, was as repugnant to the teaching of the Church, as it violated every principle of elementary justice. "Preachers act in the name of the Church", writes Cardinal Cajetan, "so long as they teach the doctrines of Christ and the Church; but if they teach, guided by their own minds and arbitrariness of will, things of which they are ignorant, they cannot pass as representatives of the Church; it need not be wondered at that they go astray" (Paulus, "Johann Tetzel", 165). It was this deviation from the correct teaching of the Church and the obtrusive and disgraceful injection of the treasury chest, that led to abuses and scandals reprobated by such contemporaries as Cochlæus, Emser, and Duke George (Paulus, op. cit., 117-18). "Grave abuses arose; the attitude of the preachers, the manner of offering and publishing the indulgences aroused many scandals; above all, Tetzel is in no way to be exonerated" (Janssen-Pastor, "Geschichte des deutsch. Volkes", 18th ed., Freiburg, II, 84).
Cardinal Cajetan met with Luther early on and unfairly dismissed him as another Augustinian preacher in a debate with Dominicans. But his work on indulgence reform probably has a lot to do with that meeting because he undertook a three year study on indulgences right after meeting with Luther.
Last edited by NapLajoieonSteroids on Thu May 24, 2012 10:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Church and State . . .

Post by Marcus »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Enki wrote:As the Roman church was essentially the 'Government', it was entirely political.
I think this would come as a big surprise to all those Popes and bishops who had problems with the Imperial throne.
Corruption in the Medieval Catholic Church:

A major source of discontent with the Church grew out of its power struggle with European monarchs. Throughout Europe, important feudal positions had been staffed by clergy members, and feudal dues and taxes were an important source of income for the Church. As feudalism declined and the power of monarchs increased, the Church took great care to insure that its power was not reduced at the hands of the monarchs. The pope was as much a temporal prince as he was a spiritual shepherd. Protecting his Papal States from the likes of France, Spain, Naples, Venice, and the Holy Roman Empire involved the papacy in endless wars. Pope Julius II, who ruled from 1503 to 1513, wore a suit of armor and rode into battle at the head of the papal armies. In several cases, popes used excommunication as a way to force monarchs to adhere to their wishes. Even so, monarchs battled the Church hierarchy for political power.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Indulgences . . .

Post by Marcus »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:. . I'm not sure why you posted Luther's words here. . .
Because the popular perception, then and now, that the Roman church was charging money to forgive sins was accurately stated by Luther at the time in theses 27 and 28.

Luther was there . . he saw it, and he objected to it!
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Indulgences . . .

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Marcus wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:. . I'm not sure why you posted Luther's words here. . .
Because the popular perception, then and now, that the Roman church was charging money to forgive sins was accurately stated by Luther at the time in theses 27 and 28.

Luther was there . . he saw it, and he objected to it!
Popular perception is the best you got? :lol:

Luther was a great orator and from an excellent professor who knew of his region, but I'd hardly call him the witness for all of Western Europe.

And that popular perception is much easier to come by when we are writing in a Protestant language in a Protestant-majority nation.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Church and State . . .

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Marcus wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Enki wrote:As the Roman church was essentially the 'Government', it was entirely political.
I think this would come as a big surprise to all those Popes and bishops who had problems with the Imperial throne.
Corruption in the Medieval Catholic Church:

A major source of discontent with the Church grew out of its power struggle with European monarchs. Throughout Europe, important feudal positions had been staffed by clergy members, and feudal dues and taxes were an important source of income for the Church. As feudalism declined and the power of monarchs increased, the Church took great care to insure that its power was not reduced at the hands of the monarchs. The pope was as much a temporal prince as he was a spiritual shepherd. Protecting his Papal States from the likes of France, Spain, Naples, Venice, and the Holy Roman Empire involved the papacy in endless wars. Pope Julius II, who ruled from 1503 to 1513, wore a suit of armor and rode into battle at the head of the papal armies. In several cases, popes used excommunication as a way to force monarchs to adhere to their wishes. Even so, monarchs battled the Church hierarchy for political power.
I'm pretty sure 1500s is the early modern period, so I don't know what Pope Julius is supposed to represent.

And usually, when you are top dog you don't get involved in endless wars with other aggressive neighbors attacking you or questioning your authority.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Anti-Reformation . . ?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Enki wrote: As the Roman church was essentially the 'Government', it was entirely political.
The government was essentially the church, so it was entirely religious.

See the problem?
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

All of Western Europe . . . !

Post by Marcus »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:. . I'd hardly call [Luther] the witness for all of Western Europe. . .
And if that's the best you got, then you'll have to explain the Reformation without Luther.

Of course, if the Reformation was no big deal, one needn't explain it at all . . . ;)
The most widespread and influential event in European history up until the French Revolution, the Revolution of the Common Man, as it is now called due to the scholarship of this book, has been traditionally characterized, by the ruling classes since 1531, as a Peasants' War. This applied term served to undermine the unified vision of a classless society shared by town and country radicals of the time who were far from a fringe group: it was a popular revolution; and were far from just peasants: there were miners, artisans, merchants, and even some nobles who joined thinking the cause just. The revolution secured new freedoms despite having lost the war (proof against the conservative assertion that "all revolutions end in dictatorships"), informed the nobility and lordships that serfdom could not withstand the Reformation, and augured in a new era of secularization in the realms of politics, (direct democracy), economics (abolition of classes), and religion ("equality before God"). This is an essential study for all who cherish the concept of equality in its practical (proletarian) form.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: All of Western Europe . . . !

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Marcus wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:. . I'd hardly call [Luther] the witness for all of Western Europe. . .
And if that's the best you got, then you'll have to explain the Reformation without Luther.

Of course, if the Reformation was no big deal, one needn't explain it at all . . . ;)
The most widespread and influential event in European history up until the French Revolution, the Revolution of the Common Man, as it is now called due to the scholarship of this book, has been traditionally characterized, by the ruling classes since 1531, as a Peasants' War. This applied term served to undermine the unified vision of a classless society shared by town and country radicals of the time who were far from a fringe group: it was a popular revolution; and were far from just peasants: there were miners, artisans, merchants, and even some nobles who joined thinking the cause just. The revolution secured new freedoms despite having lost the war (proof against the conservative assertion that "all revolutions end in dictatorships"), informed the nobility and lordships that serfdom could not withstand the Reformation, and augured in a new era of secularization in the realms of politics, (direct democracy), economics (abolition of classes), and religion ("equality before God"). This is an essential study for all who cherish the concept of equality in its practical (proletarian) form.
I didn't say The Reformation wasn't a "big deal" but Luther is much different from Zwingli who was different from Thomas Müntzer...

I've always been fascinated by Luther and have read more on him than others. But, to be frank, that is because I can much more easily see Luther and Lutherans within the Catholic tradition than I can many of the other reformers. From his belief in the Real Presence to his conception of justification which you can see how Saint Bernard's writings influenced him while at Efert to even the Swedish Church maintaining a valid if illicit apostolic succession up until the 20th century- I understand and appreciate the man's criticisms. But Luther is but a piece of a large puzzle, including the other reformers, including Erasmus, including John Colet...

When justification was the issue that he divided on, as well as his priority; the absolutely repugnant notion that there was widespread support for the selling of indulgences in such a way you are suggesting is offensive to the history of how things occurred and is a bit of Protestant polemic, like the Catholic psychoanalysizing of Luther, that I thought we moved past.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Anti-Reformation . . ?

Post by Enki »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Enki wrote: As the Roman church was essentially the 'Government', it was entirely political.
The government was essentially the church, so it was entirely religious.

See the problem?
No problem, religion and politics are essentially synonyms that are only different by context. Essentially both regard a system of rules around which people organize.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8390
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Anti-Reformation . . ?

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Enki wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
Enki wrote: As the Roman church was essentially the 'Government', it was entirely political.
The government was essentially the church, so it was entirely religious.

See the problem?
No problem, religion and politics are essentially synonyms that are only different by context. Essentially both regard a system of rules around which people organize.
That's a good point.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Denominational hubris . . .

Post by Marcus »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:I didn't say The Reformation wasn't a "big deal" but Luther is much different from Zwingli who was different from Thomas Müntzer...

I've always been fascinated by Luther and have read more on him than others. But, to be frank, that is because I can much more easily see Luther and Lutherans within the Catholic tradition than I can many of the other reformers. From his belief in the Real Presence to his conception of justification which you can see how Saint Bernard's writings influenced him while at Efert to even the Swedish Church maintaining a valid if illicit apostolic succession up until the 20th century- I understand and appreciate the man's criticisms. But Luther is but a piece of a large puzzle, including the other reformers, including Erasmus, including John Colet...

When justification was the issue that he divided on, as well as his priority; the absolutely repugnant notion that there was widespread support for the selling of indulgences in such a way you are suggesting is offensive to the history of how things occurred and is a bit of Protestant polemic, like the Catholic psychoanalysizing of Luther, that I thought we moved past.


Very good. I heard somewhere that more has been written about Martin Luther than any man in human history except Jesus Christ himself, and, yes, Luther is part of something that transcended him. That said, Luther remains a critical part of the Reformation . . he was much, much, much more than a "great orator."

And if you look back to the OP in this thread, I had thought we'd moved past the kind denominational hubris and vitriol expressed on these fora and ATOL toward Protestants, Protestantism, the Reformation, Luther, and particularly toward John Calvin.

That's why Touchstone magazine enjoys my support as a medium in which Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox can come together in mutual support and in a celebration of Mere Christianity.
Touchstone is a Christian journal, conservative in doctrine and eclectic in content, with editors and readers from each of the three great divisions of Christendom—Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox.

The mission of the journal and its publisher, The Fellowship of St. James, is to provide a place where Christians of various backgrounds can speak with one another on the basis of shared belief in the fundamental doctrines of the faith as revealed in Holy Scripture and summarized in the ancient creeds of the Church.
Personally, I don't care what Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe . . they're Christ's servants, not mine. But I am sick to death of Christians divided in terms of denominational peculiarities and hubris.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Anti-Reformation . . ?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Enki wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
Enki wrote: As the Roman church was essentially the 'Government', it was entirely political.
The government was essentially the church, so it was entirely religious.

See the problem?
No problem, religion and politics are essentially synonyms that are only different by context.
Except you did not use the terms synonymously in this instance. I wonder why you did that. I have some guesses if you don't have any.
Essentially both regard a system of rules around which people organize.
A lot of people that aren't religious feel this way. However, religious people do not.

For example, I do not expect the state or a politician to save my soul. And I don't expect God to round up criminals for my benefit. Not very often anyway. ;)
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

The proof is in the pudding . . .

Post by Marcus »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:. . a valid if illicit apostolic succession . .
What in the world is a "valid" yet "Illicit" apostolic succession?

Here's how I judge valid apostolic succession:

I've been involved, at least on a weekly basis, with our local nursing home as a board member and volunteer for over a decade. My mother, mother-in-law, and father-in-law all passed away there. The only Christians I see there, week in, week out, year in, year out, ministering to the spiritual, emotional, and physical needs of the residents are Evangelical Christians . . exclusively . . none other.

That, to my mind, is what constitutes valid apostolic succession.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Making my points for me . . . thanks . . .

Post by Typhoon »

Marcus wrote:
Typhoon wrote:Well, the average European citizen at the time was a peasant.
Communal Reformation and Peasant Piety: The Peasant Reformation and Its Late Medieval Origins
—from a review of the book noted above:
The most widespread and influential event in European history up until the French Revolution, the Revolution of the Common Man, as it is now called due to the scholarship of this book, has been traditionally characterized, by the ruling classes since 1531, as a Peasants' War. This applied term served to undermine the unified vision of a classless society shared by town and country radicals of the time who were far from a fringe group: it was a popular revolution; and were far from just peasants: there were miners, artisans, merchants, and even some nobles who joined thinking the cause just. The revolution secured new freedoms despite having lost the war (proof against the conservative assertion that "all revolutions end in dictatorships"), informed the nobility and lordships that serfdom could not withstand the Reformation, and augured in a new era of secularization in the realms of politics, (direct democracy), economics (abolition of classes), and religion ("equality before God"). This is an essential study for all who cherish the concept of equality in its practical (proletarian) form.
Thanks . . that's a helluva book . . :D . . and thanks for helping confirm my points!
Rather it shows that supposed experts in this particular bit of history strongly disagree.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Anti-Reformation . . ?

Post by Typhoon »

Mr. Perfect wrote: . . .
Essentially both regard a system of rules around which people organize.
A lot of people that aren't religious feel this way. However, religious people do not.

For example, I do not expect the state or a politician to save my soul. And I don't expect God to round up criminals for my benefit. Not very often anyway. ;)
There appears to be a lack of consistency here.

You expect that state to impose supposed Christian values regarding homosexuality, etc.

In other words, religion-based social engineering.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Making my points for me . . . thanks . . .

Post by Marcus »

Typhoon wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Typhoon wrote:Well, the average European citizen at the time was a peasant. Communal Reformation and Peasant Piety: The Peasant Reformation and Its Late Medieval Origins
Thanks . . that's a helluva book . . :D . . and thanks for helping confirm my points!
Rather it shows that supposed experts in this particular bit of history strongly disagree.


Who knew? . . point is, I agree with this expert as do the majority of experts on the subject . . including Rosenstock-Huessy . .

As ALI would say: . . loooooooooove it . . ;)
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Making my points for me . . . thanks . . .

Post by Typhoon »

Marcus wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Typhoon wrote:Well, the average European citizen at the time was a peasant. Communal Reformation and Peasant Piety: The Peasant Reformation and Its Late Medieval Origins
Thanks . . that's a helluva book . . :D . . and thanks for helping confirm my points!
Rather it shows that supposed experts in this particular bit of history strongly disagree.


Who knew? . . point is, I agree with this expert as do the majority of experts on the subject . . including Rosenstock-Huessy . .

As ALI would say: . . loooooooooove it . . ;)
Well, your quoted fellow poster is known for jumping to conclusions:

Cause[s] of the Peasant's War
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Anti-Reformation . . ?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Typhoon wrote: There appears to be a lack of consistency here.

You expect that state to impose supposed Christian values regarding homosexuality, etc.

In other words, religion-based social engineering.
Why do you say that?
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Making my points for me . . . thanks . . .

Post by Marcus »

Perhaps the best way to view the Great Peasant War of 1524–1525 is to regard the revolt as a struggle that began as an upheaval immersed in the rhetoric of Luther's Protestant Reformation against the Catholic Church but which really was impelled far beyond the narrow religious confines by the underlying economic tensions of the time.

—from the link cited above
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Anti-Reformation . . ?

Post by Enki »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Enki wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
Enki wrote: As the Roman church was essentially the 'Government', it was entirely political.
The government was essentially the church, so it was entirely religious.

See the problem?
No problem, religion and politics are essentially synonyms that are only different by context. Essentially both regard a system of rules around which people organize.
That's a good point.
From what I understand the Romans used it clearly in this context. The Senate was a 'religious' matter. The confusion only comes in when you separate church and state and try to labor under the dualism of there being a realm of the spirit and a realm of the mundane.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
Demon of Undoing
Posts: 1764
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:14 pm

Re: Anti-Protestantism . . .

Post by Demon of Undoing »

Exatly this.

Ninety percent of the confusion in the world comes from thinking there is a a body, a mind, and a spirit. There are no ghosts. There is body and mind/ spirit. The body is the horse the spirit rides. There is not a further monkey on the back of the guy riding the horse. That's just the man, being self- obsessed, a victim of illusion that only steps between the truth and the one living it. A useless subroutine, in info parlance, that absorbes resources.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Anti-Protestantism . . .

Post by Ibrahim »

The point of secularism is to artificially try to exclude religious considerations from government and be as rational as possible, kind of like a social version of the "scientific method." Snotty urban sophisticates like Roman Senators are widely held to have not believed in their gods (Nietzsche called them the first atheist government in history) so they could maintain the forms of their religion without actually basing decisions on it.

In modern times, we accept that most people have religious convictions (or all do, if you forcibly include atheism and agnosticism), but we make the effort to separate this from politics. Is this more reliable than the Roman model? Both ended up with extreme partisanism based on party lines, we're still at the "chimps throwing feces" stage, and not at the Marius/Sulla massacres stage. So I guess we're ahead for now.


Medieval European (and Indian, and Islamic, and East Asian) civilization at the time of the Reformation had no such separation at all. All political considerations were linked to religious considerations, in webs interconnectivity that are too complex for even experts in the field to map exhaustively. At best you can argue what the primary consideration was in a given instance.
Post Reply