Swazi King Rejects Pants: War on Terror Lost - Page 2

Sikander · June 4, 2003, 02:59

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Do they have "terrorist groups with international reach?"

That's Bush's criteria.

In Swaziland that only requires an 81mm mortar.

Sikander · June 4, 2003, 02:59

Quote:

Originally posted by mindseye
Question: was Swaziland part of the "coalition of the willing"?

I think it was part of the "coalition of the wanting".

notyoueither · June 4, 2003, 03:30

Yeah. It would be much better if most Western nations still followed the edicts of Rome. Then we could get all worked into a religious lather about the mere existance of Muslims. Maybe some nukes could be worked into that crusade.

Lord Merciless · June 4, 2003, 03:32

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And Luther didn't set in motion anything that broke the power of "The Church" - he simply created substitutes to hold that power. The Cotton Mathers and whole slews of Calvinists held tighter grips on their communities than the Catholic Church ever did. The Catholic Church derived it's power from the nobility, who co-opted it quite nicely, installing themselves as Cardinals or even Popes, and gave themselves a little "extra" power, since they claimed the legitimacy of God as a basis for their secular power.

Luther, in his later years, was one of the vilest characters around, (read his tracts on Jews, they were a favorite of Adolph Hitler and others). Cromwellian England was more of a religious state than was Spain at the time.

Luther's movement 'democratizes' the church hierarchy and brought diversity into the interpretation of the Bible. Depending upon the support and inclination of local rulers, some of the new offsprings went more fundamentalist, but there were others who went into an 'enlightened' direction. It created 'life' in philosphical and scientific thinkings. Since Europe was fragmented into hundreds different entities at that time, a competition literally happened between the 2 blocs. Eventually, the 'enlightened' nations (post Glorious Revolution England, Prussia) would triumph over the conservative ones (Post Louis XIV France, Habsburgers) in the 18th century.

notyoueither · June 4, 2003, 03:37

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Cromwellian England was more of a religious state than was Spain at the time.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

That was rich. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Dis · June 4, 2003, 04:09

well in either case I don't feel it is appropiate to blame the catholic church for creating paedophiles. You can blame them for covering it up though. And they did plenty of that. Let's see if I can word this right.

The catholic church doesn't create paedophiles, paedophiles just flock to the catholic church because it can provide access to kids in addition to their trust.

In either case I'm not a church supporter. I dislike organized religion. So don't pull some quote that I support the catholic church. They disgust me.

SnowFire · June 4, 2003, 04:11

As a brief aside to this mini-religious war:
Yes, Fred Phelps isn't responsible to anyone and is a moron. That said, maniacs like him under a system where the Catholic Church (or any such body) still kept its old level of control would simply kill him, much like they did for people trying to do things like translate the Bible into English. I propose that that'd be worse than having Mr. Phelps running his mouth. (And if the Catholic Church did not institute harsh policies like that, then we'd rapidly have the whole Protestant revolution all over again as everyone would be free to dissent)

Lord Merciless · June 4, 2003, 04:14

"Organized religions are the crutches for the weak-minded."

- Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota.

notyoueither · June 4, 2003, 04:15

He's just paraphrasing Marx.

Lord Merciless · June 4, 2003, 04:23

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
He's just paraphrasing Marx.

I dislike organized religion, but his assertion that only "weak-minded" follow organized religion is silly.

notyoueither · June 4, 2003, 04:25

No doubt.

HershOstropoler · June 4, 2003, 04:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless

Luther's movement 'democratizes' the church hierarchy and brought diversity into the interpretation of the Bible. Depending upon the support and inclination of local rulers, some of the new offsprings went more fundamentalist, but there were others who went into an 'enlightened' direction. It created 'life' in philosphical and scientific thinkings. Since Europe was fragmented into hundreds different entities at that time, a competition literally happened between the 2 blocs. Eventually, the 'enlightened' nations (post Glorious Revolution England, Prussia) would triumph over the conservative ones (Post Louis XIV France, Habsburgers) in the 18th century.

Where do you get that funny history? Bob Jones?

I'll just start that with Lutherian democracy - read "Wider die räuberischen
und mörderischen Rotten der Bauern" to see how much democracy Luther wanted, especially in the church. The key to Protestant success was that they handed control of the church over to the territorial rulers.

If you want to find someone much closer to a democrat, I suggest Marsilius of Padua's Defensor pacis. Oops, that was a bit earlier, and catholic.

Reformation created life in philosphical and scientific thinkings?

You know, things like the platonic academy in Florence existed before Luther.

Enlightened nations? Joseph II was a much more radical enlightener than Frederick II.

Kramerman · June 4, 2003, 04:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless

Stood the test of time??? Their civilization was toast even before Babylonians showed up.

If you think leaving stone tablets behind is standing up to the test time, well then...

By standing the test of time i believe he means how long they lasted... somethn like 2000 years IIRC (5000-3000 BC). Very long considering the USA has been around for barely 1/10 that long. Thats withstanding the test of time

HershOstropoler · June 4, 2003, 04:30

oops

notyoueither · June 4, 2003, 04:31

Edit. Not quote.

notyoueither · June 4, 2003, 04:39

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Enlightened nations? Joseph II was a much more radical enlightener than Frederick II.

Protestant nations kicked Catholic ass in the end. English is the lingua franca, not Italian, French or Spanish. That's what matters.

HershOstropoler · June 4, 2003, 04:43

"Protestant nations kicked Catholic ass in the end."

Nice, dumb troll.

notyoueither · June 4, 2003, 04:45

Truth hurts?

HershOstropoler · June 4, 2003, 04:51

Show me how that has anything to do with being protestant. Even Max Weber, if you have to.

Sikander · June 4, 2003, 04:55

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Show me how that has anything to do with being protestant. Even Max Weber, if you have to.

We may have to quote the manual for Europa Universalis, which would really be a shame.

Lord Merciless · June 4, 2003, 04:56

I used the word 'Democracy' to merely imply the rejection of the strict catholic church hierarchy. That's why the word is also quoted. The Catholic Church back then prohibited the individuals from reading the Bible. Luther intended to end that. The result was a diversification of the interpretation of the Bible, some of them more fundamentalist, some of them more enlightened.

Who handed control to the local rulers? The Catholic church and the Habsburgers certainly didn't do it voluntarily. Many local rulers always wanted to weaken the Imperial power and pursue their own agenda. Luther's ideal gave them a great ideological support. Sympathetic local rulers granted refuge to Luther and were also powerful enough to deter an immediate attack by Imperialist forces. Thus, a comprise was reached in 'Curios regio' edict. But a final confrontation eventually broke out 100 years later.

Luther's condemnation of peasants during the "Bauernkrieg" was smart politics.

As for science florishing in Florence, I don't think Bruno and Galileio would totally agree with you. The reformation, of course, was never intended to lead to scientific thinking. But enlightened/liberal interpretations of the Bible supported by many countries/rulers greatly helped the advance of science.

As for your example on Joseph II, his effective reign lasted from 1780 until 1790, too late and too short. When he died, even the French Revolution was 1 year old and George Washington had been a year in office. Most of his predecessors, all Karls and Ferdinands, were pretty much hard core conservatives.

Friedrich der Grosse may appear conservative compared to him, but F d G was certainly more enlightened than Karl II, Maria Theresia, and Louis XIV.

notyoueither · June 4, 2003, 05:01

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Show me how that has anything to do with being protestant. Even Max Weber, if you have to.

Show me the Catholic nations winning over the Protestant ones. Go ahead.

Lord Merciless · June 4, 2003, 05:07

Yeah,

England kicked Spain's butt with a bunch of pirates;

England kicked French butt twice ( Spanish Succession War, 7 Seven Years War);

Sweden kicked Austria's butt in 30 Years War;

Prussia kicked Austria's butt twice (Silesia, Koenigsgrraetz);

Prussia kicked French butt twice (Waterloo, Sedan);

The best thing Catholic faction could offer was the massacre of Magdeburg by Count Tilly.

HershOstropoler · June 4, 2003, 05:12

Lord Merciless:

"I used the word 'Democracy' to merely imply the rejection of the strict catholic church hierarchy."

More a rejection of centralization than of hierarchy.

"The Catholic Church back then prohibited the individuals from reading the Bible."

Really? AFAIK all the Catholic Church did was banning unauthorized vernicular translations of the bible. The only incident of a ban of all vernicular translations was a regional, for Toulouse during the Albigensian "heresy".

So which provision of canonic law "prohibited the individuals from reading the Bible" ?

"Who handed control to the local rulers? The Catholic church and the Habsburgers certainly didn't do it voluntarily."

What are you talking about? Control of the church?

"Thus, a comprise was reached in 'Curios regio' edict."

Not exactly an edict, and it's "Cuius Regio".

"As for science florishing in Florence, I don't think Bruno and Galileio would totally agree with you."

That was a bit later, and Galileio wasn't exactly stopped apart from one particular point.

"But enlightened/liberal interpretations of the Bible supported by many countries/rulers greatly helped the advance of science."

The protestant interpretation was not more liberal. If anything, it was more strictly textual. Eg, how many creationists do you have in the catholic church?

"Friedrich der Grosse may appear conservative compared to him, but F d G was certainly more enlightened than Karl II, Maria Theresia, and Louis XIV."

Right with the exception of Maria Theresia, they were pretty much the same. As for Joseph II, don't forget that he was shaping much of his mother's plicies from the 1760s on.

HershOstropoler · June 4, 2003, 05:25

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Show me the Catholic nations winning over the Protestant ones. Go ahead.

As someone mentioned the 30 year war: Wallenstein kicked out the Danes, and he beat back the Swedes - it wasn't Wallenstein who bit the dust at Lützen. The protestants only held on because - you guessed it - the French intervened.

That was a common pattern. The Schmalkalden alliance would have been toast without France, too.

Lord Merciless · June 4, 2003, 05:27

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

Really? AFAIK all the Catholic Church did was banning unauthorized vernicular translations of the bible. The only incident of a ban of all vernicular translations was a regional, for Toulouse during the Albigensian "heresy".

So which provision of canonic law "prohibited the individuals from reading the Bible" ?

Maybe you were more accurate in this regard. But anyway, the Bible was only translated into various local languages after the reformation had begun. Prior to that, the Bible was only available in Latin and basically out of reach of most people, even literate ones.

Quote:

What are you talking about? Control of the church?

Control over what their subjects should believe.

Quote:

The protestant interpretation was not more liberal. If anything, it was more strictly textual. Eg, how many creationists do you have in the catholic church?

That's the key of my whole point: because people started interpreting the Bible on a more individual basis, the results went into both directions. The more fundamentalist ones were of course of no helpful to science, but the enlightened certainly did. And it was the enlightened England that finally broke through the medieval system into the modern world (constitution, capitalism, and industrialization).

Quote:

Right with the exception of Maria Theresia, they were pretty much the same. As for Joseph II, don't forget that he was shaping much of his mother's plicies from the 1760s on.

Too late, too short. Prussia was religiously liberal long before F d G came to power. It (still the Elector of Brandenburg) benefited greatly from skilled immigrants when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes.

HershOstropoler · June 4, 2003, 05:45

I can't address all that in detail. Just:

"But anyway, the Bible was only translated into various local languages after the reformation had begun."

That's incorrect again. John Wycliff translated the bible into english around 1380. And I'm not even sure it was the first one. IIRC already Beda Venerabilis translated parts of the bible. Earlier translations were in romance languages.

Lord Merciless · June 4, 2003, 05:47

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
I can't address all that in detail. Just:

"But anyway, the Bible was only translated into various local languages after the reformation had begun."

That's incorrect again. John Wycliff translated the bible into english around 1380. And I'm not even sure it was the first one. IIRC already Beda Venerabilis translated parts of the bible. Earlier translations were in romance languages.

What German?

Arrian · June 4, 2003, 10:07

How the hell did this become a pissing contest between Catholicism & Protestantism?

:shakes head:

-Arrian

HershOstropoler · June 4, 2003, 10:23

Nice little threadjack. But it's about historical correctness, not faith - I'm agnostic.