Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 75
Thanks Tree33Thanks

Thread: Which ideals, specifically?

  1. #11
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,153
    Thanks
    17522

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Source?
    I suspect that most would respond with Matt. 22:21 - Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."

    However, the context in which this passage is found, is specifically about a theist's responsibility to pay taxes to a heathen government, because it was feared that paying the taxes of such a government in this manner,would acknowledge an authority that God did not allow. Jesus was pointing out that there is no sin in recognising a government's authority, outside of the religion. It was not about the formation of governments.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  2. #12
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    62,643
    Thanks
    34279

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    That's not exactly true. The Church was the defining institution of the Roman Empire under Constantine. After the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, there was no single powerful secular central government in Europe. Rather, there was a central ecclesiastical power in Rome, the Catholic Church. In this power vacuum, the Church rose to become the dominant power in the West. The Church started expanded in the beginning 10th century, and as secular kingdoms gained power at the same time, there naturally arose the conditions for a power struggle between Church and Kingdom over ultimate authority.

    In essence, the earliest vision of Christendom was a vision of a Christian theocracy, a government founded upon and upholding Christian values, whose institutions are spread through and over with Christian doctrine. In this period, members of the Christian clergy wield political authority. The specific relationship between the political leaders and the clergy varied but, in theory, the national and political divisions were at times subsumed under the leadership of the Catholic Church as an institution. This model of church-state relations was accepted by various Church leaders and political leaders in European history.

    So, to suggest that the state was separate the Church in Europe, implies that each nation held its power independent of the church, and this is certainly not borne out by historical record. Even when Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church, it was not to form a separate secular government; rather it was to replace the ecumenical authority of the Catholic Church with that of the Church of England. However, the church was still recognised as the authority behind the monarchy's rule.
    And yet the Church and state were parallel institutions in Europe, starting in 800 AD when Charlemagne had the Pope crown him. As I stated, the church and state were interdependent, but they weren't the same. No ruler claimed to speak for God or to be specially empowered in some spiritual way. This separation was well-recognized. The church certainly had authority--it could excommunicate even a king--but that was a separate question from what I'm talking about.

    If you look at other civilizations, the connection between spiritual authority and civil authority was much closer. The ideal Islamic state is topped by an emir, who is both a king and a spiritual leader. Indian government was similarly constituted. The Emperor of China was considered a god himself.

  3. #13
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    34,142
    Thanks
    31462

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    And yet the Church and state were parallel institutions in Europe, starting in 800 AD when Charlemagne had the Pope crown him. As I stated, the church and state were interdependent, but they weren't the same. No ruler claimed to speak for God or to be specially empowered in some spiritual way. This separation was well-recognized. The church certainly had authority--it could excommunicate even a king--but that was a separate question from what I'm talking about.

    If you look at other civilizations, the connection between spiritual authority and civil authority was much closer. The ideal Islamic state is topped by an emir, who is both a king and a spiritual leader. Indian government was similarly constituted. The Emperor of China was considered a god himself.
    I'd say that 800 AD is a late start regarding this issue. The Christian Church and state have separated from one another over an extended period of time in Europe, and the evolution continues even today. When Rome first made Christianity the state religion, there was not much separation.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  4. #14
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    34,142
    Thanks
    31462

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by StanStill View Post
    Not exactly. Those are Judeo Christian ideals. It's just a fact. You inferring that they "really mean" that they are solely Judeo Christian ideals doesn't invalidate their point.

    If I say red is my favorite color, and you tell me "HA! Lots of people have that as their favorite color THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG!" that would seem kind of silly, right? But that's what you are doing here. Saying that religious ideals aren't held by people unless they are the only ones that hold them, or invented them.
    I get it. Czernobog is not saying that there are no ideals established via our constitution that are not genuine Judeo-Christian ideals. Only that these ideals are not exclusively Judeo-Christian ideals. Many social ideals held by Christianity are also held by Buddhism, for instance.

    Therefore, the fact that our constitution does indeed contain some ideals that can also be found within Jewish or Christian doctrine is in no way evidence that our founders intended to create a "Christian Nation", much less a "Judeo-Christian Nation", whatever that is.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and Friday13

  5. #15
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    62,643
    Thanks
    34279

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    I'd say that 800 AD is a late start regarding this issue.
    I'd say that's ridiculous. That's fully 1200 years ago, at a time BEFORE THE NATION STATE, which is the basis for politics in the non-ancient world.
    The Christian Church and state have separated from one another over an extended period of time in Europe, and the evolution continues even today. When Rome first made Christianity the state religion, there was not much separation.
    You can't seriously say that Rome is a model for the modern nation state or for any political entity now extant. Since the creation of the nation state, church and state have been separate.

    Now, how many angels do you think can fit on the head of a pin? Three? Six? Infinity?

  6. #16
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    34,142
    Thanks
    31462

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I'd say that's ridiculous. That's fully 1200 years ago, at a time BEFORE THE NATION STATE, which is the basis for politics in the non-ancient world. You can't seriously say that Rome is a model for the modern nation state or for any political entity now extant. Since the creation of the nation state, church and state have been separate.

    Now, how many angels do you think can fit on the head of a pin? Three? Six? Infinity?
    You were responding to this quote: Which ideals, specifically?

    Czernobog was discussing early Christianity in Rome, not the modern nation-state.

    And, you're still trying to alter the time frame by several centuries in order to support your argument.

  7. #17
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    62,643
    Thanks
    34279

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    You were responding to this quote: Which ideals, specifically?

    Czernobog was discussing early Christianity in Rome, not the modern nation-state.
    Yes, but I wasn't.

    And, you're still trying to alter the time frame by several centuries in order to support your argument.
    How am *I* altering the frame? We were talking about antecedents to the US Constitution and traditions that flowed into it. It makes no sense to insist on an condition that was interrupted 1000 years before the Constitution was written, 40 generations of Judeo-Christians later.

    Have you even read the whole thread? I was responding to a question in the OP. HE insisted on changing the frame.
    Last edited by Rasselas; 28th December 2017 at 01:46 PM.

  8. #18
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    34,142
    Thanks
    31462

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Yes, but I wasn't.

    How am *I* altering the frame? We were talking about antecedents to the US Constitution and traditions that flowed into it. It makes no sense to insist on an condition that was interrupted 1000 years before the Constitution was written, 40 generations of Judeo-Christians later.
    The Church of Rome maintained temporal power well into the 19th century.

    BTW: What, exactly, are Judeo-Christians? Jews who accept Jesus as Messiah, or Christians who won't eat pork?
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  9. #19
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,153
    Thanks
    17522

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    The Church of Rome maintained temporal power well into the 19th century.

    BTW: What, exactly, are Judeo-Christians? Jews who accept Jesus as Messiah, or Christians who won't eat pork?
    Judeo-Christian is a term that groups Judaism and Christianity, either in reference to Christianity's derivation from Judaism or due to perceived parallels or commonalities shared between those two religions.

    Not that difficult.

  10. #20
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    52,994
    Thanks
    25383

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    The history of Europe. Church and state were interdependent, but the church and state were never THE SAME in Christendom.
    "Separation of Church and state" means the Church is one thing, and political power is another, and neither impinge upon the other's territory. Contrast today in the United States, where one's religious "authority" has no more legal force or authority than one chooses to give it. In European history, then, the Church held political power in some areas, and the "state" others, while here it is accorded none except in the marketplace of ideas along with anyone else from the private sector.
    Thanks from Czernobog

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Trump Specifically Warned
    By MaryAnne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19th December 2017, 03:07 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 1st August 2013, 10:04 PM
  3. Specifically- how does your face change as you age?
    By Detective Mike Logan in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12th March 2012, 01:35 PM
  4. New Edition Of Bible Specifically Mentions Second Amendment
    By imported_steezer in forum Political Humor
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 18th August 2010, 02:05 PM
  5. Kofi and U.N. 'Ideals'
    By Truth Detector in forum World Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18th December 2006, 04:12 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed