BC/AD vs BCE/CE

[Alexander's Horse]

slow burn on this thread, but now building up nicely Robert

[onodera]

What Paul said is that if you are lorded over you should accept your situation and be the best christian that you can be in any situation.

And your founding fathers didn't listen to him and preferred not to be lorded over. I know, I know, it must've been evil atheist Jefferson's influence.

[Kidlicious]

And your founding fathers didn't listen to him and preferred not to be lorded over. I know, I know, it must've been evil atheist Jefferson's influence.

It's worse than that. They lorded over each other.

[N35t0r]

Do you believe in absolute truth or that it's relative?

How is this relevant?

[Ben Kenobi]

India. The Christian influence is nowhere near as significant as the Hindu or Muslim influence.

British influence. Seriously, I just cited Kipling.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, it's yours. If you make a generalization that big (and stupid), be prepared to back it up. Don't expect the people who call you on it to do so. You have the burden of proof.

British Empire and it's legacy by itself is a significant support for the thesis that Christianity is a very strong supporter of Democracy. Then you add the United States, with the Philippines, and South Korea, and Taiwan, and Japan, and I think that pretty much delivers the point home.

No, if you always excluded them. But here you are claiming that everyone that fights for democracy is christian. You need to use the same standards for christianity.

Athiests, by and large prefer dictatorships. See, Cuba, USSR, China, Vietnam, etc.

OK, so showing you an instance of torturing, dictatorial christians and a pro-democratic atheist is bias. Good to know.

The fact that you cite your own personal experiences, yes, that's significant bias.

Yay for pro-democratic catholics then: Go do this, do not follow my example.

Does the Church teach that Church governance extends beyond the Church? The deal has been temporal independence in exchange for the confinement within said temporal independence. At least since the Lateran.

The same cannot be said for the Anglican church which explicitly teaches the opposite.

Yeah, me too. Do tell me how this is relevant though. I'm criticizing your claim that a highly non-democratic organization is pro-democratic.

It is. The Church supports temporal governance through democratic means. Insofar as the state is separate from the Church, it is entirely possible for the Church governance to exist alongside and independent of the state.

I see Ireland and do not see a dictator in power. I must be going blind.

You missed the 'referendum' with Brussels? They are slaves now to Brussels. They were better off slaves to London than the continent, I daresay.

[Ben Kenobi]

Portugal, Spain, Italy, Croatia, Hungary- they'd be revisiting the past when they had dictatorships that operated with the blessing and cooperation of the Roman Catholic Church.

And I might as well mention, England, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France and Spain all of whom stripped the Church of her property without proper legal compensation. That's not even counting Garibaldi and his thugs who attempted to do the same.

Pretty much every nation when it came under 'democracy' immediately stripped the Church of her possessions and some even executed the priests. It's been a sad and consistant pattern. In some democracies, this has been restored. In others, it still remains. Like England for example. When is England going to return Canterbury to her builders?

[Dr Strangelove]

Actually I would argue that the origin of modern Democracy was split of the Church of England from the Church of Rome. The split opened the door to Protestantism. Protestants in England developed a more democratic view of politics. Attempts by Charles to suppress Protestantism led to resistance, Charles reacted, civil war ensued. The English Civil War may have been a failure in that it led to a dictatorship so unpopular that in the end the state willingly submitted to a monarch once again, but Parliamentary power became established as something that all subsequent leaders would have to recognize. What the American revolutionaries did was refine that system of government and replace the king as the executive with an elected, more limited President.

[N35t0r]

British Empire and it's legacy by itself is a significant support for the thesis that Christianity is a very strong supporter of Democracy. Then you add the United States, with the Philippines, and South Korea, and Taiwan, and Japan, and I think that pretty much delivers the point home.

Unless your point is that christianity is also a big supporter of slavery and genocide, your point isn't very well thought off. Especially since, in many places, democracy came to be in spite of, not thanks to, the church.

Athiests, by and large prefer dictatorships. See, Cuba, USSR, China, Vietnam, etc.

So do christians. See all absolute monarchies, and also, more recently, right-wing dictatorships.

The fact that you cite your own personal experiences, yes, that's significant bias.

OK, so since it happened to me, it didn't exist. Check.

Does the Church teach that Church governance extends beyond the Church?

And who said it did? I'm criticizing the fact that the church itself is not democratic.

It is. The Church supports temporal governance through democratic means. Insofar as the state is separate from the Church, it is entirely possible for the Church governance to exist alongside and independent of the state.

Right. So, go and do this, but do not do what we do. Inspiring indeed.

You missed the 'referendum' with Brussels? They are slaves now to Brussels. They were better off slaves to London than the continent, I daresay.

Which is why what poor Irish managed to survive the British death camps are now being sent to Belgian ones. Check. Especially now that the Irish republic has been abolished.

[N35t0r]

Pretty much every nation when it came under 'democracy' immediately stripped the Church of her possessions and some even executed the priests. It's been a sad and consistant pattern.

Gee, I wonder why, if surely said church must have been together with the people for that 'democracy', and under no circumstances were an integral part of the previous regime.

In some democracies, this has been restored. In others, it still remains. Like England for example. When is England going to return Canterbury to her builders?

As soon as the church agrees to return the land in the Americas it holds back to the natives.

[Kidlicious]

I'm criticizing the fact that the church itself is not democratic.

So what?

[N35t0r]

So what?

So that makes me think that it's not thanks to christianity that we have democracy.

[Kidlicious]

So that makes me think that it's not thanks to christianity that we have democracy.

Well a lot of people weren't democratic in their personal lives and still believed in democracy. It's still like that today.

[dannubis]

Then it isn't thanks to them we have democracy.

[Kidlicious]

Then it isn't thanks to them we have democracy.

If your claim is that non-believers are more democratic then christians I'll just say that I think you are wrong. French Revolution, case in point.