Our Nation's Future -- God Help Us

[Dittohead not!]

I suppose you're under the belief too that secular humanism wasn't heavily influence by Augustinian thought either, eh?



So which was it? The Greeks? or John Locke? Surely, it is you who jest...



You really buy that nonsense huh? Weren't aware that after great sacrifice and expense during the French and Indian War the Crown snubbed and showed all signs of reneging on promises made and fortunes promised which was a key determination of old General Washington's to participate and fund the revolutionary movement? Liberty and freedom? for whom?


Which founders were poor? where oppressed? Or were all of them well to do. Well established? or suffering greatly from the oppression of society they lived in? Oh, they weren't, they were lesser "noblemen", much like those who stood to gain the greatest during the Reformation.

I appreciate your sentimentality but don't go confusing it for facts.

the Greeks, yes, and philosophers who started the idea of self determination and self governance. Were the founders poor? No, I don't believe so. I'm also not sure just what that proves.

But, I am sure that, if you compare the state of civilization in the 16th century, when you say it "peaked", with that of the 21st. century, you'd be hard put to support your contention that it has been going downhill.

 

[ChezC3]

A man who can't reference whose followers find impressive a first class honours awarded on a more than annual basis for decades as something special does little to persuade me of his talent as a historian.

Nothing he points out about history casts Catholicism in a ground breaking light, unless one marries the no true Scotsman fallacy.

A person who doesn't realize a man who graduates with honors from Oxford in history and wrote history books is to be considered a historian because he disagrees with his conclusions, and because he seeks to use a method which again, as I've pointed out in previous posts, doesn't pass its own criteria, but that individual perfers and finds acceptable does little to persuade me that the conclusions I've drawn are invalid.

I haven't a clue how you're tying a Scotsman to this...

 

[ChezC3]

tWere the founders poor? No, I don't believe so. I'm also not sure just what that proves.

It's a parallel to the same events which caused the Reformation, the lesser noblemen taking ideas of liberty and freedom, from an oppression (economic) they are feeling more severe than others, and using these ideals to spur change in the social paradigm to reshuffle their place in the pecking order.

But, I am sure that, if you compare the state of civilization in the 16th century, when you say it "peaked", with that of the 21st. century, you'd be hard put to support your contention that it has been going downhill.

Morally, yes, I most certainly can, this post here is alluding again to materialism, you say you're not, but I don't see it in any other light, the liberty and equality argument doesn't pass muster, so...

 

[Dittohead not!]

It's a parallel to the same events which caused the Reformation, the lesser noblemen taking ideas of liberty and freedom, from an oppression (economic) they are feeling more severe than others, and using these ideals to spur change in the social paradigm to reshuffle their place in the pecking order.



Morally, yes, I most certainly can, this post here is alluding again to materialism, you say you're not, but I don't see it in any other light, the liberty and equality argument doesn't pass muster, so...

The inquisition, the witch trials, the crusades, constant warfare between nations that are allies today, genocides, the divine right of kings, all that is "moral"?

You do have a different definition of morality than most of us.

 

[ChezC3]

The inquisition, the witch trials, the crusades, constant warfare between nations that are allies today, genocides, the divine right of kings, all that is "moral"?

You do have a different definition of morality than most of us.

Really? Really? REALLY???????

all the protestant wars, the revolutionary war, the French revolution, the war of 1812, Civil War, Napoleanic Wars, Mexican American War, WW1, WW2, Russian Revolution, White and Red war, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1&2 -- ALL Protestant or secular...

You really want to compare body counts?

Witch Trials were predominantly Puritan (Cotton Mathers) doing, i.e. Protestant., The Inquisition -- such a grand exaggeration, a Protestant Urban Myth, the Crusades, already explained before, for wealth of King, not for Christendom...

You're right I do have a different definition of morality, one which is actual based on meaningful value of the person over material wants and all the superstitions, myths, legends, and contradictions that secular relativism brings with it...

 

[Dittohead not!]

Really? Really? REALLY???????

all the protestant wars, the revolutionary war, the French revolution, the war of 1812, Civil War, Napoleanic Wars, Mexican American War, WW1, WW2, Russian Revolution, White and Red war, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf 1&2 -- ALL Protestant or secular...

You really want to compare body counts?

Witch Trials were predominantly Puritan (Cotton Mathers) doing, i.e. Protestant., The Inquisition -- such a grand exaggeration, a Protestant Urban Myth, the Crusades, already explained before, for wealth of King, not for Christendom...

You're right I do have a different definition of morality, one which is actual based on meaningful value of the person over material wants and all the superstitions, myths, legends, and contradictions that secular relativism brings with it...

Superstitions, myths, legends, and contradictions were owned by the 16th. century church.

And war has been an unfortunate part of human history ever since there have been humans. Would you like to compare the peace that exists in "Christiandom", i.e., Europe today with the constant wars that were a part of its past?

 

[ChezC3]

Superstitions, myths, legends, and contradictions were owned by the 16th. century church.

And war has been an unfortunate part of human history ever since there have been humans. Would you like to compare the peace that exists in "Christiandom", i.e., Europe today with the constant wars that were a part of its past?

No, they are owned today, by the US of A.

Really? and what have those wars been about? eh? eh? The nuanced interpretation of canonical exegesis? No, material gain and resources....

Do you want to really compare the freedom of people in Europe's past with the near totalitarian like conditions they face today? Remember, just because you might agree with, rationalize a reason for the taking away of individual liberties doesn't in any way shape or form mean that they aren't took.

Further, you confuse yourself by not establishing certain realities that have neutered and tamed Europe, namely the strength of the US of A and its presence there in a multitude of forms, the number of European countries which have nuclear capabilities -- or what? You're one of these people who think they, like many back in the cold war days thought about Russia, that they don't love their sons and daughters too? The homogenizing effects of globalization, the list can go on, it in no way is an indicative positive affirmation for the point you're trying to make.

 

[Dittohead not!]

No, they are owned today, by the US of A.

Really? and what have those wars been about? eh? eh? The nuanced interpretation of canonical exegesis? No, material gain and resources....

Do you want to really compare the freedom of people in Europe's past with the near totalitarian like conditions they face today? Remember, just because you might agree with, rationalize a reason for the taking away of individual liberties doesn't in any way shape or form mean that they aren't took.

Further, you confuse yourself by not establishing certain realities that have neutered and tamed Europe, namely the strength of the US of A and its presence there in a multitude of forms, the number of European countries which have nuclear capabilities -- or what? You're one of these people who think they, like many back in the cold war days thought about Russia, that they don't love their sons and daughters too? The homogenizing effects of globalization, the list can go on, it in no way is an indicative positive affirmation for the point you're trying to make.

I can not compare the freedom of people in Europe's past with the near totalitarian like conditions they face today, as neither one is real.

Perhaps in some Orwellian mutability of the past historian rewrite, the people of Europe were free back in the 16th. century, and maybe in some fevered Marxian dream they might live in "totalitarian like conditions" today, but the reality is that the peasants of the past did not determine the course of their own lives, let alone choose their leaders by secret ballot. Today, they do both of those things.

As for the USA, it wasn't even founded as a nation back in the 16th. century, and so has only existed during the precipitous decline towards "totalitarianism". Nevertheless, the declaration that "all men are created equal, etc." that applied to white males who owned property back at the beginning of the great slide toward barbarism now applies to all mankind, or at least, all citizens of this great nation.

 

[ChezC3]

I can not compare the freedom of people in Europe's past with the near totalitarian like conditions they face today, as neither one is real.

Perhaps in some Orwellian mutability of the past historian rewrite, the people of Europe were free back in the 16th. century, and maybe in some fevered Marxian dream they might live in "totalitarian like conditions" today, but the reality is that the peasants of the past did not determine the course of their own lives, let alone choose their leaders by secret ballot. Today, they do both of those things.

As for the USA, it wasn't even founded as a nation back in the 16th. century, and so has only existed during the precipitous decline towards "totalitarianism". Nevertheless, the declaration that "all men are created equal, etc." that applied to white males who owned property back at the beginning of the great slide toward barbarism now applies to all mankind, or at least, all citizens of this great nation.

Your first paragraph is one of delusion.


You seem to think that having a say in who your Master is somehow doesn't make you a slave. You also seem to know very little about what went on in the life's of 16th centurty, ....peasants. Again, STOP WATCHING BRAVEHEART, OK? Damn...

Your second paragraph of contextual confusion.


As a nation, meaning US government, right? Yeah, no shyte. No one said it did. Yes, and again, I laugh, HA! you are indeed under some baffling assumption that you are free, I guarantee, guarantee, that so long as you had all your creature comforts and merely did a side by side comparison of actual freedoms, you'd ache, ache to the very bottom of your loins to be a peasant...

To think otherwise is to simply be ignorant of history.

 

[ChezC3]

What's further I'd like to point out is that with the exception of the UK serfdom didn't end for Europe until the 19th Century. Therefore (oh, wonderful therefore!) refuting completely the assumption that the Reformation was there to free the people. What the length between the Reformation and the end of serfdom shows us is that, 1. The Reformation wasn't about freedom but about reshuffling the pecking order in the noble classes. and 2. That serfdom with the advent of the industrialized age and the decline of the agricultural predominance in many areas of Europe made the feudal system outdated and obsolete.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Your first paragraph is one of delusion.


You seem to think that having a say in who your Master is somehow doesn't make you a slave. You also seem to know very little about what went on in the life's of 16th centurty, ....peasants. Again, STOP WATCHING BRAVEHEART, OK? Damn...

Your second paragraph of contextual confusion.


As a nation, meaning US government, right? Yeah, no shyte. No one said it did. Yes, and again, I laugh, HA! you are indeed under some baffling assumption that you are free, I guarantee, guarantee, that so long as you had all your creature comforts and merely did a side by side comparison of actual freedoms, you'd ache, ache to the very bottom of your loins to be a peasant...

To think otherwise is to simply be ignorant of history.

I don't know about you, but I am not a slave, nor a peasant, nor are any of the citizens of North america or Western Europe.

and, not only do I choose my leaders, but those leaders have limited powers, quite unlike the kings of old.

I think maybe you've slept through the "what the 16th. century was really like" lesson in history class.

 

[Ben K.]

A person who doesn't realize a man who graduates with honors from Oxford in history and wrote history books is to be considered a historian because he disagrees with his conclusions, and because he seeks to use a method which again, as I've pointed out in previous posts, doesn't pass its own criteria, but that individual perfers and finds acceptable does little to persuade me that the conclusions I've drawn are invalid.

I haven't a clue how you're tying a Scotsman to this...

He says himself that he does not use references because he was not a historian. His qualifications mean little in regards everything he wrote and or towards the quality of scholarship. Plenty of people with history qualifications and who have written on the subject have been criticised on the quality of their scholarship. Since every positive feature he assigns to the church existed with the heresies if islam prior to Catholocism doing it means he is historically ignorant.

No true Scotsman applies to the endemic corruption of the church at the time of the proposed apex of civilisation and saying the foibles of men don't negate his argument that the Church was something special as a social institution.

 

[ChezC3]

He says himself that he does not use references because he was not a historian. His qualifications mean little in regards everything he wrote and or towards the quality of scholarship. Plenty of people with history qualifications and who have written on the subject have been criticised on the quality of their scholarship. Since every positive feature he assigns to the church existed with the heresies if islam prior to Catholocism doing it means he is historically ignorant.

No true Scotsman applies to the endemic corruption of the church at the time of the proposed apex of civilisation and saying the foibles of men don't negate his argument that the Church was something special as a social institution.

Heidegger rejected the idea he was an existentialist but looking at his philosophy there is little doubt that he in fact, was. The quality of his scholarship, heh, this is a value judgement based on ACCEPTED methods, not correct methods, as I've already pointed out. I think you have a typo, so your last sentence is a difficult one to understand, but if you're trying to say that Islam held every positive feature BEFORE the Catholic Church, it isn't he who is historically ignorant.

Not let me say this, knowing Islam like I do, and knowing what it ACTUALLY teaches, Sharia as it truly is, I am impressed. I find what the Prophet taught and all the scholars expanded on to be magnificent and would gladly argue that it is positively better than protestantism in all shapes and forms. For Western Civ. I definitely would put Islam's social teachings as a close second to that of the Church. If we were talking Non-Western Civ. I might even be willing to say it is superior.


As for the Scotsman...One, the corruption of the Church like the Inquisition, was and has been greatly exaggerated. Two, the failures of men to live up to the dogma and doctrine of the Church does not in any way, shape, or form, negate the validity of nor undermine its authority. This is relativism, subjectivism, and self serving criticism. Basically, its protestantism in a nutshell.

 

[ChezC3]

I don't know about you, but I am not a slave, nor a peasant, nor are any of the citizens of North america or Western Europe.

and, not only do I choose my leaders, but those leaders have limited powers, quite unlike the kings of old.

I think maybe you've slept through the "what the 16th. century was really like" lesson in history class.

Yes, like I had said.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 

[Bodi]

Actually if we believe (and I'm sure we all do) that the Constitution was predicated on the DoI, than yes, it does.

"Endowed by our creator"

The DOI is simply a letter to the king. The Constitution and the Rill of Rights are what define or rights. So, no... nothing to do with God.

 

[ChezC3]

The DOI is simply a letter to the king. The Constitution and the Rill of Rights are what define or rights. So, no... nothing to do with God.

A simple letter to a King? Really?

See this is a fundamental problem people seem to have. The Constitution doesn't define our rights, it defines the liberties we give our authority. It defines the rights of our government not its citizens. It does this because as universally accepted at the time the DoI demonstrated the mindview that rights are inherent, endowed by our Creator.

I do find it humorous that nowadays people seem to think all the Founding Fathers were but Godless Heathens...I mean seriously...

 

[Bodi]

A simple letter to a King? Really?

See this is a fundamental problem people seem to have. The Constitution doesn't define our rights, it defines the liberties we give our authority. It defines the rights of our government not its citizens. It does this because as universally accepted at the time the DoI demonstrated the mindview that rights are inherent, endowed by our Creator.

I do find it humorous that nowadays people seem to think all the Founding Fathers were but Godless Heathens...I mean seriously...

Yeah... it outlined what they thought and what they were wanting instead of the King, but yeah, a letter outlining grievances.

The Constitution defines the functions and limitations of government, not really the governments rights.

Yeah, a lot do seem to think that. Not sure why... well, to justify their atheist views, I guess.

 

[ChezC3]

Yeah... it outlined what they thought and what they were wanting instead of the King, but yeah, a letter outlining grievances.

The Constitution defines the functions and limitations of government, not really the governments rights.

Yeah, a lot do seem to think that. Not sure why... well, to justify their atheist views, I guess.

Semantics