Who was it? The return of St. Olaf?

Skidd on June 28, 2009 at 1:20 AM

MaximusConfessor

BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 1:19 AM

Who was it? The return of St. Olaf?

I’m unaware of what you’re talking about. I had just turned to Hot Air now and threw that comment out. I haven’t looked back and read what has been posted for the last couple of hours.

And, I’m a true Christian. Yes, I am. :)

Skidd on June 28, 2009 at 1:16 AM

There was a poster who would “scream” at me for being an atheist, then proceed to explain how every other religion was just a perversion of the one true faith–Eastern Orthodox Christian. He had a way of winning friends.

OK, I’m out. This is the 1000th post. I should have been out 2 hours ago. I’ll let you have the last word… well, if you don’t post something really soon.

Later.

Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 1:14 AM

Cool. Night all.

Thanx for the debate.

Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 1:05 AM

I’m unaware of what you’re talking about. I had just turned to Hot Air now and threw that comment out. I haven’t looked back and read what has been posted for the last couple of hours.

And, I’m a true Christian. Yes, I am. :)

BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 1:09 AM

OK, I’m out. This is the 1000th post. I should have been out 2 hours ago. I’ll let you have the last word… well, if you don’t post something really soon.

Later.

So, boys and girls, have we come to an agreement on faith yet? :)

(I love these threads)

Why little green footballs doesn’t allow these threads speaks of foolish decisions (and little faith). As many disagreements as we have, I’m always happy to see the mature behavior from posters (for the most part).

Skidd on June 28, 2009 at 1:03 AM

Heh…when Gaia freezes over.

I post over at LGF from time to time. The will allow a fresh fish or two to argue the religious point of view–but some of the more heated comments from the thread this evening would have resulted in some bannings. I think over the top obnoxiousness is sometimes as illustrative as straightforward argument.

This particular outcome was good. In general,giving religious authority political power is dangerous. The religion wielding that power is not planning on doing anything evil, but when the only question that needs answering is whether it benefits the faith, bad things happen.

BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 1:09 AM

Well, I don’t think this is something unique to religious authorities.

I think giving one man too much power (even if he has the best intentions) can lead to bad things.

You raise a good point. Was this bad? In my book, no. But we should be honest about it, and not try to pretend he’s someone sitting on a golden cloud only thinking about how to make Catholicism better and more pure.

Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:59 AM

This particular outcome was good. In general,giving religious authority political power is dangerous. The religion wielding that power is not planning on doing anything evil, but when the only question that needs answering is whether it benefits the faith, bad things happen.

That’s what I’ve read. I’ve also read of speculation that Khamenei Sr is pulling this to cement his Jr to take over hte reigns. Looks almost like a hereditary monarchy–in fact a criticism coming from Mousavi in recent days.

BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 1:00 AM

Yep yep

I’m more or less of the opinion that Theocracies are in general not for purifying religion for the sake of religion. I fully believe the individual and the individual religious bodies are capable of doing this without the help of the state.

Why little green footballs doesn’t allow these threads speaks of foolish decisions (and little faith). As many disagreements as we have, I’m always happy to see the mature behavior from posters (for the most part).

Skidd on June 28, 2009 at 1:03 AM

At this hour, only the mature posters remain ;)

The TRUE CHRISTIAN poster is nowhere to be seen…

I thought it was funny that he kept attacking Bryan, but then letting the other FALSE CHRISTIANS know just how superior he was

Haha

Way to win an argument.

(I love these threads)

Why little green footballs doesn’t allow these threads speaks of foolish decisions (and little faith). As many disagreements as we have, I’m always happy to see the mature behavior from posters (for the most part).

And perhaps this is true. But then again, I don’t truly believe Khamenei wants a theocracy for the sake of religion. Do you really believe this? My understanding is that he’s not near the Islamic scholar as his predecessor.

Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:56 AM

That’s what I’ve read. I’ve also read of speculation that Khamenei Sr is pulling this to cement his Jr to take over hte reigns. Looks almost like a hereditary monarchy–in fact a criticism coming from Mousavi in recent days.

(Sorry, had to get in a last word. Later.)

ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:55 AM

You assume that I would let you have the last word ;)

I don’t think you could separate the two. One could argue that the Vatican only uses politics to advance religious goals. But it’s hard to not notice that Pope John Paul II’s religious goals coincided with the political goal of killing communism. Which was more important, politics or faith? I would say both–the success of Christianity relied on ending communism.

BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:54 AM

You raise a good point. Was this bad? In my book, no. But we should be honest about it, and not try to pretend he’s someone sitting on a golden cloud only thinking about how to make Catholicism better and more pure.

Think of the differences between a Henry VIII and an Ayatollah Khamenei. I don’t think you can say Henry thought of religion as much more than a tool of state.

ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:54 AM

And perhaps this is true. But then again, I don’t truly believe Khamenei wants a theocracy for the sake of religion. Do you really believe this? My understanding is that he’s not near the Islamic scholar as his predecessor.

Under a theocracy, the Archbishop of Canterbury would have ruled the state as well.

ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:54 AM

Now if that Asse-Hatte ruled, we’d all be folked.

Even though I know you are gone, maybe someone else could answer this. What were/are the Theocracies were the leader had religious motivations and not political motivations?

Personally, I would say perhaps Moses’s Israelites and the modern Vatican. There are those that would even disagree with this.

Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:47 AM

I don’t think you could separate the two. One could argue that the Vatican only uses politics to advance religious goals. But it’s hard to not notice that Pope John Paul II’s religious goals coincided with the political goal of killing communism. Which was more important, politics or faith? I would say both–the success of Christianity relied on ending communism.

Well, Henry did wield his power to burn heretics at the stake.

Upstater85 on June 28, 2009 at 12:40 AM

Cardinal Richelieu sents lots of people to their deaths as well. It was a matter ultimately of state, not of religion. Think of the differences between a Henry VIII and an Ayatollah Khamenei. I don’t think you can say Henry thought of religion as much more than a tool of state. His main concern (and that of Elizabeth) was the preservation of the state first, not the absolute purity of the faith. Under a theocracy, the Archbishop of Canterbury would have ruled the state as well.

There is a reason Sarkozy got away with enacting laws to ban the Hijab in schools. In France, there is no freedom of religion.

BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM

I think this would make a great topic for AP to post sometime. I’m guessing cons would go 50/50 on this.

I’m glad we live in a country that does not compel faith.

BryanS on June 28, 2009 at 12:45 AM

Amen.

Right, but were Charles’ motivations religious or political? Which was most important?

ddrintn on June 28, 2009 at 12:35 AM

Even though I know you are gone, maybe someone else could answer this. What were/are the Theocracies were the leader had religious motivations and not political motivations?

Personally, I would say perhaps Moses’s Israelites and the modern Vatican. There are those that would even disagree with this.