See Rick's point, re: claiming moral authority.
And see my response, re: the propensity of kings, emperors, et. al. to claim that God spoke through them. How is that moral authority different from that of the church?
Italy wasn't a country for the period between the fall of Rome and the rise of Garibaldi. It was a whole bunch of little tiny city-states.
And modern Greeks aren't descended from Athenians. This is why I said what I said about "major changes."
I'm not explaining myself very well, and this whole conversation is making me somewhat irrationally defensive, so I really am logging off now. See you in the morning.
How is that moral authority different from that of the church?
Because one of them is talking about the state of your immortal soul. C'mon, you're being completely disingenous to imply there's no distinction between the abuse of power by a state and that of a religious institution.
I'm not explaining myself very well, and this whole conversation is making me somewhat irrationally defensive, so I really am logging off now. See you in the morning.
Sorry, I don't meant to badger.
Because one of them is talking about the state of your immortal soul.
The minute God starts talking through any king, they're talking about the state of your immortal soul. How is that disingenuous?
FWIW, I'd be very interested in hearing more from you and Teppy on Paul at some point in the future.
I can go on and on about Paul, but I need a starting point. People who think Paul is anti-woman need to give me chapter and verse so I can address specifics.
In generalities, Paul refers to women -- by name -- as his "co-workers" in the early Christian movement. That's significant in light of the time and place in which he lived and worked. Women were not considered co-workers in any other sphere at that time.
t edit
That's not the sum total of my defense of Paul; it's just one point.
And see my response, re: the propensity of kings, emperors, et. al. to claim that God spoke through them. How is that moral authority different from that of the church?
The collusion of Christian churches in these claims is one of the strongest marks against them. I, for one, am willing to admit that the churches were no more immoral and evil than the murdering, lawless, exploitive, genocidal, secular rulers to whom you refer. But it's not much of a recommendation.
I hate I've missed the meat of this discussion, but it was interesting catching up. On this however:
I think love is only good
I beg to differ. I can think of any number of ways when the only way an individual could feel and express what love is, to them, was harmful, even deadly, to the love object.
Also, condolences and all kinds of drying-out-ma to libkitty and the library.
I don't believe
anything
is always good. Humans are too ... human for that. For a start, we can't always agree on the definition of "good."
Wow - REALLY enjoying this discussion, my lovelies. Although the whole Ash Wednesday detail is unfortunate (here it's Muslim New Year, fwiw) and I'm sorry I can't punctuate JZ.
My main thought? Other than largely being in the Camp o' Hecubus? Wow. America sounds to be well nigh as religious a country as Egypt. Coming from a secular country, it's all a bit astounding.
I'm fairly broad minded about most things, but I have real problems being broad minded about religion. To me, there's a stark difference between a person's relationship with God (and how they understand the universe to be wired together) and their religion. The former is about faith, the latter is about society. The former may be embedded in and shaped by the latter, but the latter is about a whole shitload of things that have very little to do with God.
Er. This is the tip of a large iceberg which I don't feel like exploring just now, but - yeah. Interesting discussion.
Also? Happy belated birthday, Lexine!
