|
Post by servantofthechief on Nov 21, 2017 14:34:20 GMT
Most movements have humble beginnings and who knows what a small group of like-minded people can do to a local community. I have tried to build my belief system on sound philosophy and theology. This is why I advocate Monarchy over other systems. Maolsheachlann why a constitutional democratic Monarchy? Needless to say I'd take a different direction, preferring a monarchy with at least some power invested in the monarch at the expense of Parliament. Henry Tudor was a bad example of a Strong Monarchy, true, but everything after him, especially the wars of the three kingdoms, have utterly convinced me that Parliament can never be trusted with the plurality of power. It must be kept in check as much as or even more than the Monarch at times. But that depends on each nation's context. My desire for a more decentralised monarchy (by restoring the lesser kings as well in some capacity) is part of a desire for a compromise of power.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 21, 2017 14:35:58 GMT
Needless to say I'd take a different direction, preferring a monarchy with at least some power invested in the monarch at the expense of Parliament. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Nov 21, 2017 14:48:26 GMT
I remember your argument that Hitler was democratically elected, but I don't think most people would take Hitler or Stalin as poster boys for democracy. Surely the point of Hitler is more that he abolished democracy, even if you argue he was elected democratically. As for Obama....bad as he is, I'd take him over Stalin, Hitler and Henry VIII any day! Because he was constrained by democracy and the rule of law! I know the Hitler arguments don't go anywhere, so we will leave that. Democracy can pump out terrible leaders and the last 150 years is proof. Politicians like Obama that are democratically elected in a corrupt system from the beginning have killed over 59,940,00 babies in the USA alone (Not including pills, etc). Thank God democracy is so constrained!!!! I would rather aim for Charlemagne, than Reagan!
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Nov 21, 2017 14:52:42 GMT
Needless to say I'd take a different direction, preferring a monarchy with at least some power invested in the monarch at the expense of Parliament. Henry Tudor was a bad example of a Strong Monarchy, true, but everything after him, especially the wars of the three kingdoms, have utterly convinced me that Parliament can never be trusted with the plurality of power. It must be kept in check as much as or even more than the Monarch at times. But that depends on each nation's context. My desire for a more decentralised monarchy (by restoring the lesser kings as well in some capacity) is part of a desire for a compromise of power. It would be much better. Not sure about the decentralised monarch. I'm all for lesser lords, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 21, 2017 15:08:00 GMT
I remember your argument that Hitler was democratically elected, but I don't think most people would take Hitler or Stalin as poster boys for democracy. Surely the point of Hitler is more that he abolished democracy, even if you argue he was elected democratically. As for Obama....bad as he is, I'd take him over Stalin, Hitler and Henry VIII any day! Because he was constrained by democracy and the rule of law! I know the Hitler arguments don't go anywhere, so we will leave that. Democracy can pump out terrible leaders and the last 150 years is proof. Politicians like Obama that are democratically elected in a corrupt system from the beginning have killed over 59,940,00 babies in the USA alone (Not including pills, etc). Thank God democracy is so constrained!!!! I would rather aim for Charlemagne, than Reagan! View AttachmentBut how do we aim for Charlemagne? It seems to me that what you are aspiring towards is a revived Christendom rather than a monarchy per se. And I'd be all in favour of a revived Christendom, but I feel that's more in the realm of evangelization than political reform. I won't get into arguments about Charlemagne's reign as I don't know enough about him.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Nov 21, 2017 15:17:56 GMT
I think we have to live and work with what we have today. For me, in the back of my mind, I am aiming for Neo Christendom which is ruled by a monarchy in some way. Every aspect of life is orientated towards God would be the rule. I'm interested to see if people think I am going off the deep end with this!
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 21, 2017 15:28:52 GMT
I think we have to live and work with what we have today. For me, in the back of my mind, I am aiming for Neo Christendom which is ruled by a monarchy in some way. Every aspect of life is orientated towards God would be the rule. I'm interested to see if people think I am going off the deep end with this! I wouldn't say you're going off the deep end. I just think the re-Christianization of society has to come before the Christianization of its institutions. I know you could point to the conversion of Constantine and many other monarchs who spread Christianity in their realms, but I don't think that really applies to our world today... for one thing, people were basically religious then in a way that they are not now.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Nov 21, 2017 18:03:06 GMT
I would say the chances of Europe re-Christening itself are essentially zero. Christendom came and went.
I would think that if you're a true believer you should welcome this, as you'll find out just how strong or otherwise your faith is.
Christians commonly talk about the purity of the early church - well, in Europe anyway, they'll have a chance to put themselves to the test.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 21, 2017 18:18:15 GMT
KJ personally I feel torn. Part of me enjoys swimming against the tide and being in an embattled minority, so in some ways I like it. But then I will read or see something from a Christian era, especially Catholic Ireland, and my whole soul will hanker for it, painfully.
|
|
|
Post by servantofthechief on Nov 21, 2017 18:43:59 GMT
I would say the chances of Europe re-Christening itself are essentially zero. Christendom came and went. I would think that if you're a true believer you should welcome this, as you'll find out just how strong or otherwise your faith is. Christians commonly talk about the purity of the early church - well, in Europe anyway, they'll have a chance to put themselves to the test. KJ, while I am sure your intentions were the best, to accept persecution is Christian but to desire it come about you because of your faith is not exactly the best. Paul chastised several Early Christians for specifically seeking out martyrdom. Thinking Europe has no hope of re-Christianisation is a matter of prudential judgement, to give up on seeking out the re-Christianisation of Europe and embrace being an embattled minority is despair. If the Early Christians had that attitude, the Empire would have never been converted. Have faith and have hope, there are signs here and there that God is not done with us yet.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Nov 21, 2017 18:59:03 GMT
I wasn't desiring it - I was simply stating facts about Christendom, which are plain for anyone with eyes to see. Religions don't come back once they recede. Who now worships Jupiter and Apollo?
My point was that the death of institutional Christendom will facilitate a more authenticity Christianity, as there will be no more social perks or privileges to belonging to the Church. Better quality than quantity, no?
You could be right about God. As an Eastern Orthodox friend of mine said to me, "I think God is giving Europe to the Muslims because the Christians have forgotten about Him."
|
|
|
Post by servantofthechief on Nov 21, 2017 19:52:41 GMT
I wasn't desiring it - I was simply stating facts about Christendom, which are plain for anyone with eyes to see. Religions don't come back once they recede. Who now worships Jupiter and Apollo? My point was that the death of institutional Christendom will facilitate a more authenticity Christianity, as there will be no more social perks or privileges to belonging to the Church. Better quality than quantity, no? You could be right about God. As an Eastern Orthodox friend of mine said to me, "I think God is giving Europe to the Muslims because the Christians have forgotten about Him." Funny you should mention that, because Christianity itself is a very example of an exception to that rule. We lost Western Europe to Pagans, but then we got almost all of Europe, we lost the levant, North Africa and eventually Byzantium, but we gained more than two continents to Christianity. We may have lost our social and legal privliges in Europe on a slow burn over the last two hundred years, but in all likelihood, if Christianity does resurge in Europe, it's likely to resurge in a big way. If for no other reason at least half of it, namely the East, is very likely to keep the faith.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Nov 21, 2017 19:59:23 GMT
Silly me, I thought Christianity was about a loving relationship with God - I didn't realise it was a big version of a wargame.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Nov 21, 2017 20:36:06 GMT
Well, surely there is room for both-- it is a personal relationship with God, but shouldn't it also have a social and cultural dimension? Pope Benedict writes a lot about this in his Introduction to Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by kj on Nov 21, 2017 20:41:40 GMT
"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's -Render unto God what is God's".
At times, I think being co-opted by the Roman Empire was the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity. I agree with David Bentley Hart who says it may take all of Christendom being burnt away in order for the purity of Christ's message to be heard again.
Anyway, don't be such poor sports! Christendom had its day, millenia in fact, lording it over public life. Time for someone else to take the reins. And besides, it doesn't make a whit of difference to Christianity, which is either true or not, and fundamentally about the human soul, regardless of the state of public and cultural life.
|
|