Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
As an agnostic I would discourage anyone from taking Jehoshua's word as an authority on the mandates and beliefs of a kind and loving god. 
Capto Iugulum Background Thread
- Thread starter EQandcivfanatic
- Start date
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,285
Still, often its the "anti-converted" atheists who thirty or so years down the line find their way back to Christianity. (thus my comments saying that "final and unequivocal" is a rather large assumption). And LoE is actually making a reasonable point, I am not a final authority, and as I noted before the liberal Christians and the protestants would be gnashing their teeth at the point of view I'm representing as our resident CI Il Papa. (although obviously I'd contest that the position I am advocating for as Il Papa lacks a kind and loving God, its just that our understanding of what kind and loving entails is at odds [to love someone means to correct his error that he can live well, no?])
At any rate from your first paragraph, I would just comment on the "other than general stuff everyone says", in that this is the logical conclusion of liberal Christianity, in that in liberal parishes/ecclesial communities the faith is warped to simply become liberalism with a few supernatural tidbits on the side. It become meaningless (afterall, you can get the same "be nice and nonjudgemental" stuff anywhere as you have said), devoid of real substance and life, and eventually seeing this the people leave, since there is no point being Christian any more. This is why Christianity is in so much of a shambles in the west (even inside the Catholic Church), because too many clerics took up the zeitgeist in priority to Christian faith.
At any rate from your first paragraph, I would just comment on the "other than general stuff everyone says", in that this is the logical conclusion of liberal Christianity, in that in liberal parishes/ecclesial communities the faith is warped to simply become liberalism with a few supernatural tidbits on the side. It become meaningless (afterall, you can get the same "be nice and nonjudgemental" stuff anywhere as you have said), devoid of real substance and life, and eventually seeing this the people leave, since there is no point being Christian any more. This is why Christianity is in so much of a shambles in the west (even inside the Catholic Church), because too many clerics took up the zeitgeist in priority to Christian faith.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Once again we come to the point that you seem to believe all secular culture is at odds with religion in some kind of death struggle. Are you certain you're not really a 17th-century Congregationalist in disguise as a Papist? 
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,285
Oh I don't believe ALL secular culture is at odds with religion (that would be foolishly reductionist), I believe that liberal Christianity is ultimately self-destroying, and that liberalism itself is very problematic vis a vis Christianity, and is most definitely contradictory to many aspects of Catholic doctrine. (thus Monti's essay in the context of Capto Iugulum)
ChineseWarlord
Prince
LORD OF ELVES VS. JEHOSHUA!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE LEVIATHAN VS. THE CATHOLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIBERALISM VS. FUNDEMENTAL CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE FIGHT OF THE CENTURY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DING! DING! DING!
Anyway, my point of view is this: Nothing is set in stone and religions are no exception. As social mores and acceptable actions and beliefs change, so too must religion, or else fade away with the times. If I have my facts right, Christianity itself came from a "deviant" prophet preaching new ideas from the old religion of Judaism. And Catholicism was a new idea that conflicted with Orthodox Christianity.
Liberal Christianity is not a deviant movement, but merely a new branch of Christianity that ensures that Christianity will survive the weathering of time.
THE LEVIATHAN VS. THE CATHOLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LIBERALISM VS. FUNDEMENTAL CHRISTIANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE FIGHT OF THE CENTURY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DING! DING! DING!
Anyway, my point of view is this: Nothing is set in stone and religions are no exception. As social mores and acceptable actions and beliefs change, so too must religion, or else fade away with the times. If I have my facts right, Christianity itself came from a "deviant" prophet preaching new ideas from the old religion of Judaism. And Catholicism was a new idea that conflicted with Orthodox Christianity.
Liberal Christianity is not a deviant movement, but merely a new branch of Christianity that ensures that Christianity will survive the weathering of time.
Circuit
Writing Letters
Let's keep stuff in this thread relevant to CI, please.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Carlos Gustaf (Karl Gustav in Vinland) is the heir to the Brazilian throne and is turning 16 this update. I should really get my hands on a bride for him. Maybe a nice Spaniard or French girl? Maybe a Russian or Roman? Thoughts slash offers?
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Probably so, but what dowry does Peru offer? Ours is an imperial line worthy of note!
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Sold!
Shadowbound
Incorrugible
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2007
- Messages
- 4,079
If the dowry of a woman is 100 ep, then she weighs as much as a manatee and probably smells like a dead one.
I also think that paying half a nation's budget on a dowry in the 20th century should be pretty unpopular.
I also think that paying half a nation's budget on a dowry in the 20th century should be pretty unpopular.
Grandkhan
Telvanni Master Wizard
No no, she's so incredibly attractive that Peru will pay 100EP for her hand.
Alternatively, the Peruvian prince is so ugly that he needs to pay 100EP for her to look at him.
Alternatively, the Peruvian prince is so ugly that he needs to pay 100EP for her to look at him.
Bair_the_Normal
転輪聖王
It should be noted that Brazil's heir is male.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Stop prostituting the House of Vasa 
qoou
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 1,991
To be completely truthful, Jehoshua's essays have convinced me that I AM not a Christian definitively. I was ambivalent for a pretty long time, but now I am certain I do not believe in a God, whose son was Jesus Christ, who created the world. I'm not yet sure what I believe in replacement to my previous beliefs on this matter, but during my ambivalent phases I had various thoughts and ideas, and studied various philosophies and religions. I'm sure to find something more spiritually fulfilling and fitting. Thank you Jehoshua, for giving me the will and enlightenment I needed to recognize my true spiritual needs.
And NO, I am not being a troll here. Shame on you for thinking so of my personal epiphany!
This is a real life experience for me where I have finally and unequivocally rejected Christianity.
He's an [Australian] Catholic, not a Christian in general. If his priest were to engage in a theological debate with my priest (Romanian Orthodox; let's just say I'm actually Christian for the sake of this argument), they'd be at each others throats right away and over a variety of things, and they're both very Christian.
My point being something along the lines of "the personal beliefs of others should play little role in determining your own personal beliefs."
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
Well, the main part which convinced me was the part about false christians. I don't want to put a label which helps define me in the eyes of others, if I do nothing to earn or fulfill that label whatsoever. It's like if I called myself an Arab, even though I have nothing to do with Middle East. Oh sure, I eat hummus and falafel every once in a while, but does it count? Really? Of course, religious identity is different from ethnic/cultural identity, but it is the same way, in a sense. I don't go to church don't pray to god don't believe in ten commandments don't do anything that is purely from the church. Things that I do agree with one church or another are things which I tend to agree with society in general, i.e. murder is bad. Don't do it. Things that I do which are "religious" I practice the bastardized version the public celebrates. There is nothing religious about Christmas. We get a red envelope (from Chinese New Year's) stuffed with money. That's it. There is nothing religious about Easter. We just make tea-egg porridge. That's it. Don't believe in heaven or hell. Don't believe in Adam or Eve or Moses or what have you. I /know/ the references. Don't believe them. Oh sure, I went to church once in a while. Never listened to a bit of sermon or understood the singing. Did it to hang out with friends who happened to go to church. Sure, I might argue in favor to a point made by this religion, but I don't believe the points I'm making, just making them for the sake of a good friendly argument. I don't read the bible. Wasn't baptized. etc. etc. Why should I call myself a Christian? Do I even deserve to call myself a Christian? Jehoshua merely helped me see that I am not and was never a Christian, for which I thank him for deeply.
EDIT BTW: My brother called me a sinner and that I will go to hell today after he found it. It was hilarious and very hypocritical, since he believes that he can "sin as much as he wants" (not the 10 commandments or 7 deadly ones) as long as he still believes in Christ and go to heaven, but only perfect ones otherwise can go. He's 10.
EDIT BTW: My brother called me a sinner and that I will go to hell today after he found it. It was hilarious and very hypocritical, since he believes that he can "sin as much as he wants" (not the 10 commandments or 7 deadly ones) as long as he still believes in Christ and go to heaven, but only perfect ones otherwise can go. He's 10.
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,285
Well there's your problem.
Anyways Terrance has made his point, there Is no need to go arguing things that don't relate to Capto Iugulum. If you want to discuss the political background of Francesco Monti hwoever go ahead (he is not unbiased after all in his statements on such things as "false Christians", he is "contra-liberalism" after all)
Terrance888
Discord Reigns
Lol, if only it was that simple. 
Anyway, on the essay itself, I felt a bit disjointed since it wasn't organized like your other ones. Also, it pulled assumptions out of the thin air a bit too often, which broke up the logical flow of the argument into chunks of clarifications, qualifications, and other such things which I feel should have been dealt with when the argument is introduced, not several sentences away. The argument itself feels robust itself - again, when taking other views and a more objective look, obviously holes can be picked in it. I'm not trying to do that, just offering critique. (I did reread it like, five times.
It was still pretty good, just not your best, probably due to the different style)
Anyway, on the essay itself, I felt a bit disjointed since it wasn't organized like your other ones. Also, it pulled assumptions out of the thin air a bit too often, which broke up the logical flow of the argument into chunks of clarifications, qualifications, and other such things which I feel should have been dealt with when the argument is introduced, not several sentences away. The argument itself feels robust itself - again, when taking other views and a more objective look, obviously holes can be picked in it. I'm not trying to do that, just offering critique. (I did reread it like, five times.
It was still pretty good, just not your best, probably due to the different style)
Jehoshua
Catholic
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,285
Yeah (presuming you are referring to the essay I think you are referring too) I decided a more longish essay was in order which meant that inevitably the structure I use for smaller essays had to be dispensed. That and its not like I spend all my time writing essays for Capto Iugulum, they are usually done all in one go without the usual process of editing I do for actual essays.
To elaborate, I would also add that I wanted some differentiation between the Professor and the Pope as characters, thus the different styles. Theres also intra-contextual influences, such as the fact that the essay is directed towards a key group, namely Catholics who may be tempted by the honeyed words of the liberals. The work as such is really more of an explanatory tract on why liberalism should be rejected and how its contrary to Catholicism (a reverse proletarist propaganda piece perhaps
). That's why there are assumptions made, since it assumes Catholicity and knowledge of liberal policies in the game on the part of its audience.
The point/explanation structure also reflects this targeting, since it is a design chosen to address many specific problems in the category of liberalism, rather than address one particular point of contention, or one particular topic like most of my other essays do (ergo each point should be read as a separate point from the others, with the whole thing the serving the general argument that liberalism is contrary to Christianity, you may find it disjointed if you're reading it as if it were a single linear piece of argumentative essay). In this sense the essay is almost a catechetical work in the sense that it is an informative (easily mass producable) example of anti-liberal work designed for the masses, rather than for academia.
To elaborate, I would also add that I wanted some differentiation between the Professor and the Pope as characters, thus the different styles. Theres also intra-contextual influences, such as the fact that the essay is directed towards a key group, namely Catholics who may be tempted by the honeyed words of the liberals. The work as such is really more of an explanatory tract on why liberalism should be rejected and how its contrary to Catholicism (a reverse proletarist propaganda piece perhaps
). That's why there are assumptions made, since it assumes Catholicity and knowledge of liberal policies in the game on the part of its audience. The point/explanation structure also reflects this targeting, since it is a design chosen to address many specific problems in the category of liberalism, rather than address one particular point of contention, or one particular topic like most of my other essays do (ergo each point should be read as a separate point from the others, with the whole thing the serving the general argument that liberalism is contrary to Christianity, you may find it disjointed if you're reading it as if it were a single linear piece of argumentative essay). In this sense the essay is almost a catechetical work in the sense that it is an informative (easily mass producable) example of anti-liberal work designed for the masses, rather than for academia.
