|
|
Post by George I on Apr 13, 2015 22:38:28 GMT
I have a question for everyone, how do your political views mesh with your religious ones? I myself am a Staunch Catholic and at the same time a staunch conservative. I find wisdom in the words of Pope St Pius X's encyclicals Pascendi dominici gregis and Lamentabili sane exitu. The pope fights against modernist thinking within our holy church. Now don't get me wrong, I love our holy father pope Francis, he is a gift to us from God! His election was an act of divine intervention itself, I myself was brought to my knees with tears of joy hearing the words Habemus Papam. But the rate at which out church is moving is frightening. There is a fine line between us and the Evangelical Protestants who want our ultimate destruction. Many in the church are urging the pope to get away from our old ways and to "Bring us into the 21st century" but I pray that the holy father can calm and settle his flock, for the packs of wolves are still circling the scourge of RADICAL Islam and the constant attacks from the anti catholic radical Christians around the world. The Catholic Church is not a liberal entity it has always been conservative and reserved let's leave the liberalism to the Anglicans and the Lutherans. Now to my second point, Islam. Islam itself is not our enemy. I myself am studying a double major at my university Chrsitian Theology and Islamic Studies along with my minor in political science. I hope to someday become a Priest ordained in the Byzantine Rite. I hold very high esteem for His Majesty King Abdullah II, of Jordan. He is a defender of not just Islam but of all the faithful people in his nation he first hand has defended the eastern Catholics and the other Christians in his nation from attacks from radical Islam he is a true Muslim, someone who seeks peace and cooperation over anything else. It is sad to say though that not all Islamic national leaders around the world share his views. My brothers in Christ, our church is ancient an it is true if our Heavenly Father wants our church to move forward then it will by his hand not by ours, we are only hindering our own spiritual progress by trying to push these liberal views on our church. We must all pray to The Lord that he will guide us. Through him all things are possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paolo Emilio I of Trebia on Apr 14, 2015 3:27:46 GMT
I have a question for everyone, how do your political views mesh with your religious ones? I myself am a Staunch Catholic and at the same time a staunch conservative. I find wisdom in the words of Pope St Pius X's encyclicals Pascendi dominici gregis and Lamentabili sane exitu. The pope fights against modernist thinking within our holy church. Now don't get me wrong, I love our holy father pope Francis, he is a gift to us from God! His election was an act of divine intervention itself, I myself was brought to my knees with tears of joy hearing the words Habemus Papam. I'm very conservative too. I believe humans had a better quality of life generations ago, when stupidity wasn't that spread, and we were more connected to nature. I'm not a treehugger, but I do love nature a lot, and humans exploit it at alarming rates in my opinion. That's why we overpopulate. An advanced, recent in time thought never means it's perfect. It's a main element of human stupidity to think that recent ideas are the best, when they are very close to destroying the West. Those peoples are heretics, and sadly, a good piece of Trebian population are these kind of liberals who want to spoil my nation's purpose. I am looking forward to getting rid of them soon. I'll do the same. I mistrusted Francis by the time he accepted a group of gay "Catholics" before accepting a Pro-Life group. But after he rejected a French ambassador from the Vatican due to his orientation not only did I feel confused, but I changed my judgments of his figures, and I trust him a bit again. Also, liberalism does not belong to ANY Christian denomination, because Jesus opposes liberal ideas like abortion (he doesn't directly mentions abortion, but abortion is the murder of an innocent living being), homosexuality, etc... Liberalism is for atheists. Here I disagree with you deeply. Islam is not a religion of peace, it has never been, and it never will: Those two are related For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. Matthew 24:24
Make your conclusions from these verses. Read this too: 10 reasons Islam is not from GodAlso, I see you study the Byzantine empire, you may like to know what muslims did to the Byzantines... they have invaded before, yet we resisted. They invade today, and we let them in!Muslim people who support Christians aren't real muslims. The Quran demands muslims to go to us, and give us three options: 1. Convert to Islam 2. Pay a Jizya Tax (extra tax for non-muslims) 3. Fight to the death Which would you choose? Muslims who don't do this don't follow their religion. And moderate muslims... they have radical nature too. I've met some myself. They aren't nice. They keep saying the same thing: Jesus didn't die on the cross, stop drinking alcohol etc... Radical muslims are like a fire. They spread scorching their victims without mercy. Moderate muslims are like gasoline. Criticizing Islam, showing them these facts I gave to you, or even simply drawing cartoons is like trowing a light match over them. They'll go radical too. Islam is a dangerous religion, don't let the yihad defeat you like EU is facing it right now. There are riots everywhere, research it. If you want to care about someone in the Middle east, care about Assyrians, Chaldeans, Copts, Syriacs and Yazidis. Letting the invader in is a liberal suicidal view. Let's hope so. Your ideas are nice, the problem is what I told you about Islam. Read that with care, and realize muslims don't want our well being. Don't try to coexist with people who want to kill or enslave you.Anyways farewell brother. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Benedict on Apr 14, 2015 13:53:07 GMT
I think that it is important to differentiate between liberalism in the church and liberalism in politics. Culturally and religiously, I am very conservative. However, politically, I'm a liberal (of the classical free-market variety, not one of those tree-hugging statists that have taken the word and flipped-flopped its meaning). This has to do with my belief that all people have to come to Christ willingly, they cannot be forced. I'm all for the Church continuing to preach the Gospel in the traditional manner, but I'm against people of faith using government power as an evangelization tactic for various reasons (it is generally inefficient, it marginalizes the choice of the individual, whoever happens to be in the majority oppresses the minority, etc.)
That's what I think politically, but as far as the Church is concerned I think it needs to remain vigilant in order to effectively combat heresy and ignorance. And it looks pretty grim: almost all public respect for priesthood and consecrated life has been lost, we have bishops who talk back at the Pope, and we have the SSPX breaking apart on the right and the New Age Catholics breaking apart on the left. With all these crises, it can be easy to lose hope. However, its important to know that the Church has always faced threats that, at the time, looked like they could wipe us out. The Church has always faced and met these threats in the past, and I believe it will continue to do so in the future. With the help of God and the saints, the church has survived the early heresies, the Roman persecutions, the Great Schism, the corruption of the Renaissance, the Reformation, the clerical sex abuse cases, and Vatican II mostly intact. Not only is it pessimistic to think that the Church can't overcome its current difficulties, it is also historically short sighted. That being said, it's not going to be easy; Pope Francis is being called to carry a tremendous burden and I don't envy him.
About the Islam question, I don't take part in the debates about whether or not Islam is a religion of peace because it can obviously be both. There are muslims who cite their religion to commit acts of violence, and there are also muslims who cite their religion to promote peace. I don't feel compelled to have an opinion on which one is the "correct belief" because, being a Christian, I believe both of them are incorrect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paolo Emilio I of Trebia on Apr 15, 2015 0:00:56 GMT
I think that it is important to differentiate between liberalism in the church and liberalism in politics. Culturally and religiously, I am very conservative. However, politically, I'm a liberal (of the classical free-market variety, not one of those tree-hugging statists that have taken the word and flipped-flopped its meaning). This has to do with my belief that all people have to come to Christ willingly, they cannot be forced. I'm all for the Church continuing to preach the Gospel in the traditional manner, but I'm against people of faith using government power as an evangelization tactic for various reasons (it is generally inefficient, it marginalizes the choice of the individual, whoever happens to be in the majority oppresses the minority, etc.) True, the definition of liberal seems overwhelmed. We may need a new word to refer to the "tree hugging statists that flipped-flopped it's meaning." But I do semi-disagree about making people go to Christ voluntarily. The conversions of natives in Latin America by the Spanish worked very well. Still today, Latin America is more religious than Spain. In fact, the Latin Americans never declared their independence because of religious persecution in favor of Catholicism. They wanted to get free from Spain because of slavery, commercial restrictions, and denigrating laws imposed by the Crown. If the Spanish monarchy was more responsible (and defeated Napoleon's invasion), there could still be some Spanish colonies in the West. I coudn't agree more here. The Vatican has survived every attack from the hordes of evil against it. The Polandball comic "Silly Cvltist" explains it better: [/spoiler] But going serious, the fact that the Catholic church has survived attacks from pagans, muslims, protestants, humanists and communists alike gives proof that God is with us. It is our mission to keep defending the Church, the war isn't over yet, it will end at the day of the Last Judgement. True. Some muslims use their principles for peace. But there is a precept in Islam called "Taqiyya" where a muslim is allowed to lie to make people feel attracted to their religion or avoid persecution. It works like this: There's no doubt there are good muslims out there. But they don't actually follow their religion. The Quran calls for yihad, and that yihad is being given in Europe. Have heard of Anjem Choudary? he wants Sharia law imposed in Britain. And even if there are peaceful muslims out there, mainstream Islam is this: I'm not intending to preach hatred, even if it seems so. I am trying to open your minds, and being on a defensive stance. Jesus once said: He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36 I hope we all keep thinking on what I see as a worrying issue. God bless you all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pan Kristoff Drevo on Apr 15, 2015 23:30:00 GMT
Let me add my views and opinions to this discussion. I am conservative both religiously and politically, until Benedict can show me the good side of political liberalism. It is true that the Church is seeing some dark times, and I think that perhaps the time will come when all true Christians shall forget their differences in order to unite in defending their common beliefs. That would be glorious. I think that Francis is a good pope, and will follow God in leading the Church in the right Way.
About the Islam question... well, that's messy. Just like Christianity, there are many different factions in Islam, the most predominant being the Sunni and Shiite. They're fighting each other right now in the Middle East. Muslims are at each other throats, and they seem very disunited. I take Benedict's stance on not being compelled to favor one over the other. We should preach to both just as much. I think we should stand strong against Islam, and be wary when dealing with them. A middle way between Paulus and Constantine: don't kill them on sight just because they're Muslim, but don't trust them at once just because they say they're from the religion of peace. We must be cautious in this respect.
Paulus, personally, I think that what the Spanish did in Latin America is regrettable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they shouldn't have tried to convert the natives, I'm saying that they went about it in the wrong way. They did it in, you have to admit, a rather Muslim way. You may say that it's because of that that they are so strong in their faith. That doesn't prove a thing! They had to be, in order to stay alive. It's good that the natives were converted, I don't know if it was good the way it happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Benedict on Apr 16, 2015 0:08:44 GMT
I may be veering off the original topic here, but I'll take up Chris's offer to talk a little bit about liberalism. People are confused by what liberalism means because, as I said earlier, it is used today to describe an ideology which is almost exactly the opposite of true liberalism. I think that the majority of people are actually political liberals who just haven't had true, classical liberalism explained to them. Here are three easy steps for finding your "inner liberal":
Step 1: Recognize that all people have a god given right to life, liberty, and property.
Step 2: Realize that these rights mean that you are the only person ultimately responsible for your own actions.
Step 3: Respect other people's rights and allow them to take responsibility for their own actions, even if they're actions you disagree with.
If you've followed my three steps, then congratulations, you're a liberal. I know this is very simplified, but this is the logic on which classical liberalism (and its more radical offshoots, minarchism and anarcho-capitalism) are based.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pan Kristoff Drevo on Apr 16, 2015 15:30:12 GMT
I think I understand now. But I'll still be conservative.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Benedict on Apr 16, 2015 16:57:12 GMT
Of course! Besides, I wouldn't want you to change your beliefs just because of one 176 word forum post. These are broad, deep topics, and the only way to truly understand them is continued contemplation and study. I do suggest, though, that you continue to learn more about the role liberty plays in a free society. A good place to start is Thomas Paine's Common Sense. It's short, historically relevant and easy to understand. Oh, and I highly suggest the American Declaration of Independence, too. It's basically the spark notes version of the entire classical liberal philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pan Kristoff Drevo on Apr 17, 2015 1:38:04 GMT
You know, I have a funny feeling that after I read those, I'll be even more convinced that becoming a micronationalist was a good idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paolo Emilio I of Trebia on Apr 17, 2015 1:46:13 GMT
About the Islam question... well, that's messy. Just like Christianity, there are many different factions in Islam, the most predominant being the Sunni and Shiite. They're fighting each other right now in the Middle East. Muslims are at each other throats, and they seem very disunited. I take Benedict's stance on not being compelled to favor one over the other. We should preach to both just as much. I think we should stand strong against Islam, and be wary when dealing with them. A middle way between Paulus and Constantine: don't kill them on sight just because they're Muslim, but don't trust them at once just because they say they're from the religion of peace. We must be cautious in this respect. Paulus, personally, I think that what the Spanish did in Latin America is regrettable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they shouldn't have tried to convert the natives, I'm saying that they went about it in the wrong way. They did it in, you have to admit, a rather Muslim way. You may say that it's because of that that they are so strong in their faith. That doesn't prove a thing! They had to be, in order to stay alive. It's good that the natives were converted, I don't know if it was good the way it happened. I didn't mention killing them on sight. I said more about not trusting them, and proclaiming a Crusade whenever they strike first. I'm not sure which methods were forced. I researched a bit on some books I have at home, and some Mexican legends tell that the enemies of the Aztec Empire converted to Catholicism, and in Panama, Spanish Conquistador Vasco Núñez de Balboa converted some Chocó tribesmen to Christianity. However, conflicts like the Invasion of The Incan, Aztec and Mayan Empires involved forced Conversions. And some of the natives weren't even killed by the Spanish itself, they were killed by the illnesses the Spanish brought. So maybe the spread of Christianity in Latin America wasn't 100% forced. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Benedict on Apr 17, 2015 16:29:29 GMT
I don't doubt that the conversion of the Native Americans was not 100% forced. Whenever you introduce a new idea into any population, some people enthusiastically embrace it, some people choose to go along with it and other people try to fight it. I'm sure that there were some Natives that fell into each of these categories. However, I have a hunch that most of them weren't particularly excited about Christianity and the new white-dominated, anti-traditional social order it brought. That's why the history of America is full of conflicts between the Cowboys and the Indians. You know, I have a funny feeling that after I read those, I'll be even more convinced that becoming a micronationalist was a good idea. Haha, yes, that probably will happen. Liberty is closely tied to revolution, whether the revolution is on the macronational or the micronational scale. I'm actually surprised that you haven't read the Declaration in school at some point, I thought it was standard among American educations. |
|
|
|
Post by Pan Kristoff Drevo on Apr 17, 2015 17:08:26 GMT
No, I have read it before. But it would be good to read it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paolo Emilio I of Trebia on Apr 18, 2015 5:07:30 GMT
I got your point, and after some thoughts, I got a special answer for the issue you bring in. There is a crucial difference between the European Colonization of the Americas, and the Yihad. The Indians lost. Their technology was inferior to that of Europe. The Western world does has a chance to fight back. But the EU is so moronic that they still believe in "multiculturalism" thing, despite of their "Islamophobia expert" joining ISIS |
|
|
|
Post by Pan Kristoff Drevo on Apr 18, 2015 14:47:04 GMT
It is true, we need the spirit of the Crusades back. And I mean the right spirit. The spirit of defending Christendom from outside threats, such as Islam. Perhaps one of the reasons why we lost this spirit is because there is little to no Christendom left in Europe to defend. But I like to think of myself as the "New Crusader", who still stands for everything that the old one did: namely, defending the Cross from the Crescent.
|
|
|
|
Post by ilizaqileq on May 26, 2019 4:30:49 GMT
|
|
