NationStates

Hanafuridake wrote:TFW CM thinks this is actually a clever comeback but just shows he doesn't actually know what a Devil King is.

>> tfw I know the context of the quote and it's basically the same comeback Nobunaga himself used against Shingen, the equivalent of mocking a point of the opposition with a diametrically opposed shitpost

Only the Protestants really.

Yes, I am sure that's why Catholics are more liberal than the Protestants here in the States. They are upholding an even older form of the religion. =^)

I don't know of any liberal reformation of Catholicism,

Did you miss Vatican II?

or Hinduism,

That's because Hinduism has had liberal schools from the start, and thus was ready for the transition before democracy was even a light in little Pericles' eye.

Islam,

>> when American Muslims are more friendly towards gay marriage than evangelicals
>> when reformist movements in Islam and even LGBT friendly Mosques are at the forefront of popular development of Islam in the West

:thonk:

Buddhism,

You got me there, the religion that mostly exists as an addendum to native spirituality anymore doesn't seem to have much of a modern presence.

and other religions.

Neopagan revivalists, Judaism, Sikhism (although that, like some schools of Hinduism, can be argued to have always had strongly compatible theology)...

All of which have heavy, often overwhelmingly majority, views of reform with an eye towards modernism, or the idea that a modernist outlook is the natural conclusion of 'returning to the roots'.

For everyone who assumes that extremism is inherently negative, I retreat to my old retort: Let’s only gas half the Jews.

Conserative Morality wrote:Yes, I am sure that's why Catholics are more liberal than the Protestants here in the States. They are upholding an even older form of the religion. =^)

>> when American Muslims are more friendly towards gay marriage than evangelicals
>> when reformist movements in Islam and even LGBT friendly Mosques are at the forefront of popular development of Islam in the West

Are all Catholics and Muslims conservatives?

Conserative Morality wrote:Did you miss Vatican II?

The Catholic Church is still very conservative, I'm not sure what was liberalized.

Conserative Morality wrote:

or Hinduism,

That's because Hinduism has had liberal schools from the start, and thus was ready for the transition before democracy was even a light in little Pericles' eye.

I seriously doubt that Hinduism, which came into existence sometime between 500 BC - 500 CE, had liberal schools back then.

Conserative Morality wrote:You got me there, the religion that mostly exists as an addendum to native spirituality anymore doesn't seem to have much of a modern presence.

No. The vast majority of Buddhist countries (Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, Tibet) define their national identity around Buddhism, and even the most xenophobic exclusivists of Tokugawa Japan couldn't escape from Buddhism because it's strongly ingrained in Japanese culture.

Kowani wrote:For everyone who assumes that extremism is inherently negative, I retreat to my old retort: Let’s only gas half the Jews.

I mean the easiest way toward actual genocide has always been to have fifth columns inside the group you want to exterminate to do the work for them.

Hanafuridake wrote:Are all Catholics and Muslims conservatives?

Is there a point to this question?

The Catholic Church is still very conservative, I'm not sure what was liberalized.

The Catholic Church is much less conservative than it was in the 19th century, which, if you compare and contrast what is expressed in Vatican II to Vatican I, you would realize.

As I said - even religious 'conservatism' in the modern day is nothing more than delayed liberalism.

I seriously doubt that Hinduism, which came into existence sometime between 500 BC - 500 CE, had liberal schools back then.

For someone who talks so much about eastern religions, you seem to know precious little about them. Five of the six OG schools of Hinduism are very compatible with liberal modernity.

No. The vast majority of Buddhist countries (Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, Tibet) define their national identity around Buddhism, and even the most xenophobic exclusivists of Tokugawa Japan couldn't escape from Buddhism because it's strongly ingrained in Japanese culture.

As they say in modern Japan, born Shinto, marry Christian, die Buddhist. I notice as well that you left out the biggest and most modern Buddhist majority country, in which over half of all Buddhists live. There wouldn't happen to be a reason for that, would there? =^^^)

I don't know much about the countries listed, so you could be right. But I doubt it.

Hanafuridake wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:I'm sure he's become the Demon King of Sixth Heaven he always said he was and is currently plotting on conquering the other five or so.

When CM thinks this is actually a clever comeback but just shows he doesn't actually know what a Devil King is.

Conserative Morality wrote:Whether you like it or not, archaic religions have very little influence in their original form on the functions or form of modern society. Even the folk in the modern day who call themselves conservatives are only conserving, at most, a liberalized late 19th century conceptualization of the religion.

Only the Protestants really. I don't know of any liberal reformation of Catholicism, or Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and other religions.

Most Catholics I know aren't that reactionary sans some NSG users.

Benuty wrote:

Kowani wrote:For everyone who assumes that extremism is inherently negative, I retreat to my old retort: Let’s only gas half the Jews.

I mean the easiest way toward actual genocide has always been to have fifth columns inside the group you want to exterminate to do the work for them.

…That wasn’t what I meant at all, but good to know?

Kowani wrote:For everyone who assumes that extremism is inherently negative, I retreat to my old retort: Let’s only gas half the Jews.

No one believes this.

Kowani wrote:

Benuty wrote:I mean the easiest way toward actual genocide has always been to have fifth columns inside the group you want to exterminate to do the work for them.

…That wasn’t what I meant at all, but good to know?

I am sure that's what opportunist collaborators thought as they were shipping their opponents off to the death camps until they themselves were shipped off or shot by resistance.

Case in point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakub_Lejkin

Of course it is the American Progressive that doesn’t know anything about the Second Vatican Council.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Kowani wrote:For everyone who assumes that extremism is inherently negative, I retreat to my old retort: Let’s only gas half the Jews.

No one believes this.

So you say, but that's simply not true. The level of extermination to be carried out by anti-semites throughout history has varied. Some have advocated only killing religious Jews. Others only the poor ones; others only the rich. For another example, many in the South would have been happy post-Civil War if the impossible could be achieved, and blacks could be re-enslaved. Others felt that it was enough to 'only' keep them in their place, or trap them as sharecroppers. And once Grant, that hero of the Union, was out of office, what was it that happened?

Dealers in compromise take the path of least resistance - extremism is in standing up for your fellow man.

Minzerland II wrote:Of course it is the American Progressive that doesn’t know anything about the Second Vatican Council.

As the saying goes, an atheist doesn't go to mass, listen to the Pope, or know anything Catholicism. So basically an atheist is the same as a Catholic.

But I know Vatican II well enough to contrast it to Vatican I. Don't you?

Conserative Morality wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:No one believes this.

So you say, but that's simply not true. The level of extermination to be carried out by anti-semites throughout history has varied. Some have advocated only killing religious Jews. Others only the poor ones; others only the rich. For another example, many in the South would have been happy post-Civil War if the impossible could be achieved, and blacks could be re-enslaved. Others felt that it was enough to 'only' keep them in their place, or trap them as sharecroppers. And once Grant, that hero of the Union, was out of office, what was it that happened?

Dealers in compromise take the path of least resistance - extremism is in standing up for your fellow man.

No one who's smart believes this.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Kowani wrote:For everyone who assumes that extremism is inherently negative, I retreat to my old retort: Let’s only gas half the Jews.

No one believes this.

And that’s still not the point I’m making.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:So you say, but that's simply not true. The level of extermination to be carried out by anti-semites throughout history has varied. Some have advocated only killing religious Jews. Others only the poor ones; others only the rich. For another example, many in the South would have been happy post-Civil War if the impossible could be achieved, and blacks could be re-enslaved. Others felt that it was enough to 'only' keep them in their place, or trap them as sharecroppers. And once Grant, that hero of the Union, was out of office, what was it that happened?

Dealers in compromise take the path of least resistance - extremism is in standing up for your fellow man.

No one who's smart believes this.

Most people aren't smart.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:Of course it is the American Progressive that doesn’t know anything about the Second Vatican Council.

As the saying goes, an atheist doesn't go to mass, listen to the Pope, or know anything Catholicism. So basically an atheist is the same as a Catholic.

In the USA an atheist may even be a better Catholic than a Catholic since they obey the Vatican ban on circumcision.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:No one who's smart believes this.

On the contrary, many of the men in the South were heirs of what is called the Counter-Enlightenment, a strain of thought arising in the early 19th century to defend slavery on philosophical grounds - they were not stupid men, though they held repugnant and vile positions. Likewise, many of the compromisers in the Republican Party were well-educated men in their own right, and not fools in the least. They simply did not care enough about the plight of African-Americans to put up resistance, when compromise offered them peace on the issue.

Intelligence is no guarantee of being correct or right.

Minzerland II wrote:Of course it is the American Progressive that doesn’t know anything about the Second Vatican Council.

Oh boy, we might be witnessing something special happening here.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:Of course it is the American Progressive that doesn’t know anything about the Second Vatican Council.

As the saying goes, an atheist doesn't go to mass, listen to the Pope, or know anything Catholicism. So basically an atheist is the same as a Catholic.

But I know Vatican II well enough to contrast it to Vatican I. Don't you?

You know literally nothing about the Second Vatican Council or the discussion around it within Catholicism, guaranteed. Just cues you’ve picked up from mindlessly arguing with sedememes and talking with (((progressive))) ‘Catholics’.

Minzerland II wrote:You know literally nothing about the Second Vatican Council or the discussion around it within Catholicism, guaranteed. Just cues you’ve picked up from mindlessly arguing with sedememes and talking with progressive ‘Catholics’.

Good talk, buddy, hope we have it again sometime.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:No one who's smart believes this.

On the contrary, many of the men in the South were heirs of what is called the Counter-Enlightenment, a strain of thought arising in the early 19th century to defend slavery on philosophical grounds - they were not stupid men, though they held repugnant and vile positions. Likewise, many of the compromisers in the Republican Party were well-educated men in their own right, and not fools in the least. They simply did not care enough about the plight of African-Americans to put up resistance, when compromise offered them peace on the issue.

Intelligence is no guarantee of being correct or right.

I have to agree with you in that regard since intelligence can be abused in every circumstance especially war.

>> when you spend your formative teen years reading theology and philosophy books in your very Catholic grandmother's library
>> but you know nothing about Catholicism

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Conserative Morality wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:You know literally nothing about the Second Vatican Council or the discussion around it within Catholicism, guaranteed. Just cues you’ve picked up from mindlessly arguing with sedememes and talking with progressive ‘Catholics’.

Good talk, buddy, hope we have it again sometime.

Hermeneutics of continuity not hermeneutics of rupture, bro

Conserative Morality wrote:>> when you spend your formative teen years reading theology and philosophy books in your very Catholic grandmother's library
>> but you know nothing about Catholicism

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I thought you had a more evangelical background?

Benuty wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:On the contrary, many of the men in the South were heirs of what is called the Counter-Enlightenment, a strain of thought arising in the early 19th century to defend slavery on philosophical grounds - they were not stupid men, though they held repugnant and vile positions. Likewise, many of the compromisers in the Republican Party were well-educated men in their own right, and not fools in the least. They simply did not care enough about the plight of African-Americans to put up resistance, when compromise offered them peace on the issue.

Intelligence is no guarantee of being correct or right.

I have to agree with you in that regard since intelligence can be abused in every circumstance especially war.

Case in point, Einstein’s hatred of quantum mechanics.