Commentate, masses.
Commentate, masses.
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
So, a monarchy could only exist in a unanomously christian society.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
-Betrand Russell
That's not what I said.
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
-Betrand Russell
That doesn't mean it will only work in a unanimously Christian society.
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
-Betrand Russell
They don't have to, and even the ruler doesn't have to be Christian, he just can't have policies that contradict Christian morality.
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
I see no reason why they wouldn't be.
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
So an Islamic Absolute Ruler must follow Christian morality?
If he his policies go against Christian morality he is a tyrant.
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
Tyranny of course being a concept that predates Christian moralism by centuries...
قرطاج يجب ان تدمر
So if he tolerates homosexuals he becomes a tyrant and if he declares homosexuality a crime punishable by death he's perfectly justified?
(Personally I interpret the law against homosexuality strictly only applies to the jewish community, but my interpretation seems to be in the minority right now)
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people are full of doubts.
-Betrand Russell
Aren't you the smart one, words can be used in philosophies and take on different meanings based on points of view. And Christian moralism has been ever-existent, but there have been times where nobody followed it because they didn't know of it.Tyranny of course being a concept that predates Christian moralism by centuries...
No, homosexual activity is a sin just like lying is. Would I banish a liar from the Church and kill them? No. They are both sins, we are all sinners, we need to work not to sin. If by "tolerates" you mean is okay with homosexual sex and "marriage" than yes, he would be a tyrant. If by "tolerate" you mean he doesn't kill them or discriminate against them in any way, then he is a good ruler operating under Christian moral values. If he killed homosexuals, he would certainly be a tyrant.So if he tolerates homosexuals he becomes a tyrant and if he declares homosexuality a crime punishable by death he's perfectly justified?
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
I'll put in a few comments here: what people think of "Absolute Monarchy" nowadays is completely and utterly distorted, ergo, the notion that it was all about a single person with unlimited powers. Fact is that unwritten Tradition and Law were still a major impediment to abuse by Monarchical institutions during the age of Absolutism, and that notion of unbrindled personal despotism came only to be true with the advent of Fascism and similar Totalitarian regimes.
"Romans not only easily conquered those who fought by cutting, but mocked them too. For the cut, even delivered with force, frequently does not kill, when the vital parts are protected by equipment and bone. On the contrary, a point brought to bear is fatal at two inches; for it is necessary that whatever vital parts it penetrates, it is immersed. Next, when a cut is delivered, the right arm and flank are exposed. However, the point is delivered with the cover of the body and wounds the enemy before he sees it."
- Flavius Vegetius Renatus (in Epitoma Rei Militari, ca. 390)
I disagree with Kaitsar's strictly religious views on morality and legitimacy, and as such I regard all his arguments as without merit.
This isn't a stab at you, Kaitsar: your morality is your own. I do, however, fundamentally disagree with it.
Finally, someone who's respectful!
Thank you poach.
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
The real irony of this position here is that absolute monarchies tended to rebel against church establishment and traditional mores and leaned more towards acceptance of enlightenment philosophies and the development of humanist concepts.
Heir to Noble Savage in the Imperial House of Wilpuri
Tell that to the Tsars.
Originally Posted by Dan the Man
Really? What would you believe about Catherine II, Peter I, and Alexander? They progressively reformed the old systems and unlike other monarchies, the tsars did not have to answer to a religious leader.
Also in the west I cite Louis XIV and XV of France, Frederick III and VI of Denmark-Norway, Karl XII of Sweden, James and Charles Stuart of England, Frederick the Great, HRE Joseph II, Leopold of Tuscany, Maria Carolina of Naples, Maria Theresa of Austria, Carlos III of Spain, and Napoleon.
Heir to Noble Savage in the Imperial House of Wilpuri