← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Quantrill
Thread ID: 14458 | Posts: 48 | Started: 2004-07-06
2004-07-06 12:11 | User Profile
Chronicles has an excellent piece commenting on the recent Storck/Woods capitalism debate by Dr Kwasniewski that makes some interesting points about the Magisterium and dissent. [url="http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Kwasniewski/NewsPK070504.html"]http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Kwasniewski/NewsPK070504.html[/url]
2004-07-06 12:46 | User Profile
Well, perhaps if you define 'excellent' as 'woefully ignorant Creationist bile.'
In any case, I am enjoying watching Chronicles dumb itself right out of ongoing political debate. I no longer really care what their positions are; my major interest is in how many cavemen they can round up for the slaughter. After all, Francis, Gottfried, Grace, that Russians chap--they will all move onto greener pastures anyway, once Chronicles suffers its final debacle.
Or perhaps Fleming will kick the bucket, and a more intelligent editor can be found?
2004-07-06 12:58 | User Profile
Darkstar, Are you Catholic? If so, perhaps you could actually respond to some of the arguments the author makes, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks (which seem to be almost reflexive for you.) If you are not Catholic, then how could you possibly have anything to contribute to a discussion of whether liberalism and Catholic dogma are incompatible?
(And yes, before your knee jerks, I am referring to classical liberalism, not democratic socialism.)
2004-07-06 12:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Well, perhaps if you define 'excellent' as 'woefully ignorant Creationist bile.' [/QUOTE] By the way, where are you getting this from? 'Creationist?' Did you read the article?
2004-07-06 13:08 | User Profile
I suppose you missed the parts of the article where the author attacks 99% scientists as dogmatic 'Darwinists,' and derides the theory that nature does not act with ends in mind?
I suppose you missed the parts of the article that went way beyond discussions of proper Catholic dogma to deride Wood's views of economics, and make some rather stupid points about economics as a (non-)science?
In any case, my generaly sense is that Catholicism is not, broadly speaking, fully compatible with a classical liberal viewpoint. (So I guess we agree there?) A classical liberal viewpoint involves adherence to standards of rationality, and respect for knowledge. Catholicism, in contrast, has historically involved disregard for rationality in favor of blind obedience to earthly authorities.
Of course, I do not think that Catholicism is fully compatible with Christianity either.
2004-07-06 13:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]I suppose you missed the parts of the article where the author attacks 99% scientists as dogmatic 'Darwinists,' and derides the theory that nature does not act with ends in mind?
The author used that as an example of how there can be problems even in an area of of science in which there is broad agreement. I did not think it was an 'attack' on Darwinism or scientists. So, your "Creationist bile' comment was unwarranted.
[QUOTE=darkstar] I suppose you missed the parts of the article that went way beyond discussions of proper Catholic dogma to deride Wood's views of economics, and make some rather stupid points about economics as a (non-)science?
The entire debate is over what is and what is not within the the realm of 'proper Catholic dogma,' so yes, I guess I missed the parts that went 'way beyond' that.
[QUOTE=darkstar]In any case, my generaly sense is that Catholicism is not, broadly speaking, fully compatible with a classical liberal viewpoint. (So I guess we agree there?)
Yes, and you agree with the author, as well.
[QUOTE=darkstar]A classical liberal viewpoint involves adherence to standards of rationality, and respect for knowledge. Catholicism, in contrast, has historically involved disregard for rationality in favor of blind obedience to earthly authorities.
A classical liberal viewpoint involves absolute faith (idolatry, really) in human reason to the point where millenia of Tradition can be cast aside at any moment to accommodate some flavor-of-the-month theory.
[QUOTE=darkstar]Of course, I do not think that Catholicism is fully compatible with Christianity either.[/QUOTE] Thank you for your gratuitous Protestant arrogance. It has been duly noted.
2004-07-06 14:59 | User Profile
'"I suppose you missed the parts of the article where the author attacks 99% scientists as dogmatic 'Darwinists,' and derides the theory that nature does not act with ends in mind?"
The author used that as an example of how there can be problems even in an area of of science in which there is broad agreement. I did not think it was an 'attack' on Darwinism or scientists.'
What an incredibly generous reading! In fact, way too generous....
'Classical liberal viewpoint involves absolute faith (idolatry, really) in human reason to the point where millenia of Tradition can be cast aside at any moment to accommodate some flavor-of-the-month theory.' What you say is pure garbage, but I did enjoy the capitalization of 'Tradition.'
'"Of course, I do not think that Catholicism is fully compatible with Christianity either." Thank you for your gratuitous Protestant arrogance. It has been duly noted.' Oh, I am sorry--was that too intolerant for you? Maybe we can all hold hands and pretend to be but Christian brothers with nary a disagreement? Your own Pope claims that all outside of the Roman Church will burn. So perhaps you will forgive me for thinking that a religion which clearly differs from my own Christian faith might not be fully in keeping with Christianity. You do realize--that is what 90% of Protestants believe about Catholicism? (It is also what most Catholics belive about Protestantism--but I hardly think much of this is 'arrogance.')
2004-07-06 17:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar] [quote=Quantrill]'Classical liberal viewpoint involves absolute faith (idolatry, really) in human reason to the point where millenia of Tradition can be cast aside at any moment to accommodate some flavor-of-the-month theory.' What you say is pure garbage, but I did enjoy the capitalization of 'Tradition.'
Pure garbage, eh? That is quite convenient, since it saves you the trouble of actually having to form a reasoned response. I know you meant the Tradition crack to be cute, but honestly, if you object to it being capitalized, perhaps you don't belong on a Christian Traditional Conservatism forum?
[QUOTE=darkstar][quote=Quantrill] [quote=darkstar] '"Of course, I do not think that Catholicism is fully compatible with Christianity either." Thank you for your gratuitous Protestant arrogance. It has been duly noted.' Oh, I am sorry--was that too intolerant for you? Maybe we can all hold hands and pretend to be but Christian brothers with nary a disagreement?
Actually, no that is not what I meant at all, and I'm fairly certain you know it. But then, that would detract from your name-calling fun, and you might have to discuss ideas instead of bandy insults about. Yes, yes, that's much too difficult.
[quote=Quantrill]Your own Pope claims that all outside of the Roman Church will burn.
Firstly, he is not my pope, as I am not Catholic. I do have a great deal of respect for the Roman Church, however, and I am willing to give their beliefs a lot of credit. Secondly, he claims no such thing. He claims that there is no salvation outside the Church. That is basic Christian doctrine, and most Protestants believe it as well. The difference of opinion lies in how the Church is defined. Is it all those who believe in Christ? Those who have been baptized? Etc.
[quote=darkstar]So perhaps you will forgive me for thinking that a religion which clearly differs from my own Christian faith might not be fully in keeping with Christianity.
Strictly speaking, it is your religion which differs from it, and not vice versa, since it has existed far longer, and Protestantism is a relatively recent splinter faction. It is somewhat amusing to see you (and other Protestants) claiming the Catholic Church is hopelessly corrupt, yet believing that Protestantism, which sprung from that hopelessly corrupt tree, is somehow pure. And here I always thought that a corrupt tree bringeth forth corrupt fruit.
[quote=darkstar]You do realize--that is what 90% of Protestants believe about Catholicism? (It is also what most Catholics belive about Protestantism--but I hardly think much of this is 'arrogance.')[/QUOTE] The relevant question is not whether I realize this; it is whether I care, which I don't. Protestants believe in and do a lot of very goofy things, from Christian Zionism to Jesus music videos to Left Behind books. Although they do support modern corporate capitalism wholeheartedly, which trumps all spiritual matters for you, I'm sure.
2004-07-06 17:17 | User Profile
My apologies for thinking you were a Catholic. It seemed a rather logical conclusion given that you call the article 'excellent,' but also suggest that a non-Catholics can have nothing to say about it!
As to your claim that a traditional conservative should not object to spurious capitalizations of 'Tradition'--this is a joke, right?
2004-07-06 17:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]My apologies for thinking you were a Catholic. It seemed a rather logical conclusion given that you call the article 'excellent,' but also suggest that a non-Catholics can have nothing to say about it!
I did not mean to suggest that non-Catholics could have nothing to say about it. What I meant to suggest is that a person who believes that the teaching of the Catholic Church holds no authority whatsoever could have little to add to a debate over how far the Church's Magisterium extends over faithful Catholics.
[quote=darkstar]As to your claim that a traditional conservative should not object to spurious capitalizations of 'Tradition'--this is a joke, right?[/QUOTE] No, no joke. [u]Spurious[/u], *adj., Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false.
*Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches capitalize Tradition when referring to Holy Tradition, and both have done so for many, many years (hundreds, at the very least.) Therefore, to do so is not spurious, at all.
2004-07-06 18:01 | User Profile
It's fairly spurious from a Protestant perspective.
As far as your backpeddling goes concerning who can and cannot comment on essays you post here: I'm not buying any of it.
What are you, Orthodox? (I.e., what are you claiming to be for the purposes of this board?)
2004-07-06 18:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]It's fairly spurious from a Protestant perspective.
Right, as is anything that is suddenly inconvenient, I suppose.
[quote=darkstar]As far as your backpeddling goes concerning who can and cannot comment on essays you post here: I'm not buying any of it.
I originally wrote, "If you are not Catholic, then how could you possibly have anything to contribute to a discussion of whether liberalism and Catholic dogma are incompatible?" I should have written "take Catholic authority seriously," or something, instead of just "Catholic." Mea culpa. Although, if I was trying to be shifty, I could always claim that I meant Catholic as in "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." And for the record, I said nothing so presumptuous as to dictate 'who can and cannot comment' about anything -- I merely asked how you could have anything to contribute. My question still seems valid, by the way.
[quote=darkstar]What are you, Orthodox? (I.e., what are you claiming to be for the purposes of this board?)[/QUOTE] I don't know that I can claim to be much of anything at the moment, but I currently attend an Orthodox church, and I have been prayerfully considering conversion. I do the best I can on this forum, but on doctrinal matters I must defer to Wild Bill.
2004-07-06 18:48 | User Profile
If you to mock my faith and the perspective it involves, maybe you could go find some Catholic or Orthodox board for that sort of thing? I have no trouble with criticism of the Protestant perspective, but this is just ludicrous. You seem, shall we say, a mite underinformed concerning the Protestant stance on 'Tradition.'
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Right, as is anything that is suddenly inconvenient, I suppose.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-06 20:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]If you to mock my faith and the perspective it involves, maybe you could go find some Catholic or Orthodox board for that sort of thing? I have no trouble with criticism of the Protestant perspective, but this is just ludicrous. You seem, shall we say, a mite underinformed concerning the Protestant stance on 'Tradition.'[/QUOTE] Your feelings are suddenly quite tender, eh? You were the one who first let fly with this: [quote=darkstar]Catholicism, in contrast, has historically involved disregard for rationality in favor of blind obedience to earthly authorities.
Of course, I do not think that Catholicism is fully compatible with Christianity either.
and then mocked my capitalization of Tradition, and then called the case for that capitalization spurious. You were also the one who said this -- [quote=darkstar]Oh, I am sorry--was that too intolerant for you? Maybe we can all hold hands and pretend to be but Christian brothers with nary a disagreement?
These statements are all well and good, but for you to suddenly be scandalized at my relatively gentle poke at Protestantism is a little hard to swallow. Maybe it is just a matter of whose ox is being gored.
Also, you got quite upset when you thought I was telling you who could and could not post here (although I wasn't), but now you are explicitly telling me to go find a different board to post on?
Consistency is not your strong suit.
2004-07-06 20:39 | User Profile
As I said, I have no problems with criticism of Protestantism. Nor do I expect Catholics to be much upset with what I said about Catholicism; it is fairly close to what the Pope himself teaches--he just put's a different spin on the matter.
What I have a problem with is reducing a centuries old stance on Catholic and Orthodox views on 'Tradition' to some point or another about 'convience.'
This is not a game where we ration out 'hurt feelings.' Intellectual upset only interests me when there is a reason for it.
2004-07-06 20:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar] What I have a problem with is reducing a centuries old stance on Catholic and Orthodox views on 'Tradition' to some point or another about 'convience.'
This is not a game where we ration out 'hurt feelings.' Intellectual upset only interests me when there is a reason for it.[/QUOTE] And what I have a problem with is portraying a two millennia old Tradition as 'blind obedience,' 'spurious,' and 'not compatible with Christianity.'
My crack about "convenience" is just the Catholic-perspective flipside to your "blind obedience" crack.
Perhaps it would be better if these sorts of snarky remarks were left out of the discussion altogether?
2004-07-06 23:44 | User Profile
You think there is something wrong with blind obedience; well, so do I, but it is not clear it is an insult to say that someone obeys blindly. Indeed, this is precisely what the very Protestant philosophy Kierkegaard famously praised with his point about 'the blind knight of faith.'
Likewise, I stand by my remark that Roman Catholicism is not fully compatible with Christianity--a comment I made to indicate what my own viewpoint was, not to cast aspersions on the Roman Church, which will remain supremely un-affected by whatever I say about it.
Finally, as to 'Tradition'--it was you who suggested I should find something wrong with rational abandonment of it. In other words, you suggest that I should accept your Orthodox or Catholic or whatever-they-are standards--when these are NOT Protestant standards. I can hardly be expected to find it 'idolatrous' to favor reason over 'Tradition' when 'Tradition' in fact refers to non-Protestant tradition--indeed, refers to a unity of tradition that most Protestants fervently PROTEST.
Thus pointing out that I consider there to be something spurious about usage of this term 'Tradition' hardly seems 'snarky.' If it is something you have a problem with--seek counseling. I know there are some good Orthodox priests out there.
2004-07-07 01:59 | User Profile
Quick, somebody get some water. The damned cats are fighting again.
2004-07-07 02:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]Quick, somebody get some water. The damned cats are fighting again.[/QUOTE]
Never mind Darkstar guys,,,,, he gave himself away and I know what he is.
Is it considered a personal attack on this board to say that Darkstar is a Jew?
"If the truth hurts it then must be the truth"
2004-07-07 04:14 | User Profile
Ponce, you should be banned for your defamatory remarks. It is just sick to watch a dumb ****ing Cubano defaming Nordic Americans on an American board.
2004-07-07 04:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Ponce, you should be banned for your defamatory remarks. It is just sick to watch a dumb ****ing Cubano defaming Nordic Americans on an American board.[/QUOTE]
"If the truth hurts then it must be the truth",,,,,, right Darkstar?
Anyway,,,,,,,,
Now that the Zionist State of Israel are getting their oil from Iraq I wonder if the US will have to stay there in order to safeguard "their" oil.,,,,,,
Israel is now training the Kurdish , the Turks and Iraq don't like the idea to much, to me that means that we will have now a war witting a war.
Are the Jews training those people to be part of the Jewish army? I think so.
The Jews always, whenever possible, try to find other to fight their war and then they step forward to pick up the spoils of that war.
The oil from Iraq is a very good example.
Nothing new about this, the did it during the Napolionic war, First WW, Second WW, and even the revolutionary war in the USA.
Someone mention to me that there were more than 11 millions Jews in the world, so, just for the hell of it I got myself a phone book and started to search for a Jewish lawyer,,,,,,,only thing is that I called lawyers with non Jewish names, out of fourteen that I did call eight were indeed Jews.
The more that I learn about those people the more that I admired them for their focus towards the future and the final enslavement of the world, and at the same time the more angry that I get towards the people of the world, and specially the American people, for not seen what those people are up to.
I wish that I could give to every household in the US a computer and show them the sites to visit, those sites would not only be the anti-Zionist sites but also the Zionist sites themselves, like Forward and others.
I think (yes, I can think) that what someone told me was the truth, that the Jews are using the illegals in order to weaken the US government for the simple reason that it would be easier to take over from the Mexicans than from the whites race.
I feel that guns will be the next target of the Zionists and that is going to be a hell of a battle,,,,,,, what I don't understand is why the so called "super whites" don't target the heads of the Jewish organizations, I mean, they are well protected but is not like they are protecting Bush.
I feel that the same way that the Zionist are "removing" those from Hamas that they consider a danger to them, the Zionists, they theselves should also be "removed".
"When the truth comes into the light, the lies will hide in the dark",,,,,,by Ponce
2004-07-07 11:24 | User Profile
I believe I''ve mentioned before that even if one doesn't agree with the Distributist program in whole or in part for objective philosophical reasons, then I suggest that he may nevertheless find in Distributism an important tactical weapon against our common Parasite.
The "virtual economy" of publicly traded companies, easy comsumer debt, ubiquitous usury, a purely imaginary monetary system, and an income tax system of Talmudic complexity, is the very basis of Tribal power in our country. Jews control the board rooms, the Federal reserve, the banks and credit card companies, and benefit most from the income tax.
An attack on any of those "virtual economy" institutions is an attack on the Tribes parasitic hold on us.
Conversely, anything that advances the cause of making every gentile the owner of his own buisness increases our power, even as it removes another slave of Kosher Capitalism.
I would appreciate comments on this "tactical" argument in favor of Distributism.
Walter
Distributism is a form of gentile economic resistance to
2004-07-07 12:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar] Likewise, I stand by my remark that Roman Catholicism is not fully compatible with Christianity--a comment I made to indicate what my own viewpoint was, not to cast aspersions on the Roman Church, which will remain supremely un-affected by whatever I say about it.
Likewise, I stand by my remark that much of Protestantism's rejection of Tradition is simply to provide cover to allow them to believe pretty much whatever they want. Embrace of soulless consumer capitalism? OK! Miscegenation? Sure! Ordination of women? No problem! Fag marriage? You betcha!
[quote=darkstar]Finally, as to 'Tradition'--it was you who suggested I should find something wrong with rational abandonment of it.
I suggested that as someone who is posting on a Traditionalist Christian Conservative forum, that you should have a problem with it. Both traditionalism and conservatism connote a healthy respect for and attachment to tradition. If you really think that traditions should be cast aside lightly based upon any modern crackpot theory, then you are neither a traditionalist nor a conservative.
[quote=darkstar]In other words, you suggest that I should accept your Orthodox or Catholic or whatever-they-are standards--when these are NOT Protestant standards. I can hardly be expected to find it 'idolatrous' to favor reason over 'Tradition' when 'Tradition' in fact refers to non-Protestant tradition--indeed, refers to a unity of tradition that most Protestants fervently PROTEST.[/QUOTE] I suggest that you should not be so quick to mock the Tradition of Western Civilization (which has been Catholicism for most of its history). And Tradition includes the New Testament canon which Protestants follow, which was established by the Church, so it is not accurate, strictly speaking, to say that Protestants reject Holy Tradition outright. They just pick and choose parts of it.
And might I suggest that we simply end this discussion, as it only tangentially, if at all, pertains to the original article I posted. Once again you have hijacked a thread regarding Distributism in your role as Defender of Capitalism, Lover of Walmart, Protector of Consumerism, and Scourge of the Non-materialists. If you have nothing positive to contribute, then why venture into the Distributism threads at all? To say it is socialist, commie, non-Protestant, backward, etc. etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum? I believe you have made that point well enough already.
2004-07-07 12:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I believe I''ve mentioned before that even if one doesn't agree with the Distributist program in whole or in part for objective philosophical reasons, then I suggest that he may nevertheless find in Distributism an important tactical weapon against our common Parasite. [/QUOTE] Walter, I agree with it for both philosophical and pragmatic reasons. If the system has come to be mastered by a parasitical few, then changing the system makes sense.
2004-07-07 15:47 | User Profile
I venture into these Distributivist threads to point out what garbage things you say about anti-capitalists and anti-rationalists.
Your views on Protestantism are evil and sick. You will likely burn in Hell. However, I see you have dropped most of your girlish complains against my points, so that is progress.
As to your continuing point that 'traditional' is in the title of the board. Yes, well we capitalize words in titles, don't we? Still doesn't mean we believe in the papist 'Tradition' rather than in Scripture, and the needs for traditions informed by it.
2004-07-07 20:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar] Your views on Protestantism are evil and sick. You will likely burn in Hell.
Excellent rebuttal, sir.
[quote=darkstar]However, I see you have dropped most of your girlish complains against my points, so that is progress.[/QUOTE] I don't think I have dropped any of my complaints, 'girlish' or not. And as for your points, they have been precious few.
Really, what with you alternating between personally attacking me and going into emotional hysterics when I jibe you back, this is truly going nowhere.
2004-07-07 21:29 | User Profile
Oh, yes, I feel SO MUCH. I am just hysterical over here (well, yes, with laughter, at times).
I love you classification of my sentences as a 'rebutal'--what a fascinating place to split up my points. Right before the 'however...'--as if you have no sense of the flow of polemics whatsoever.
Like a computer, you refer back to formal definitions and plod along with nary a sign of having any powers of judgment whatsoever. You are simply dead to language. It is no longer even amusing to watch to crank through your replies. Have you considered treatment for autism? Sometimes it can be of a very light form, you realize.
I mean, I do appreciate a little autism from time to time when tied to logic-cranking & expressions of anger--here, for example, I've been able to learn a lot about how Protestantism is really central to the preservation of rationality in the West. But for this too keep on being instructive for me, the autistic foil has to enter in new content from time to time. Oh well. (What, I wonder, is it that you are getting out of our 'discussion'?)
Maybe your informational silence here is a sign that you are overcoming autistic tendencies? Hey, it could be a good thing. After all, I can learn lots of other ways as well, and overcoming autism is a serious gain.
As for mine--well, as I mention, there's a bit more than silence there that's going over your head, but mostly the lack of information is simply reactive in nature.
2004-07-07 22:24 | User Profile
The worse thing that you can do to one of those people is not to answer him, just ignore him.
2004-07-07 23:00 | User Profile
A lot of people say the same thing about you, Ponce. Be that as it may, I'd prefer to give you the boot.
Don't you feel like a sad little coward, repeatedly calling a Gentile a Jew, with no hope of showing yourself to be right, and no fear of having your blood insults dealt with properly? I though the Spanish had a sense of honor.
I guess they started having their women get screwed by Negros over in Cuba, found themselves un-willing to distinguish the mulattors from their own blood--and then that sense went away in Cuba??? Maybe I am a little misinformed. I guess you will have to set me right on the situation over there.
[QUOTE=Ponce]The worse thing that you can do to one of those people is not to answer him, just ignore him.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-08 00:57 | User Profile
Forget the bucket, get the firehose charged. Damned cats.
2004-07-08 02:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]A lot of people say the same thing about you, Ponce. Be that as it may, I'd prefer to give you the boot.
Don't you feel like a sad little coward, repeatedly calling a Gentile a Jew, with no hope of showing yourself to be right, and no fear of having your blood insults dealt with properly? I though the Spanish had a sense of honor.
I guess they started having their women get screwed by Negros over in Cuba, found themselves un-willing to distinguish the mulattors from their own blood--and then that sense went away in Cuba??? Maybe I am a little misinformed. I guess you will have to set me right on the situation over there.[/QUOTE]
Banging your head against that "holy" wall is making you more crazy every day, you better stop it while you can still type,,,,,Shalom.
2004-07-08 04:35 | User Profile
Ponce: I have absolutely nothing to substantive to say about your post because I find it to be totally lunatic.
AOR: Maybe it's a dog fight, maybe it's a cat fight, but anyway it's getting bloody boring.
2004-07-08 04:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Ponce: I have absolutely nothing to substantive to say about your post because I find it to be totally lunatic.
AOR: Maybe it's a dog fight, maybe it's a cat fight, but anyway it's getting bloody boring.[/QUOTE]
Good, is about time you gave up,,,,,,thank you.
2004-07-08 04:42 | User Profile
No problem, Ponce.
'Noun 1. ponce - someone who procures customers for whores (in England they call a pimp a ponce)'
[url]http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ponce[/url]
2004-07-08 20:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Ponce: I have absolutely nothing to substantive to say about your post because I find it to be totally lunatic.
AOR: Maybe it's a dog fight, maybe it's a cat fight, but anyway it's getting bloody boring.[/QUOTE] At least someone here attempts to defend Protestantism. It's interesting how far out of context "traditional" was used to suggest pro-catholic as being traditional. I suppose one could make the case of it being traditional in it's departure from scripture.
2004-07-08 20:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]At least someone here attempts to defend Protestantism.
The vast majority of the members of this forum defend Protestantism, and most of them do so much more calmly than Darkstar.
[quote=All Old Right]It's interesting how far out of context "traditional" was used to suggest pro-catholic as being traditional. I suppose one could make the case of it being traditional in it's departure from scripture.[/QUOTE] Traditional adj 1: consisting of or derived from tradition; "traditional history"; "traditional morality" [ant: [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nontraditional"]nontraditional[/url]] 2: pertaining to time-honored orthodox doctrines; "the simple security of traditional assumptions has vanished"
Perhaps you could explain to me how my usage of 'traditional' was 'out of context'? I did not suggest that traditionalism and Catholicism were identical; rather, I said that anyone who is a traditionalist should not lightly dismiss all of Catholic tradition, since it is, in large measure, synonymous with Western Civilization (until about 500 years ago.) One does not need to be a Catholic (indeed, I am not) to see that.
2004-07-08 21:19 | User Profile
My deepest apologies if what I say is a little to wild for you. I know this kind of thing can be upsetting to the mentally fragile.
BTW, could you point to some OD threads where Protestant members defend Protestantism from Catholic or Orthodox criticism?
[QUOTE=Quantrill]The vast majority of the members of this forum defend Protestantism, and most of them do so much more calmly than Darkstar. [/QUOTE]
2004-07-08 22:21 | User Profile
And the word "traditional" is used at OD often to denote Orthodox and catholic as natural conservative bastions.
2004-07-09 11:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar] BTW, could you point to some OD threads where Protestant members defend Protestantism from Catholic or Orthodox criticism?[/QUOTE] [url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13248[/url]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13986[/url]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=12763[/url]
I think it is also fair to point out, that since there are (to my knowledge) a mere three Catholic or Orthodox members in the entire forum, with all the other Christians being Protestants, there just isn't very much criticism of Protestantism. And, indeed, this thread was not supposed to be a criticism of Protestantism; rather, it was supposed to be a discussion of an essay by a Catholic regarding whether Catholic dogma binds Catholics to reject laissez-faire capitalsim. It was Darkstar who jumped with irrelevent comments, then ad hominem attacks, then attacks on Catholicism generally. I then responded with a single observation critical of Protestantism. This hardly constitutes the forum-wide assault on Protestantism that Darkstar and AOR seem to think it does.
2004-07-09 11:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]And the word "traditional" is used at OD often to denote Orthodox and catholic as natural conservative bastions.[/QUOTE] I was using Tradition to mean the doctrines that the Catholics and Orthodox have (mostly) shared for 2000 years, and I maintain that that is a fair use of the word. By the way, Orthodoxy is a natural conservative bastion.
2004-07-09 13:34 | User Profile
Well, I checked the first thread, and it didn't correspond to what I had in mind in mentioning 'defenses' of Protestantism from RC/Orth. criticism.
I agree that 'there just isn't very much criticism of Protestantism.'
[QUOTE=Quantrill][url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13248[/url]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13986[/url]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=12763[/url]
I think it is also fair to point out, that since there are (to my knowledge) a mere three Catholic or Orthodox members in the entire forum, with all the other Christians being Protestants, there just isn't very much criticism of Protestantism. And, indeed, this thread was not supposed to be a criticism of Protestantism; rather, it was supposed to be a discussion of an essay by a Catholic regarding whether Catholic dogma binds Catholics to reject laissez-faire capitalsim. It was Darkstar who jumped with irrelevent comments, then ad hominem attacks, then attacks on Catholicism generally. I then responded with a single observation critical of Protestantism. This hardly constitutes the forum-wide assault on Protestantism that Darkstar and AOR seem to think it does.[/QUOTE]
2004-07-10 10:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill][url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13248[/url]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=13986[/url]
[url]http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=12763[/url]
I think it is also fair to point out, that since there are (to my knowledge) a mere three Catholic or Orthodox members in the entire forum, with all the other Christians being Protestants, there just isn't very much criticism of Protestantism. And, indeed, this thread was not supposed to be a criticism of Protestantism; rather, it was supposed to be a discussion of an essay by a Catholic regarding whether Catholic dogma binds Catholics to reject laissez-faire capitalsim. It was Darkstar who jumped with irrelevent comments, then ad hominem attacks, then attacks on Catholicism generally. I then responded with a single observation critical of Protestantism. This hardly constitutes the forum-wide assault on Protestantism that Darkstar and AOR seem to think it does.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that Distributism offers anything that a good Protestant can't support.
I mean, it isn't like Luther defended the corporate organizational form, the fiat monetary system, lewd advertising, and pervasive usury along with his 95 Theses.
In truth, there's nothing in Distributism that is inextricably Christian. The entire program is based simply on the Natural Law, which we have in common with all men of good will, of whatever religion.
Would a Buddhist find anything objectionable in Distributism? A Toaist? A Muslim? Confusianism? No way. In fact, all of those religions would agree mostly with its basic tenets, because all of those traditions are based in the Natural Law.
Read Lao Tzu - he was all about non-interference in people's lives, allowing the peasants to work and prosper, respecting the family and the natural social order that flows from it. Lao Tzu would have found much to admire in Belloc and Chesterton's program, and I'm dead serious about that.
So, all this talk about Distributism being "Catholic"and therefore somehow not "Protestant" is way off base.
In fact, let's forget the religious element altogether for a while, if that's distracting us.
Let's talk about Capitalism with its imaginary money, lewd advertising, virtual stock and bond markets, omnipresent consumer debt, and the rest of that banal dreck wholly in terms of the ideas of Jefferson, Locke and Smith. My position is that those gentlemen would have had nothing but contempt for the aformentioned vices, the institutionalization of which are the very stuff of the Capitalist system.
Walter
2004-07-10 20:13 | User Profile
Both Luther and Calvin would oppose a societal system based on acquisitiveness, ie greed, first and foremost.
It is true that one social scientist of note -Max Weber- linked Calvinism specifically to early capitalism, but Weber did note that the 'material success is proof of moral righteousness' paradigm was based on a misunderstanding of the original Calvin, who did not hold such a view.
2004-07-10 21:37 | User Profile
'Acquisitiveness' is not 'greed.' Greed refers to 'excessive' desire for wealth. Capitalism is not bassed on excessive desires, but on such factors the willingness of the capitalist to risk his or her capital.
In any case, if Luther or Calvin say something that shows an opposition to capitalism, then they were in error. Their words are not Holy Writ.
2004-07-11 00:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]In any case, if Luther or Calvin say something that shows an opposition to capitalism, then they were in error. Their words are not Holy Writ.[/QUOTE]
But the words of John Locke and Adam Smith are, I suppose? :lol:
2004-07-11 01:25 | User Profile
If you think dumb jokes make the anti-capitalists look like anything other than the know-nothing zero-sum thinkers they are... think again.
In any case, to answer a somewhat different question: nor do Locke and Smith offer the best accounts of the capitalist system.
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]But the words of John Locke and Adam Smith are, I suppose? :lol:[/QUOTE]
2004-07-11 18:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]nor do Locke and Smith offer the best accounts of the capitalist system.[/QUOTE]
You can say that again.
In fact, the ideas of both Locke and Smith stand in direct contradiction to the Capitalist system, which is why conservatives must diligently work and pray for the destruction of Capitalism.
Walter
2004-07-11 18:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=darkstar]Capitalism is not bassed on excessive desires, but on such factors the willingness of the capitalist to risk his or her capital.[/QUOTE]
Nonsense.
Capitalism, as the word is usually understood, means the present consumerist system. Consumerism is in turn all about advertising that plays on people's insecurities and desires. Consumerism is also all about easy credit based on fiat money and a wholly imaginary bank credit system - a system that mass-mails out millions upon millions of "pre-approved" credit cards every year (I get a couple every week).
All of this is aimed at getting people to buy things they don't need - and often don't even want, but they're manipulated into it by mass media advertising and the siren call of ridiculously easy credit.
Of course Capitalism is based on excessive desires.
Good grief, Darkstar, look around you. The whole thing is all about keeping the lemmings on the produce-borrow-consume-pay treadmill.
Huxley's "Brave New World" with its all-pervasive, soul-destroying consumerism was prophetic - and it's the Capitalist system of today.
Walter