The Catholic Church

[Dystisis]

One thing I wonder is why the catholic church as an institution isn't met with more criticism. Or I don't really wonder why, as the world is run by crazy christians. But anyways, if anyone of you know any history you will know that the catholic church oppressed all forms of science and called it heresy, blurred out large parts of history and even entire beliefs and people like the Cathars.

Anyways, people have speculated that without the power hungry institution that is the Catholic Church, we could be something like 500 years further in scientific progress and philosophical thought. We could be colonizing space.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Dont forget the signing of the Concordat agreament with Hitler, and siding with the Fascists in the Spanish Civil War

[RedAnarchist]

Anyways, people have speculated that without the power hungry institution that is the Catholic Church, we could be something like 500 years further in scientific progress and philosophical thought. We could be colonizing space.

I wouldn't be surprised to be honest. These people still think in medieval terms, and I hope their power wanes soon.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

One thing I wonder is why the catholic church as an institution isn't met with more criticism.
Because it is largely powerless and in decline today in the Western world. No point beating a dead horse.


Anyways, people have speculated that without the power hungry institution that is the Catholic Church, we could be something like 500 years further in scientific progress and philosophical thought.
What I really want to know is how they can determine the degree of scientific progress and philosophical thought that we will have 500 years in the future.


We could be colonizing space.
That's unlikely; colonizing space is a long term project with very little possibility of returning a profit within a single human lifetime. Therefore it is highly unlikely to be financed by private capital. Therefore it won't happen under capitalism, unless capitalist governments find some reason to fund it (the Cold War space race was one such reason, but that's over now).

[Demogorgon]

The Catholic Church gets criticism in parts oft he world where it still retains enough political power to be worth criticising. Here in Scotland for example, a handful of Bishops think it is their job to periodically interfere in politics and alter things to suit either their personal views or the interests of the church. I am not just talking about stuff like abortion and gay rights either. Sometimes they try and influence stuff utterly unrelated to their religious calling. They get heavily criticised whenever they do that.

Also in Italy, the church has a terrible habit of interfering in Italian politics and gets a lot of criticism as a result. There are plenty of examples of that there. By and large though, the Catholic Church has lost nearly all the influence it once had and hence is not worth criticising so much now. Some might argue that the Holy See retains a lot of international power, but I don't know. The previous pope attempted to use every ounce of his influence to stop the invasion of Iraq and the current Pope similarly has attempted to end it, but they have had no success there, I think even the diplomatic influence of the Catholic Church is nearly burnt out.

[Red_or_Dead]

I think that the Catholic church is on the decline. What we see today in many countries, where it is still powerfull, are in my opinion, just the last attempts to retain some of its former wealth and power.

They are a nuisannce, tho. Here in Slovenia the Catholic church is VERY powerfull, and I would say that it has to be the number one most influential institution in the country, beating pretty much all of our companies. One thing that made me laugh my ass off was a case from a few months ago, when it was revealed that our Catholic church is the majority owner of a TV network that broadcasts several pornographic channels... If Im not much mistaken, they are still trying to get rid of it (selling it for a VERY good price). Only goes to show that the Catholic church, while having a very hard time accepting that it isnt supposed to interfere with politics, cannot even think of separating itself from capital, even tho they officialy denounce capitalism.

That, and of course, its constant interferance in politics. We even have priests agitating for political parties or presidential candidates. Not openly, of course, but they always make it known, who do they support, and how do they expect their followers to vote.

Another thing I heard: the Catholic church never officialy canceled the dogma that the Earth is flat. Anyone knows more on this?

[Dystisis]

The point of my post was that, even though the Catholic church in itself isn't as powerful as it once was, it is really the root of a whole movement of "crappy stuff" that still thrives today. To realize this you gotta look at its history.

In its early days, the catholic church was but one of many "churches" or popular institutions that had both a militaristic aspect and theological in Europe. The catholic church was the one who "won" in somewhat of a power struggle, and later of course rid themselves of the traces of their opposition, deemed them heretical and blurred them out of history.

Anyways, the catholic church declared Jesus as 'holy' and not just a political leader as one could have assumed. They actually gathered in meeting and chose which texts to hide from public, which would suit their agenda... obviously they needed a "god" figure worthy of challenging the rival religions. In particular, they demonized or chose not to include many aspects of the story which goes against a conservative line of thinking. Such as; bethania, jesus being born a noble and being a political leader/rebel (against the romans, who obviously needed to be catered to), plus that maria magdalena and jesus probably were married. If they existed.

Up through history, well.. we all know the story. Crusades, scientists being called heretics and loads of different shit, anyone thinking outside the frames of these powerhungry men would be killed and the pages of history would likely skip them.

Not only would science be far better off today if the Catholic church never was (this is of course speculative history, but it is a fun hobby), but there would also probably be alot more clarity in many fields of history which are today occulted.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Unfortunately for the rational, free thinking people of the world despite the thankful decline in the imperitive to listen to the reccomendations of the pope and thus the church, the fact remains that it is as a whole is still as rich as fuck. (Thinking of the vatican bank.) This is exacerbated by the millions of brainless unthinking cretins willingly pumping their cash into it daily through private donation, collection plates and bribes in exchange for 'favors'.

The Catholic church is arguably the most criticised sect in christianity (with damn good reason. Any group that beleive something that stupid should be criticised constantly.) It's supression of advancement and it's followers stranglehold on the policy of every western nation are blatent and unforgivable crimes against humanity. Despite the loss of power by it's leaders the Catholic church's followers are ever more dangerously irrational and backward in the face of what they see as a plague of unbelief.

It's complete corruption, numerous crimes against humanity, sinister intrigues in the political arena and willing use of fear to destroy the lives of it's follower's children should be more than reason enough for it to be abolished at the soonest possible juncture.

Furthermore when I go to the Vatican in 21 days time I will be taking that opinion with me.

[pusher robot]

But anyways, if anyone of you know any history you will know that the catholic church oppressed all forms of science and called it heresy, blurred out large parts of history and even entire beliefs and people like the Cathars.

That's a convenient myth, but it is largely without historical basis. Of course, it is true that the Catholic church was unsupportive of certain scientific theories. But it is also true that the church was far more progressive than the rest of society for most of the feudal period. During the dark ages in Europe, almost all of the science, higher education, and scholarly research was in fact being done by the church.

It is easy to compare the church of the dark ages to the secular society of today and declare it backwards and regressive. But that is presentism of the worst type. You ought to compare it to the secular society of the same time.

Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of serious objections to the church both then and now. You will not ordinarily find me as a defender of the Catholic church. But your lies about history are of such a magnitude as to compel me to do it.

[RedStarOverChina]

During the dark ages in Europe, almost all of the science, higher education, and scholarly research was in fact being done by the church.


Umm, I think that's because feudalism and theocracy reduced everybody in Europe into either ignorant serfs or the barbaric know-nothing-at-all drunkards they call "nobility" (or "no-ability", as the French would say").

And all the "science, higher education, and scholarly research" you spoke of involved a few monks reproducing the "holy scripture" or the likes of such in monasteries.

They were the only literate people left in Europe, and of course they guarded their knowledge jealously against commoners.

[pusher robot]

[quote=Vaginal_Residue;1091166]Umm, I think that's because feudalism and theocracy reduced everybody in Europe into either ignorant serfs or the barbaric know-nothing-at-all drunkards they call "nobility" (or "no-ability", as the French would say").

Isn't that my point? For all the legitimate criticism of the church, it was yet for much of its history more progressive than the rest of society.


And all the "science, higher education, and scholarly research" you spoke of involved a few monks reproducing the "holy scripture" or the likes of such in monasteries.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're not a history major.


Anyways, people have speculated that without the power hungry institution that is the Catholic Church, we could be something like 500 years further in scientific progress and philosophical thought. We could be colonizing space.
Do you realize this argument is commonly made by white supremecists, assuming, as it does, that "scientific progress and philosophical though" is utterly dependent on white Europeans? Does that bother you?

[Demogorgon]

That's a convenient myth, but it is largely without historical basis. Of course, it is true that the Catholic church was unsupportive of certain scientific theories. But it is also true that the church was far more progressive than the rest of society for most of the feudal period. During the dark ages in Europe, almost all of the science, higher education, and scholarly research was in fact being done by the church.

It is easy to compare the church of the dark ages to the secular society of today and declare it backwards and regressive. But that is presentism of the worst type. You ought to compare it to the secular society of the same time.

Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of serious objections to the church both then and now. You will not ordinarily find me as a defender of the Catholic church. But your lies about history are of such a magnitude as to compel me to do it.

I largely agree with that, though I do not think it was a case of the church being more progressive than the rest of feudal society but rather it using the full extent of its power to maintain a scientific monopoly.

[RedStarOverChina]

[quote]
Isn't that my point? For all the legitimate criticism of the church, it was yet for much of its history more progressive than the rest of society.

Only if slave owners can be considered to be more "progressive" than slaves.

Of course, the only reason slaves are not "progressive" is because they are denied education and free thinking by their owners.

Can the Catholic Church be considered "progressive" if it deny its followers of knowledge and education? What good is knowledge when it's placed in the hands of the few who fundamentally fear that knowledge?


I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're not a history major.
That's not a refutation, smartass.

Come up with one and let me know.

[Bud Struggle]

Dont forget the signing of the Concordat agreament with Hitler,

That Pact was signed in 1933. Long before anyone knew what Hitler was really all about. On the other hand the the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed in 1939 when the aims of Hitler were apparent.

Further, as far as the Church having less influence than in the past--the Church's influence has always (for the past 2000 years,) waxed and waned. It's nothing new. On the other hand, one can easily credit Pope John-Paul II (along with Ronald Reagan) with being the main instigator of the fall of Communism in Poland and in the Soviet Union.

So, to Stalin's question about "how many divisions does the Pope have?" The answer is: more than enough to get the job done. The Soviet Union is gone and the Catholic Church, as always, remains. :)

[Demogorgon]

That Pact was signed in 1933. Long before anyone knew what Hitler was really all about. On the other hand the the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed in 1939 when the aims of Hitler were apparent.


No defending the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but it is not true to say that nobody knew what the Nazis were like in 1933, people had a pretty clear idea indeed. The absolute worst was yet to come, but they were far from nie and fluffy then either.

If you have read any of my posts, you will know I am not the type to make blind attacks on religion, but there is no denying that the Catholic Church seriously slipped up when it came to its dealings with the Nazis.

[Bud Struggle]

No defending the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, but it is not true to say that nobody knew what the Nazis were like in 1933, people had a pretty clear idea indeed. The absolute worst was yet to come, but they were far from nie and fluffy then either.

If you have read any of my posts, you will know I am not the type to make blind attacks on religion, but there is no denying that the Catholic Church seriously slipped up when it came to its dealings with the Nazis.

I agree. It was a mistake. But in fairness, I'm sure the Church took Hitler as an Aryan strongman government in the chain of German governments that rose and fell weekly in the defeated Germany after WWI.

No question, it was wrong for the Church to get entangled with the Nazis in any form whatsoever.

[Gitfiddle Jim]

If the Catholic Church still ruled Europe we would still be thinking the Earth was a disc, people would be burned at the stake for "heresy" and we would have the scientific knowledge of cavemen.

[Dystisis]

Pusher Robot you are avoiding the fact that the Catholic church has since its foundation been based on lies and the spreading of lies. It is remarkable in the small amount of critical thinking it requires of its sheep. In fact, it thrives on the suppression of critical thinking. If you believe it has not been this way throughout history then you are mistaken.

This is what is at the core of the fundemental christianity and that necessarily does mean the oppression of critical thought, including science (in the shapes it has taken throughout history that has happened to be "critical").

Obviously, you can say science was conducted in the name of the religion at times. Why is this? Because it had to be. Anything not "in the name of christianity" would be banned/killed and forgotten. There are plenty of examples of scientists, philosophers, and artists who made themselves out to be christians but in private studied subjects that would be considered heretic. Such as the history of christianity, which obviously reveals at even a short glance: A large amount of stolen beliefs from other religions, meetings of old men voting on what is holy and not, not to mention factual errors in so called "holy writings".

[Demogorgon]

If the Catholic Church still ruled Europe we would still be thinking the Earth was a disc, people would be burned at the stake for "heresy" and we would have the scientific knowledge of cavemen.

That is rubbish. The Catholic Church never claimed the world to be flat after all (though it did claim it to be the centre of the Universe). Greek thinkers had proven the world round before the birth of Christ and the Church leaders were aware of this and accepted it.

Like I say the church was never anti-science per se, but wished to maintain its monopoly

[pusher robot]

[quote=Dystisis;1094959]Pusher Robot you are avoiding the fact that the Catholic church has since its foundation been based on lies and the spreading of lies. It is remarkable in the small amount of critical thinking it requires of its sheep. In fact, it thrives on the suppression of critical thinking. If you believe it has not been this way throughout history then you are mistaken.

You are shifting the goalposts, here. Of course the church does not require critical thinking. But it did not often forbid it either. Aquinas, an Aristotelian empiricist, was made a saint by the virtue of his rational inquiry.

This is what is at the core of the fundemental christianity and that necessarily does mean the oppression of critical thought, including science (in the shapes it has taken throughout history that has happened to be "critical").

I think the actual, as opposed to theoretical, conflicts between church and science are greatly exaggerated.

Obviously, you can say science was conducted in the name of the religion at times. Why is this? Because it had to be. Anything not "in the name of christianity" would be banned/killed and forgotten.
I doubt that very much. Science and technological progress did occur outside the church - it's just that in the feudal society of the era there was little call for any research or philosophy, excepting in the instruments of war, where indeed significant work was done without the explicit blessing of the church.
There are plenty of examples of scientists, philosophers, and artists who made themselves out to be christians but in private studied subjects that would be considered heretic. Such as the history of christianity, which obviously reveals at even a short glance: A large amount of stolen beliefs from other religions, meetings of old men voting on what is holy and not, not to mention factual errors in so called "holy writings".Or perhaps you accept that argument without real reason so as to avoid having to take anything more than "a short glance."

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

FAITH: A process of belief unquantified by rational questioning or attainment of factual evidence

The Catholic church has killed millions for failing to demonstrate sufficient faith over the last two thousand years approx 1705 years if the birth of the catholic church can be said to be the cease of organised persecution of christians by the roman empire.

If you assumed that the church itself has killed nobody since 1650 AD (C.E.) and has only killed one million people ever it has killed two point zero four (2.04) people a day that's seven hundred and fourty seven point nine four (747.94) a year for one thousand three hundred and thirty seven (1337) consecutive years.

In the average modern lifetime (75 years approx) the chatholic church killed fifty six thousand and ninety five point five people (56,095.5) just to ensure belief in it's lies.

While it's not a patch on Hilter's final solution or Satlin's Purges the Catholic church has never suffered any consequences for it's murderous depravity.

[pusher robot]

FAITH: A process of belief unquantified by rational questioning or attainment of factual evidence

The Catholic church has killed millions for failing to demonstrate sufficient faith over the last two thousand years approx 1705 years if the birth of the catholic church can be said to be the cease of organised persecution of christians by the roman empire.

If you assumed that the church itself has killed nobody since 1650 AD (C.E.) and has only killed one million people ever it has killed two point zero four (2.04) people a day that's seven hundred and fourty seven point nine four (747.94) a year for one thousand three hundred and thirty seven (1337) consecutive years.

In the average modern lifetime (75 years approx) the chatholic church killed fifty six thousand and ninety five point five people (56,095.5) just to ensure belief in it's lies.

While it's not a patch on Hilter's final solution or Satlin's Purges the Catholic church has never suffered any consequences for it's murderous depravity.

Am I supposed to have faith in your numbers? If not, care to provide a source?

[Ismail]

I don't care about the religious debate, but what about the Catholic Church giving a safe place for Pavelić and such to go to? Any examples of strong anti-Catholic resistance to Fascism? I mean not even the US seemed to have many anti-Fascist Catholic leaders. (Charles Coughlin, for example)


On the other hand the the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed in 1939 when the aims of Hitler were apparent.Of course. The USSR would of suffered invasion otherwise as the Nazi's would of inevitably claimed that the USSR was an aggressive state and that Germany was now tasked with defending Europe against the 'Judeo-Bolshevik' threat.

[Bud Struggle]

Of course. The USSR would of suffered invasion otherwise as the Nazi's would of inevitably claimed that the USSR was an aggressive state and that Germany was now tasked with defending Europe against the 'Judeo-Bolshevik' threat.

So instead two equally rapacious totalitarian countries agreed to devide up the free countries of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania.

Charming. :)

[Ismail]

So instead two equally rapacious totalitarian countries agreed to devide up the free countries of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania.Yes, the Fascist-appeasing feudal state of Poland, the militarist and pro-Fascist states of Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania, and the pro-Fascist monarchist state of Romania. Truly great nations that humanity should aspire to emulate. How dare Stalin ask for half of these countries, he should of allowed the Nazi's full border access to the USSR.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, the Fascist-appeasing feudal state of Poland, the militarist and pro-Fascist states of Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Lithuania, and the pro-Fascist monarchist state of Romania. Truly great nations that humanity should aspire to emulate. How dare Stalin ask for half of these countries, he should of allowed the Nazi's full border access to the USSR.

All countries have the right to self determination. Poland and the other countries attacked NO ONE. They were attacked by a Imperialist Soviet Union and an Imperialist Germany seeking to defend their interests. Poland and the other countries has exactly as much right to a secure border as did the Soviet Union.

Mrdie, I for one think Imperialism is wrong no matter if it's committed by Nazis, Communists or Capitalists.

[Ismail]

Poland and the other countries attacked NO ONE.The USSR asked that Finland lease ports for defense, but the German government warned Finland. Considering that Finland did indeed ally with the Nazi's in WWII (inasmuch as Nazi and Finnish troops both fought the USSR) the CPSU had a legit fear of this, as with Estonia and such.


They were attacked by a Imperialist Soviet Union and an Imperialist Germany seeking to defend their interests.I'm pretty sure that the USSR was viewed as a liberating force in the end, and that the USSR didn't force Poland and such to do whatever the USSR wanted. The Warsaw Pact (albeit made two years after Stalin's death) for example wasn't inherently "everything goes to the USSR", but things like the Brezhnev doctrine made it so. We would of seen the USSR annex the east European states if it was imperialist. (As in, post-war)


All countries have the right to self determination.I disagree. I for example wouldn't support an Afrikaner state in South Africa since it's a fairly racist concept. I wouldn't support an independent Tibet due to a new state holding theocratic and aristocratic views. Would you?


Mrdie, I for one think Imperialism is wrong no matter if it's committed by Nazis, Communists or Capitalists.At least you condemn imperialism, albeit I'm not sure to what extent.

[Green Dragon]

Of course. The USSR would of suffered invasion otherwise as the Nazi's would of inevitably claimed that the USSR was an aggressive state and that Germany was now tasked with defending Europe against the 'Judeo-Bolshevik' threat.
[/QUOTE]

Given the hostility the nazis had toward the catholic church, its almost total lack of support from catholics (from a religious angle, nazism is a protestant affair), perhaps the church leaders actions could be so judged as well.

Or since the vatican is a sovereign country, it is to be expected the two would have diplomatic relations (such as existed between nazi germany and the USA or USSR, or Mexico, or England ect ect ect).

[Bud Struggle]

The USSR asked that Finland lease ports for defense, but the German government warned Finland. Considering that Finland did indeed ally with the Nazi's in WWII (inasmuch as Nazi and Finnish troops both fought the USSR) the CPSU had a legit fear of this, as with Estonia and such.

The Finnish fought against an Soviet domination in the Winter War of 1939 and 1940. Their fight in the war against the Soviet Union allied with Nazi Germany was just a continuation of that war. It was unfortunate they had to be allied with Germany--but they were fighting for survival. I think it was unfortunate that the United States was allied with the Soviet Union in WWII but we had to do what we had to do.


I'm pretty sure that the USSR was viewed as a liberating force in the end, and that the USSR didn't force Poland and such to do whatever the USSR wanted. The Warsaw Pact (albeit made two years after Stalin's death) for example wasn't inherently "everything goes to the USSR", but things like the Brezhnev doctrine made it so. We would of seen the USSR annex the east European states if it was imperialist. (As in, post-war)

No you make a weak argument here. The Lubin overnment was the legitimate government of Poland and was ousted by the occuping Soviets. As far as I could see, both the Soviets and the Nazis were viewed with equal distain by the Polish. As a matter of fact, Poland has a long history of dislike of Russian occupation. And may the Warsaw Pact wasn't intended to make the treaty coutries Soviet puppets--but in fact that's what they became. I was in Poland last year and as far as I could see--the Polish have an eternal hatred for Russia for this last and every other Russian invasion. That's one of the reasons they are going to install the American Missile Defense System--just to spite Russia.


I disagree. I for example wouldn't support an Afrikaner state in South Africa since it's a fairly racist concept. I wouldn't support an independent Tibet due to a new state holding theocratic and aristocratic views. Would you?

Two different points here: South Aferica is it's own country--no one is (was) taking it over, it's racial politics were without a doubt wrong, but it was a decision that had to be made for itself with the support of world embargos, etc. NOT invasion. As far as Tibet goes--I am very much for freedom and self determination for that occupied country. I could care less what they choose to believe. I'm against one country invading and occuping another country for any reason. I'm against America's invasion of Iraq, and I was aganst the Soviet Unions invasion of Afganistan.


At least you condemn imperialism, albeit I'm not sure to what extent.

Pretty much across the board. It's bad for all the countries and people involved.

[Green Dragon]

anyone thinking outside the frames of these powerhungry men would be killed and the pages of history would likely skip them.

What is often strange is that the old classic anarchists tend to come from countries traditionally Catholic or Orthodox by culture.

Why would such lands produce a political temperment where such activity thrives? If thinking "outside the frames" was really socially and culturally castigated?

[Cmde. Slavyanski]

All countries have the right to self determination. Poland and the other countries attacked NO ONE. They were attacked by a Imperialist Soviet Union and an Imperialist Germany seeking to defend their interests. Poland and the other countries has exactly as much right to a secure border as did the Soviet Union.

Mrdie, I for one think Imperialism is wrong no matter if it's committed by Nazis, Communists or Capitalists.

In case you were not aware, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Finland participated in the invasion of the Soviet Union. Poland's nationalists were not the only fighting force in the resistance, there was also a Communist force called the People's Guard and later People's Army which naturally allied with the USSR. In Yugoslavia they managed to liberate their country more or less without Soviet help, and Albania was totally liberated without Red Army intervention. Bulgaria was an Axis state, and it's own people overthrew the government in favor of the Communists. Both Romania and Bulgaria joined the war against Germany after 1944.

While after Stalin the Soviet Union did indeed begin to order these countries around more and more, the creation of the people's democracies was not imperialism. All these countries had Communist movements, and since the Fascists and nationalists failed- guess who stepped in to take the reins of power? In Czechoslovakia and Hungary they were also voted into power in normal elections.

[Dystisis]

What is often strange is that the old classic anarchists tend to come from countries traditionally Catholic or Orthodox by culture.

Why would such lands produce a political temperment where such activity thrives? If thinking "outside the frames" was really socially and culturally castigated?
First off, the whole argument is irrational.

The western world has many countries which are catholic. The thinkers throughout history that are most commonly known today are often from the "western world", or countries that has been in the lead culturally.

Secondly... as I have already said, even if an outwards appearance of catholicism has been necessary in many periods and places, that didn't stop people from the occult in more private spheres. In fact, this gave the origin of the very word "occult". I haven't mentioned anarchism.

[Green Dragon]

The western world has many countries which are catholic. The thinkers throughout history that are most commonly known today are often from the "western world", or countries that has been in the lead culturally.


What thinkers?



Secondly... as I have already said, even if an outwards appearance of catholicism has been necessary in many periods and places, that didn't stop people from the occult in more private spheres. In fact, this gave the origin of the very word "occult". I haven't mentioned anarchism.
[/quote]

I have no idea what the occult being practiced privately by people has to to with the Catholic Church.

My comment about anarchism was in response to your characterisation of the Catholic as a bunch of old guys telling everyone what to do, with severe penalties for transgressors. It had to do with the notion that anarchists tended (historically) have tended to rise up in a catholic, or an orthodox culture.

[Dystisis]

The entire argument is weird because you are obviously unable to come up with numbers for there being more "anarchist" uprisings in catholic countries than others.

Besides, couldn't just that be a sign of the oppression of the catholic church, if it was indeed so?


I have no idea what the occult being practiced privately by people has to to with the Catholic Church.
The occult isn't a specific school of thought, something which is occult simply means something which is hidden. Something can be occulted... The pages of history are mostly written by the powerful, and throughout the years people and beliefs have been occulted and/or demonized.

[Bud Struggle]

In Czechoslovakia and Hungary they were also voted into power in normal elections.

I guess you think they also "voted" their tank invasions in, in 1967 and 1956. :laugh:

[Green Dragon]

The entire argument is weird because you are obviously unable to come up with numbers for there being more "anarchist" uprisings in catholic countries than others.


I did not say "anarchist uprisings." I said "anarchists."
I believe they anarchists on these boards, if they looked at the bios at the great anarchists of the past, would conclude the great preponderence were from Catholic and orthodox lands, not from the reformed lands.



Besides, couldn't just that be a sign of the oppression of the catholic church, if it was indeed so?


It could be. The more likelier explanation is that Catholic Church, being an anarchial institution, fostered an anarchial culture. For example, Martin Luther taught that people should accept total subjection to the secular state. Meanwhile the catholic and Orthodox Church has always taught that people have a right to rebel against unjust government, and to assasinate unjust rulers.



The occult isn't a specific school of thought, something which is occult simply means something which is hidden. Something can be occulted... The pages of history are mostly written by the powerful, and throughout the years people and beliefs have been occulted and/or demonized.


I still have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here, or what relevence to anything otherwise discussed.
But it seems a dying thread, so it probably does not matter,