Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Share

    Walther von Oldenburg
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 894
    Points : 951
    Join date : 2015-01-23
    Age : 25
    Location : Oldenburg

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  Walther von Oldenburg on Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:03 pm

    Kotemore, do you know the incident from 30 Years War by accident?

    France was an ally of Sweden and a French embassy existed in Stockholm. Every sunday Swedish police used to surround the embassy building and would not any Frenchman in. The reason? It was suspected that one of the embassy's staff was a covert Catholic priest who leads prayers(!!!). How much zeal and insanity does one need to have to treat a powerful ally that way?

    Similar incidents never happened in Catholic countries.

    Cucumber Khan
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 84
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2015-04-12

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  Cucumber Khan on Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:13 pm

    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Kotemore, do you know the incident from 30 Years War by accident?

    France was an ally of Sweden and a French embassy existed in Stockholm. Every sunday Swedish police used to surround the embassy building and would not any Frenchman in. The reason? It was suspected that one of the embassy's staff was a covert Catholic priest who leads prayers(!!!). How much zeal and insanity does one need to have to treat a powerful ally that way?

    Similar incidents never happened in Catholic countries.

    That's nonsense. They were allowed to have catholic priests that prayed for them in private. The crux was, they wanted no public preaching. And "police"? Lol, there were no organized police in Sweden at that point.

    Furthermore, the french hugenots would disagree with you...and how many protestant prayers were allowed in Madrid? The catholics were just as insane.

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 418
    Points : 482
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  jhelb on Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:30 pm

    Cucumber Khan wrote:Furthermore, the french hugenots would disagree with you...and how many protestant prayers were allowed in Madrid? The catholics were just as insane.

    Not too many, but that is because Protestants were no longer seen as Christians.  In the Catholic movement (about 1592) which followed the Council of Trent only Catholic theologians and a few princes had taken part; the second movement, on the contrary, carried with it the masses of the clergy and laity, and was marked by an ardent spirit of faith and a passionate demand for the spread of Catholicism. Among Protestants the idealistic enthusiasm was not so great, still their partisan feeling was equally violent and their combativeness no less ardent.


    Even to this day, Protestants still maintain this violent streak. Which also explains the numerous atrocities that the UK carried out against Catholic & Orthodox states like Ireland,Argentina and Serbia till the 20th century.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  higurashihougi on Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:19 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:That's totally paradoxal. THe people who pushed for that reform were mostly Rich and Litterate they weren't going to free anyone but their wn ambitions. The fact is that when the St Barthelemy happened in France half of Paris 'bourgeois' went missing and a good bunch of Nobles as well. The Protestant weren't trying to crush no power, the same as the first Christians weren't interested in tolerating paganism. It was a simple dress-up.

    Yes they were. They tried to crush the power and authority of the priest.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Dogmatic following leads to shit like Calvin and ISIS.

    Of course it does. But in the 15 th century it was used as a mean to attack the authority system of the Catholic Church.

    And let me remind you that Protestant Movement in 15th century was not homogenous. Remember Thomas Muntze, hero of the 1525 uprising in Germany ?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Authority and power was well separated since the beginning. That's why you see a twin-headed eagle. It's a symbol meanning that spiritual power and temporal power are two different things. That's why you have an Emperor and a Pope. Don't forget the
    initial point of the Pope was the Emperor's home. Rome. The Temporal Power grew the Spiritual one.

    In reality, the Church is a powerful and influential political power, especially in Germany. In medieval Germany, 1/3 amount of agricultural land is the asset of the Church. Religious taxes and other income were collected much more effectively in Germany, thanks to the authority and power of the Church.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Nope Protestants grew as heavyweights because a huge part of the German Nobility was to happy to point their fingers to the filthy deceiving southerners (just like...today).

    No.

    Huge number of peasants and working class members joined the Protestant Movement. At the beginning of the movement, many of them considered Luther as hero - until Luther betrayed the movement and backstabbed the Protestant working class.

    Many leaders of the peasant and working class uprisings, like the hero Thomas Muntze, was inspired by the Protestant Movement.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Then the Protestant disease hit France and crippled the country foe two full centuries.

    Like all kinds of religious war in the earth.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:So women to be redressed up to the neck, not being able to work in company of men.

    Feminism didn't exist in 15th century.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Various prohibitions (music, gambling, non-canon litterature) but most of these for the city-dwellers. The Nobles (and the rich) would go by the same old school like always.

    Because the leadership of Protestant Movement quickly fell into the hand of rich citizens and secular aristocrats, which degraded the movement into an half-ass reform. Luther also backstabbed the working class in the later period of the movement.

    Protestant Movement is not homogenous. There were workers, there were poor city dwellers, there are peasants, there were also secular aristocrats, rich businessmen, some priests. All them desired a weakened Catholic Church, but only the peasants and poor working class demanded a thoroughly and absolute reform, similar to Thomas Muntze. The rich citizens and secular aristocrat were all half-ass participants, they only desired a weakened Catholic Church so that they could absorb the wealth of the Church and paved the way for their own business affairs without intervention of religious power.

    Leadership of Protestant Movement quickly fell into the hand of new-born bourgeoisie class and the secular aristocrats. They backstabbed the working class and started to make compromises with the priests. Peasant movement like Thomas Muntze 1925 uprising was pressed down into a bloodbath.

    To be true, Protestant Movement had typical characteristic of bourgeoisie class, it is a religious bourgeoisie movement. The bourgeoisie characteristic is shown at the aim to both destroy the Catholic authority system (strip off the priest's authority, simplify the religious ritual, decentralized the Church system,...) and suppress the movement of working class (cooperate with the aristocrats, quickly make compromise with the priests, keep using the idea of Faith and Fate and Submission to monopolize the public...).

    The bourgeoisie class wanted a weakened Church system so that they could absorb the wealth of the Church and could do business without the Church intervention. But they still wanted to exploit the working class and prevented whatever social reform which might harm their privileges. The bourgeoisie characteristic is the reason why Protestant Movement was half-assed and quickly degraded.

    No matter what, Protestant Movement pay a considerable role in crippling the Catholic hegemony and paved the way for secular authority to rise.

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 418
    Points : 482
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  jhelb on Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:54 am

    higurashihougi wrote:
    No matter what, Protestant Movement pay a considerable role in crippling the Catholic hegemony and paved the way for secular authority to rise.

    Protestants and secular ??????? Are you serious about this.

    Some of the most heinous crimes in the last 2 centuries have been carried out by Protestants.

    Do you know why Protestants carried out such large scale genocides in South America, Africa, Australia and Asia?

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  higurashihougi on Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:27 am

    jhelb wrote:
    higurashihougi wrote:
    No matter what, Protestant Movement pay a considerable role in crippling the Catholic hegemony and paved the way for secular authority to rise.

    Protestants and secular ??????? Are you serious about this.

    Some of the most heinous crimes in the last 2 centuries have been carried out by Protestants.

    Do you know why Protestants carried out such large scale genocides in South America, Africa, Australia and Asia?

    I did not say Protestant today. I implied the Protestant Movement in 15th century. At that time its activity against Catholic hegemony and against the tradition priest authority system crippled the power and authority of priests, created vacuum for secular power to gradually enter.

    ====

    The destruction and genocide at Mesoamerica and Inca was caused by Catholic Spaniards.

    In the case of killing non-Christian and destroying non-Christian culture, Vatican is no less than Protestant.

    We Vietnamese has one of the biggest Catholic community in the East, and we already witnessed how the Vatican use religion to invade Vietnam and to destroy the native culture/belief of Vietnam. Fortunately for us, our Catholic fellows understand between the Motherland and the Vatican, which is heavier.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3565
    Points : 3600
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Aug 05, 2015 10:26 am

    Cucumber Khan wrote:
    Walther von Oldenburg wrote:Kotemore, do you know the incident from 30 Years War by accident?

    France was an ally of Sweden and a French embassy existed in Stockholm. Every sunday Swedish police used to surround the embassy building and would not any Frenchman in. The reason? It was suspected that one of the embassy's staff was a covert Catholic priest who leads prayers(!!!). How much zeal and insanity does one need to have to treat a powerful ally that way?

    Similar incidents never happened in Catholic countries.

    That's nonsense. They were allowed to have catholic priests that prayed for them in private. The crux was, they wanted no public preaching. And "police"? Lol, there were no organized police in Sweden at that point.

    Furthermore, the french hugenots would disagree with you...and how many protestant prayers were allowed in Madrid? The catholics were just as insane.

    The idea isn't that Catholics were "better". The idea is that Protestants were self-styled assholes who thought THEY WERE BETTER. Catholics as I said, were going the way of every mass sect had before (Think of Egypt) but on a whole other scale. As for the French Hugenots, well ask yourself how they came to be Hugenots and what was before the hugenots (Cathares, "Albigeois", Normands). Protestantism in France was a political masquerade even more so than in Germany. "Paris vaut bien une Messe".

    When compared to the Albigeois and Cathares as a whole, the Hugenots appear like Grade-A bullshiters trying to protect their status through sectarian idology. And ironically they in great majority qualified people dissatisfied with new capitation and profit taxation from Louis XIV. Which ironically was put in place to protect the very mercantilist policy these people were supporting. Seen how they reacted to those taxes and the fact the SOB's would support la Fronde, Louis XIV, as any good mafioso, started the Rihanna Policy (aka Bitch better have my money ASAP). They refused, so they got dragoons at home, for protection...

    Studying the history on many levels can make one learn far more than you want to admitt. As for the Preaching part, one of the issues with Protestant assholes (especially from Switzerland) is that they would go and smuggle Protestant bibles and peach on Catholic lands to test the watters. Just like they do today (aka do you have a moment for thy Lord Haysoos Christobal).

    It's something very interesting to see how the Protestants try to wear the good guy's garbs.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  higurashihougi on Wed Aug 05, 2015 10:38 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:The idea is that Protestants were self-styled assholes who thought THEY WERE BETTER.

    Protestant and Catholic are opponents, and of course we always say that we are better than our opponent.

    I don't really care, thought.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3565
    Points : 3600
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:23 am

    higurashihougi wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:That's totally paradoxal. THe people who pushed for that reform were mostly Rich and Litterate they weren't going to free anyone but their wn ambitions. The fact is that when the St Barthelemy happened in France half of Paris 'bourgeois' went missing and a good bunch of Nobles as well. The Protestant weren't trying to crush no power, the same as the first Christians weren't interested in tolerating paganism. It was a simple dress-up.

    Yes they were. They tried to crush the power and authority of the priest.
    And replace it with the Preacher? That be something yo.



    KoTeMoRe wrote:Dogmatic following leads to shit like Calvin and ISIS.

    Of course it does. But in the 15 th century it was used as a mean to attack the authority system of the Catholic Church.

    And let me remind you that Protestant Movement in 15th century was not homogenous. Remember Thomas Muntze, hero of the 1525 uprising in Germany ?


    Yes a hero that led an uprising for his own personal profit? Remember what the 1525 uprising was? A common peasant and daily caller uprising like Europe had seen all along its medieval history because of the manse system in Western Europe. Remember how it ended? It ended because Muntzer was way too hardcore even for his own followers. His social reform idea was all good, too bad it was to complete the Opera Dei. In a sense, if you take the beheadings and jibberish from ISIS, Muntzer was your Al Baghdadi without a beard spiced with a little Trotsky.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Authority and power was well separated since the beginning. That's why you see a twin-headed eagle. It's a symbol meaning that spiritual power and temporal power are two different things. That's why you have an Emperor and a Pope. Don't forget the
    initial point of the Pope was the Emperor's home. Rome. The Temporal Power grew the Spiritual one.

    In reality, the Church is a powerful and influential political power, especially in Germany. In medieval Germany, 1/3 amount of agricultural land is the asset of the Church. Religious taxes and other income were collected much more effectively in Germany, thanks to the authority and power of the Church.

    Eheheh, ok you didn't got the memo, so I'll explain once more to you. The Fact that the Church would posses land, was due to the decay and dislocation of the Western Roman Empire. The Titles granted by the Roman Empire were recovered by the only institution that survived and that's the Church of Rome. Those possessions would endure mainly because the church was also among the only place when you could be given an education, therefore, being able to manage vast arable land. This made them collude with the temporal power, which is quite normal, think about who owned those manses before the Church. It were Roman noblemen. Once again, One third of the land is of the Church, thing about the rest of it, who owns it, and you'll see who wanted a piece of the Church...
    Only 10% of the arable land was communal land (IE "free land" from servage or corvées) which still was to be paid. So about 90% of the arable land was held by the Nobles and the Church. Guess who would like to see the Church "participate" a little more? That ain't the church or the Daily callers, nope. And as the Church had not the possibility to bear arms (bar the military orders and hiring mercenaries) the main protection came from secular companies and the Aristocrats. Now back to 1525 revolt, what were the top claims? Death penalty, more communal land, Secularization of Church land, Primacy of the Local Prince over the population, less taxation... (cfr the 12 Articles). Tis funny, we have the Nobility reinforced in most cases and the Church weakened? What do you think this is?



    KoTeMoRe wrote:Nope Protestants grew as heavyweights because a huge part of the German Nobility was to happy to point their fingers to the filthy deceiving southerners (just like...today).

    No.

    Huge number of peasants and working class members joined the Protestant Movement. At the beginning of the movement, many of them considered Luther as hero - until Luther betrayed the movement and backstabbed the Protestant working class.

    On of the leading protestant complaing about Roman Césaro-Papism was that it was a foreign force conspiring against local interests. UP to the 20th century in the freaking US, the papist scare (Hello JFK, Italian and Irish Immigrants) was based partly on that. Rome pulls the strings.

    Many leaders of the peasant and working class uprisings, like the hero Thomas Muntze, was inspired by the Protestant Movement.

    Yeah, too bad they would ask subsidiarity of the power (temporal, only when there were franchised entities, ergo entities that were freed from Noble supervision like free cities. However they would ask for all ecclesiastic land to be secularized. Ergo to be taken from the Church and the taxation in favor of the church to be decided by communal authorities. So basically after plundering the church the communes would dissolve the local congregations and then decide if they would pay the dîme to the dissolved congregations...Yay, that's not spoliation, it's Protestantism.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:Then the Protestant disease hit France and crippled the country foe two full centuries.

    Like all kinds of religious war in the earth.

    Funny Spain managed quite well and they had some serious sedition issues. Hell compared to France, even the Spanish Netherlands that were a hellhole for more than a century thanks to Orangist scum and Spanish retards, managed the same base of development during the same timeframe.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:So women to be redressed up to the neck, not being able to work in company of men.

    Feminism didn't exist in 15th century.

    You don't know much about women and work in the Middleages do you? That meant that service in most Innkeeps and taverns would have to be done by men, work in the fields? Same. The fuck you think women were doeing all day? Sitting at home reading Inquisition Magazine?


    KoTeMoRe wrote:Various prohibitions (music, gambling, non-canon litterature) but most of these for the city-dwellers. The Nobles (and the rich) would go by the same old school like always.

    Because the leadership of Protestant Movement quickly fell into the hand of rich citizens and secular aristocrats, which degraded the movement into an half-ass reform. Luther also backstabbed the working class in the later period of the movement.

    Nothing quickly falls nowhere...It's there since the conception. The fact that peasants were played, that's something plausible. Look at the recent "Arab Spring". How quickly did it fell to Islamism and local rich families?


    Protestant Movement is not homogenous. There were workers, there were poor city dwellers, there are peasants, there were also secular aristocrats, rich businessmen, some priests. All them desired a weakened Catholic Church, but only the peasants and poor working class demanded a thoroughly and absolute reform, similar to Thomas Muntze. The rich citizens and secular aristocrat were all half-ass participants, they only desired a weakened Catholic Church so that they could absorb the wealth of the Church and paved the way for their own business affairs without intervention of religious power.

    Guess who won and why?


    Leadership of Protestant Movement quickly fell into the hand of new-born bourgeoisie class and the secular aristocrats. They backstabbed the working class and started to make compromises with the priests. Peasant movement like Thomas Muntze 1925 uprising was pressed down into a bloodbath.

    To be true, Protestant Movement had typical characteristic of bourgeoisie class, it is a religious bourgeoisie movement. The bourgeoisie characteristic is shown at the aim to both destroy the Catholic authority system (strip off the priest's authority, simplify the religious ritual, decentralized the Church system,...) and suppress the movement of working class (cooperate with the aristocrats, quickly make compromise with the priests, keep using the idea of Faith and Fate and Submission to monopolize the public...).

    Tis funny that was my point.

    The bourgeoisie class wanted a weakened Church system so that they could absorb the wealth of the Church and could do business without the Church intervention. But they still wanted to exploit the working class and prevented whatever social reform which might harm their privileges. The bourgeoisie characteristic is the reason why Protestant Movement was half-assed and quickly degraded.

    No matter what, Protestant Movement pay a considerable role in crippling the Catholic hegemony and paved the way for secular authority to rise.

    Paved the way for a certain new power and secular to boot. And so with a weakened Catholic Church, 4 centuries later a certain Adolf. H. tried to close the deal, eliminating physically when it was possible the remaining priests in Germany. Ergo the Catholic congregations became, because of these anti-catholic uprisings, in the long run, the only opposition to Junkers and Cartels while the Protestant Reform lead to some awful social results especially in the 18th century.

    Guys like Thomas Muntzer were self-destructive. They couldn't set with their time, they would enjoy anarchy of the purest form because their idea wasn't so different from Savonarole's perpetual purificaition (revolution) which simply couldn't bear any other fruit but constant infighting. The level of drastic and expedite justice these folks were pushing for was already in contradiction with their own claims.



    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3565
    Points : 3600
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:38 am

    higurashihougi wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:The idea is that Protestants were self-styled assholes who thought THEY WERE BETTER.

    Protestant and Catholic are opponents, and of course we always say that we are better than our opponent.

    I don't really care, thought.

    Problem is that Protestantism was lost time for social change. Because protestantism was simply aimed at the Church and supported by part of the Nobles in Germany. In France it was something else, it became a seditious rift with people putting their local preferences before the French Kingdom. Which had escaped dislocation only 50 years from there...The 30 year war only enshrined the very nefarious role religious "reform" without social reform had on the society.


    Godric
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 391
    Points : 405
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Location : Alba (Scotland)

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  Godric on Wed Aug 05, 2015 5:21 pm

    the most Protestant country in the world is Scotland even to this day the wee free church of Scotland refers the pope as the Anti-Christ even to this day the head of state of the UK must be no catholic or it would break the act of Union between Scotland & England

    jhelb
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 418
    Points : 482
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  jhelb on Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:33 pm

    Godric wrote:the most Protestant country in the world is Scotland even to this day the wee free church of Scotland refers the pope as the Anti-Christ even to this day the head of state of the UK must be no catholic or it would break the act of Union between Scotland & England

    x2. This also explains why Scotland will never become an independent country.

    Godric
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 391
    Points : 405
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Location : Alba (Scotland)

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  Godric on Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:17 pm

    jhelb wrote:
    Godric wrote:the most Protestant country in the world is Scotland even to this day the wee free church of Scotland refers the pope as the Anti-Christ even to this day the head of state of the UK must be no catholic or it would break the act of Union between Scotland & England

    x2. This also explains why Scotland will never become an independent country.

    the UK is finished even the unionist politicians admit this ... their will be another referendum around 2017/18 ... religion is no longer a driving force in our politics their are now around 30% of the country including myself regard ourselves Atheists a year before the referendum their was 25% in support of Independence

    Svyatoslavich
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 252
    Points : 263
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Buenos Aires

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  Svyatoslavich on Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:54 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:The destruction and genocide at Mesoamerica and Inca was caused by Catholic Spaniards.
    No, my friend, in this you are completely wrong. Soon after Columbus "discovery", Queen Isabel the Catholic issued laws granting citizenship to American Indians and stating that the purpose was to convert them to Christianity and avoid using the force. Slaving was completely prohibited. Of course, as everywhere, together with many faithful priest and lay Christians and honest working men, there were some SOB who were willing to do everything for their personal interests. Also, for those who so wished it was easy to commit abuses, as the new territory was huge, population was sparse, and news took months to reach Spain. Nowadays there are so many ethnical Indians/mestizos in Latin American thanks to the Catholic Church. Guarani, a native language, is spoken by everyone in Paraguay thanks to the Jesuitic missions. Where the Catholics weren't (US, Australia, Canada) is where the natives were really exterminated, and only small traces of their culture, languages and genes remain. The "Black Legend" was invented mainly by Protestants states, not only to weaken the Catholic church (a practice that continues nowadays, giving a lot of worldwide resonance for each scandal committed within the Church) but also to stir revolutionary and independency wishes among the Latin American population. Also, all the "founding fathers" of American countries (Bolivar, San Martin, prince Peter of Portugal who declared the Brazilian independence) were freemasons, just like their US colleagues.
    Want to see a really good and historically correct Hollywood movie about the Jesuit missions in South America? Watch "The Mission", with Robert de Niro and Jeremy Irons. This is a very good start to know a bit about the Catholic Church in this region.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2129
    Points : 2244
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:20 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:And replace it with the Preacher? That be something yo.

    They are designed to suit the taste of bourgeoisie class and the bourgeoisized secular aristocrats. These "new" priests cannot outcompete with the authority and power of the secular nobles, and are less likely to intervene with the rich merchants' business affairs. But they still have the theocratic tools and power to monopolize and enslave the working class, to prevent the working class from rebelling against the bourgeoisie and nobles.

    Protestant Movement crippled the power of the Church and let secular power step in. But because it had bourgeoisie characteristic, it did not carry out complete social reform to fully benefit the poor citizens. The newly risen bourgeoisie still used the Church to propagate bullshit superstitions blah blah bleh... until today.

    It takes times for the working class to further topple all the religious supersititions made by the rulers... but at least the Church power was weakened after the Protestant Movement.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Yes a hero that led an uprising for his own personal profit? Remember what the 1525 uprising was? A common peasant and daily caller uprising like Europe had seen all along its medieval history because of the manse system in Western Europe. Remember how it ended? It ended because Muntzer was way too hardcore even for his own followers. His social reform idea was all good, too bad it was to complete the Opera Dei. In a sense, if you take the beheadings and jibberish from ISIS, Muntzer was your Al Baghdadi without a beard spiced with a little Trotsky.

    At least he aimed for a complete social reform to benefit the lower class and aimed to built an utopian society, unlike the half-assed Protestants you are talking about. Muntzer's "theological idea" has many progressive and revolutionary viewpoints, in some rare cases it is quite close to atheism.

    1525 peasant uprising is an remarkable event in that time, and in many countries (including mine) it was considered as an icon for the struggle of the peasants against the feudal landlords.

    The uprising ended because the noble lords and bourgeoisie class sent an army there and crushed them.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Eheheh, ok you didn't got the memo, so I'll explain once more to you. The Fact that the Church would posses land, was due to the decay and dislocation of the Western Roman Empire. The Titles granted by the Roman Empire were recovered by the only institution that survived and that's the Church of Rome. Those possessions would endure mainly because the church was also among the only place when you could be given an education, therefore, being able to manage vast arable land. This made them collude with the temporal power, which is quite normal, think about who owned those manses before the Church. It were Roman noblemen. Once again, One third of the land is of the Church, thing about the rest of it, who owns it, and you'll see who wanted a piece of the Church...

    What I see is the struggle between religious aristocrat aka the Church and secular aristocrats.

    The Medieval Catholic Church is effectively a member of the aristocrat feudal class and they exploited the working class like all other kinds of aristocrats.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Now back to 1525 revolt, what were the top claims? Death penalty, more communal land, Secularization of Church land, Primacy of  the Local Prince over the population, less taxation... (cfr the 12 Articles). Tis funny, we have the Nobility reinforced in most cases and the Church weakened? What do you think this is?

    Death penalty ? What is the problem of that issue ?

    More communal land ? Why not ?

    Secularization of Church land ? For me the Church is effectively religious aristocrat and I have no tear to shed for the downfall of an aristocrat.

    Less taxation ? Is there any problem ?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:On of the leading protestant complaing about Roman Césaro-Papism was that it was a foreign force conspiring against local interests. UP to the 20th century in the freaking US, the papist scare (Hello JFK, Italian and Irish Immigrants) was based partly on that. Rome pulls the strings.

    I don't care if you criticize them and I don't care a shit about them. Just like I don't care about a f*king thug on the street and I don't care if you call the police to arrest him.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:However they would ask for all ecclesiastic land to be secularized. Ergo to be taken from the Church and the taxation in favor of the church to be decided by communal authorities. So basically after plundering the church the communes would dissolve the local congregations and then decide if they would pay the dîme to the dissolved congregations...Yay, that's not spoliation, it's Protestantism.

    What is so bad about secularization of Church assets ? I don't feel sad for the downfall of an religious aristocrat aka the Church.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Nothing quickly falls nowhere...It's there since the conception. The fact that peasants were played, that's something plausible. Look at the recent "Arab Spring". How quickly did it fell to Islamism and local rich families?

    Yes, I also agreed that the peasnts were played. Or in my way of saying, the working class was backstabbed by most the Protestant leaders which were member of the bourgeoisie class and/or secular nobles.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Guess who won and why?

    The Protestant Movement has typical bourgeoisie characteristic and of course it is designed to bring victory to the newly-risen bourgeoisie class toghether with its ally, the secular nobilty.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Tis funny that was my point.

    Okay ?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Paved the way for a certain new power and secular to boot. And so with a weakened Catholic Church, 4 centuries later a certain Adolf. H. tried to close the deal, eliminating physically when it was possible the remaining priests in Germany. Ergo the Catholic congregations became, because of these anti-catholic uprisings, in the long run, the only opposition to Junkers and Cartels while the Protestant Reform lead to some awful social results especially in the 18th century.

    So you prefer a global feudal theocratic dictatorship named Vatican ?

    I see nothing good from the leadership of Vatican, just like I see nothing good from the leadership of the Protestant Churches.

    And what does it have with Adolf Hitler ?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Guys like Thomas Muntzer were self-destructive. They couldn't set with their time, they would enjoy anarchy of the purest form because their idea wasn't so different from Savonarole's perpetual purificaition (revolution) which simply couldn't bear any other fruit but constant infighting. The level of drastic and expedite justice these folks were pushing for was already in contradiction with their own claims.

    At least what they were seeking is the destruction of the upper class so that poor citizens and working class can enjoy the benefit of justice and equality. The problem is that they failed to see the correct way to carry out that dream.

    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3565
    Points : 3600
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:56 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:And replace it with the Preacher? That be something yo.

    They are designed to suit the taste of bourgeoisie class and the bourgeoisized secular aristocrats. These "new" priests cannot outcompete with the authority and power of the secular nobles, and are less likely to intervene with the rich merchants' business affairs. But they still have the theocratic tools and power to monopolize and enslave the working class, to prevent the working class from rebelling against the bourgeoisie and nobles.

    Yet the preachers are businessmen themselves the US example of Megachurches and call 0800 donations are far more potent than the basic proximity service than the regular churches offer. And in many ways, albeit totally anachronistic in quality, they fulfill a very important role in the community. Visibility. That's gone with the Privacy of protestantism.




    Protestant Movement crippled the power of the Church and let secular power step in. But because it had bourgeoisie characteristic, it did not carry out complete social reform to fully benefit the poor citizens. The newly risen bourgeoisie still used the Church to propagate bullshit superstitions blah blah bleh... until today.

    It takes times for the working class to further topple all the religious supersititions made by the rulers... but at least the Church power was weakened after the Protestant Movement.

    It didn't cripple anything again. Historically protestantism just replaced the former power. In Germany up to this day you have to pay ecclesiastic taxation. The problem is that there was no "working class then". Peasantry is an amorphous entity. The "real" working class aka the daily callers in the Middle Age, people without land and profession, would be lumpen proletariat at best. So these people's uprisings would be :

    1. Land centered.
    2. Protectionist with a very big local focus.

    There's no religious "superstition" for a 16th century German. He's never seen or heard anything else. Christianism is the norm. Superstition (check the etymology) is when you choose to believe something albeit people show you that's wrong and more plausible explanations exist. So there IS NO WAY to fight "superstition", or Christianism, because there's no centralized state which would act as counter with laws and education. Those who tried that (Byzantium, Ottoman Empire) had all their religion enshrined. So you would be educated by the "state" but to love thy God.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:Yes a hero that led an uprising for his own personal profit? Remember what the 1525 uprising was? A common peasant and daily caller uprising like Europe had seen all along its medieval history because of the manse system in Western Europe. Remember how it ended? It ended because Muntzer was way too hardcore even for his own followers. His social reform idea was all good, too bad it was to complete the Opera Dei. In a sense, if you take the beheadings and jibberish from ISIS, Muntzer was your Al Baghdadi without a beard spiced with a little Trotsky.

    At least he aimed for a complete social reform to benefit the lower class and aimed to built an utopian society, unlike the half-assed Protestants you are talking about. Muntzer's "theological idea" has many progressive and revolutionary viewpoints, in some rare cases it is quite close to atheism.

    1525 peasant uprising is an remarkable event in that time, and in many countries (including mine) it was considered as an icon for the struggle of the peasants against the feudal landlords.

    The uprising ended because the noble lords and bourgeoisie class sent an army there and crushed them.


    Muntzer failed to convince the Communal Companies of Thuringia that the complete overhaul of the social structure in Thuringia would lead to a "better world". NO ONE wanted to redistribute land acquired. Even the Peasant Companies understood that once they took those areas for their use, nothing would impede other companies (or the Noblemen) to crush them. It's simply the Pandora Box complex. If you start something you can't handle in the long run, you better simply not start it. This is something the Germans would do time and again with mixed results.


    ]quote="KoTeMoRe"]Eheheh, ok you didn't got the memo, so I'll explain once more to you. The Fact that the Church would posses land, was due to the decay and dislocation of the Western Roman Empire. The Titles granted by the Roman Empire were recovered by the only institution that survived and that's the Church of Rome. Those possessions would endure mainly because the church was also among the only place when you could be given an education, therefore, being able to manage vast arable land. This made them collude with the temporal power, which is quite normal, think about who owned those manses before the Church. It were Roman noblemen. Once again, One third of the land is of the Church, thing about the rest of it, who owns it, and you'll see who wanted a piece of the Church...

    What I see is the struggle between religious aristocrat aka the Church and secular aristocrats.[/quote]

    The problem is that the Church as the Aristocrats weren't on the same page, nor were the same. And this was mostly a regional power struggle. In Italy the Church would be very progressive in the second Italy (just above the papal states) think of Urbino or Perugia. Very corrupt in the Papal states (with some exceptions notably Rome's Normal Orders would be a good counter to their hierarchy). In northern Italy the Church would struggle with the local population, thus would be rather meek, while in lower Lombardy and Tuscany the Church would work hand on hand with the Nobles as their "cultural watchdog". Then you had special cases like the Venetian Republic which would see virtually NO CHURCH inflexion or the Southern church totally devoted to promote a kind of "italianism" before the Nationalist Era against both the Moors and the Spaniards.

    This is the same everywhere, While the church wields power it is also often the only remedy to Aristocracy, while sometimes it's the contrary. For a XXIst century mind those are unacceptable, but then there was nothing else...


    The Medieval Catholic Church is effectively a member of the aristocrat feudal class and they exploited the working class like all other kinds of aristocrats.

    They're in covert competition rather than being the same.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:Now back to 1525 revolt, what were the top claims? Death penalty, more communal land, Secularization of Church land, Primacy of  the Local Prince over the population, less taxation... (cfr the 12 Articles). Tis funny, we have the Nobility reinforced in most cases and the Church weakened? What do you think this is?

    Death penalty ? What is the problem of that issue ?[/quote] The peasants wanted the death penalty to be dropped. While themselves were massacring Noblemen...don't you see the issue? Furthermore without death penalty how are you going to punish in the XVIth century serious offenders. That would mean creating local jails...and you know what they say about Jails...you must use them or the jails would use you...

    More communal land ? Why not ?

    Who's going to pay for those and how? Was that status going to be protected or the land would be re-bought? Think of how the Enclosures in England worked? Communal land was re-acquired little by little until the 18th century...then it was in the hands of a few. That's how market economy works.

    Secularization of Church land ? For me the Church is effectively religious aristocrat and I have no tear to shed for the downfall of an aristocrat.
    See above, Ecclesiastic land insured some food relief for the poor. medicinal gardens and preservation of ecosystems. That's the same actually with Forestae, reserved for the Noblemen. The biodiversity was protected by the fact the hunts were rather few, they also allowed for pig fattening. The Medieval ecosystem and economy is way more diverse. Redistribution of arable land happened around the end of the Xth century till the XIth with very bad results because of the inherent cost and generally poor agricultural techniques. In 2 centuries researchers think that almost a quarter of European forests were razed for cultures...think about today and think about western Europe vs Eastern Europe. It's fact that peasants don't give two shits generally about their ecosystem.

    Less taxation ? Is there any problem ?

    By virtue of suppressing the Church capitation, there's indeed less taxation. Guess who gets to keep its revenue stream?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:On of the leading protestant complaing about Roman Césaro-Papism was that it was a foreign force conspiring against local interests. UP to the 20th century in the freaking US, the papist scare (Hello JFK, Italian and Irish Immigrants) was based partly on that. Rome pulls the strings.

    I don't care if you criticize them and I don't care a shit about them. Just like I don't care about a f*king thug on the street and I don't care if you call the police to arrest him.

    PRoblem is that there was no Police in the streets, just thugs, one pretending to be love you, the other just calling you his bitch. You obviously like it rough. The point is that the revolt is romanticized in the Germany because it had the premisses of a proto-nationalist uprising coupled with a poor-peoples "revolution". However, the real deal is that it was simply wanton violence from people that weren't brighter than two oxes. Hence the utter general failure and the largely local successes. The Revolt was in line with at least 10 such revolts since the mid XVth century. Only this time something remained. That was "Protestantism".


    KoTeMoRe wrote:However they would ask for all ecclesiastic land to be secularized. Ergo to be taken from the Church and the taxation in favor of the church to be decided by communal authorities. So basically after plundering the church the communes would dissolve the local congregations and then decide if they would pay the dîme to the dissolved congregations...Yay, that's not spoliation, it's Protestantism.

    What is so bad about secularization of Church assets ? I don't feel sad for the downfall of an religious aristocrat aka the Church.

    What's to stop those people from stripping everyone from their land if they can't compete? In an extensive agricultural system, people would need "more land and more hands" what's to say that this wouldn't happen down the line. Those whose yields go down, simply vindicate on those who have better yields. That's textbook Italian Mezzogiorno. That's how "Mafia" started. As a tool to keep everyone in check. Historical perspective is something Communists should always have, that's what defines Communism. Sometimes Marx should have let it go. Engels calling Muntzer a pro-Communist was far fetched. It's not because someone takes arms against the powerful that he's truly revolutionary or his actions are to be condoned. There have been a lot of conservative uprisings in Europe. Conservatism can sound very progressive depending which school of thinking you pick to follow. That's how naturalism works. And that's how Muntzer thought, spice that with a trickle of religion and perpetual purification.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Nothing quickly falls nowhere...It's there since the conception. The fact that peasants were played, that's something plausible. Look at the recent "Arab Spring". How quickly did it fell to Islamism and local rich families?

    Yes, I also agreed that the peasnts were played. Or in my way of saying, the working class was backstabbed by most the Protestant leaders which were member of the bourgeoisie class and/or secular nobles.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Guess who won and why?

    The Protestant Movement has typical bourgeoisie characteristic and of course it is designed to bring victory to the newly-risen bourgeoisie class toghether with its ally, the secular nobilty.

    Now this is something Protestants don't like. It's called cross-sectioning.

    Let us all take the Lutheran rise to power.

    1. He's been said to have printed more than 20000 bibles, books plus about the same number of "manifestos" Who would pay for that? THis is early XVIth century. Luther said he made no money on the work (although we know now he did) but who paid for the initial 500 bibles? Especially as Luther was in "held" in Wittenberg?
    2. Who would distribute his bibles, each costing a fortune by then. Often people think the Luther Bibles were for the commoner. While actually they weren't. The Bibles of 22 (New testament) were for the theologians and "bourgeois". The work that had the most impact was the Small Catechism itself costing also a fortune to print since it was done so in at least 2000 copies while Luther was alive.
    3. Who would distribute his bibles knowing that Luther was excommunicated without "protection".
    4. His number at the Diet of Worms was pretty much for show as part of the diet the Diet had decided to protect him and start a de-Romanization process.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Tis funny that was my point.

    Okay ?

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Paved the way for a certain new power and secular to boot. And so with a weakened Catholic Church, 4 centuries later a certain Adolf. H. tried to close the deal, eliminating physically when it was possible the remaining priests in Germany. Ergo the Catholic congregations became, because of these anti-catholic uprisings, in the long run, the only opposition to Junkers and Cartels while the Protestant Reform lead to some awful social results especially in the 18th century.

    So you prefer a global feudal theocratic dictatorship named Vatican ?

    Nothing to do with preference. I'm telling the real story. Which is that a false virtue reveals itself on the long, run making the previous truth, caduc. That's how failing a true reform made a decayed institution the bastion of sanity in Germany. That's how Muslims instead of getting rid of the shackles of their customs, are trying to find sense in them. That's baseline Cavern Myth yo...And as said before, the Vatican was nothing since the mid XIXth century.

    I see nothing good from the leadership of Vatican, just like I see nothing good from the leadership of the Protestant Churches.

    And what does it have with Adolf Hitler ?

    A strong structure within the Lutheran and protestant Church might have stopped that plague from advancing. Something that wasn't possible by the core beliefs of Protestantism...On the same page the Vatican didn't really stopped Mussolini either, but the difference between the two was still preferable to little moustache.

    KoTeMoRe wrote:Guys like Thomas Muntzer were self-destructive. They couldn't set with their time, they would enjoy anarchy of the purest form because their idea wasn't so different from Savonarole's perpetual purificaition (revolution) which simply couldn't bear any other fruit but constant infighting. The level of drastic and expedite justice these folks were pushing for was already in contradiction with their own claims.

    At least what they were seeking is the destruction of the upper class so that poor citizens and working class can enjoy the benefit of justice and equality. The problem is that they failed to see the correct way to carry out that dream.
    [/quote]

    Once again, the destruction of the upper class, leads to a new upper class, which in return will start to fight its own. "La révolution dévore ses enfants...". Violence without justice cannot be a form of social engineering. It simply is a placebo. Plaster on a wooden leg. Funny so every revolutionary seems to fail to see the correct way. No matter their education of their past.

    That's because people don't understand how things roll.


    As for the impact the Catholic Church had on the Locals, it's a mixed bag. It has been pretty schizophrenic. Take Las Casas that would denounce in the strongest terms the work done by his predecessors (especially the fact that initially the children would be taken from their parents to be "taught") and their total lack of input when it came to the state of slavery the locals were put by the "secular power". Then you'd have famed Valladolid controversy that would pit the Church against itself, because it proved that God wasn't Universal (the Church would use for the first time the word primitive for the locals) as these people who seemed the closer to God, didn't knew about it, hence they had no soul. Which Las Casas would arbitrarily counter that they had to be taught the way of the Christ...But the same Las Casas was a former Slave owner and raider who would attack the friars that would oppose the practices.

    In a sense the Church did as bad as it did good, but the fact remains that the Church in the Latin American debacle, was subservient to the Secular power. Spain.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Can Protestantism At All Be Defined As A Christian Faith

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:04 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 5:04 pm