Is it immoral to want to live in a Vatican Theocracy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Riman643
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It was just a hundred years ago that nobody used birth control, neither the married or single. No one lived together without first getting married. All the stores were closed to honor Sunday as a day of rest. It was a rare thing to see a pregnant teenager and when that happened, she went to a home for pregnant teens to be allowed to go through pregnancy and delivery in peace. People mostly went to church on Sundays. Often baptizing a baby was considered the normal state of affairs. Many people got married younger, and were fortunate to be married 50 and 60 yrs. Maybe you’re looking at the shepherds but the sheep were the ones salting the earth in business, in schools, in hospitals, in the workplace, as good neighbors.
 
Still a small minority in comparison. And I would happily bring them back in exchange for stopping the hundreds of thousands of children murdered on a daily basis by their own mothers. Or to dismantle a stockpile of weapons that could wipe out the entire planet with the push of a button. Or the desecrations of marriages. Or endless wars that have killed millions for absolutely no reason. You have advocated trading a turd sandwich for a turd sandwich without the bread!
 
Yes have e power hungry inmoral , backstabbing murderers with the advantages of post industrial age technology and control of the media press , law enforcement the army and the judicial system.
I can imagine bonifice if he had that option he would have nuked France because of his squable with Philip .

Look I don’t like the world as it is but if you do that the church would serve it’s self as cesar more than serving Jesus .

Also leaving the power of a country to luck like … well let’s hope our next pope os kind and not a thief or worse yet a dictator also who is to say the elections for pope don’t become corrupt and would one control the pope certain checks and balances of power ?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nik
The choice of the Pope is left to God, not luck. That is immune from corruption. Whoever is Pope, is chosen by God, and whoever is chosen by God, becomes Pope. What he does with the office, he will be judged accordingly.

The Allies in their righteousness burned down entire cities in WW2 with the deliberate intention of killing as many civilians as possible, pardoned the worst war crimes and crimes against humanity in exchange for data on biological weapons, and intentionally held back so that an army of drunk barbarians could arrive in Berlin first and rape nearly every civilian woman in the city. Documented historical facts, cannot be refuted by anyone who belongs outside of a padded cell. And these were the good guys.

You do realize that modern elections are a demonstrable farce, right? I hope you don’t actually think your vote matters. Also, do you think who became king or emperor was a foregone conclusion? It wasn’t. Many, if not most, were elected by the landowners, people with a vested interest and the most to lose if they chose someone incapable (and also less able to be bribed with welfare checks). That included bishop-electors, who as clergy really don’t have much to gain in this life as they have already chosen a job where the pay is terrible, you can’t get married and therefore can’t (or aren’t supposed to) have kids. Twice the work with none of the benefits anyone else gets.

It would seem in our free societies we are somehow failing to choose saints as presidents. Perhaps because people feel it’s their “right” (a social construct) to choose their leader (though I can’t really find any mention of this “right” in the Bible, only in the writings of Freemasons). Maybe because our society and the majority of people really cannot handle this responsibility and should “let” God make that decision again as was done throughout history.
 
The Muslims do this. Iran is a theocratic government…No fun. Our church rules are clear. They are free for us to live or sin. We have God watching us not the SIN POLICE W STICKS. I think Ireland was sweet to a point but as the ppl wanted to be more secular, they became more sinful & voted abortions in. I think, inside, I want to be a Holy Facist??!
 
The papal estates were a theocracy. They worked.

I myself would be satisfied with a Catholic government.
 
PennyinCanada said:
It was just a hundred years ago that nobody used birth control, neither the married or single. No one lived together without first getting married. All the stores were closed to honor Sunday as a day of rest. It was a rare thing to see a pregnant teenager and when that happened, she went to a home for pregnant teens to be allowed to go through pregnancy and delivery in peace. People mostly went to church on Sundays. Often baptizing a baby was considered the normal state of affairs. Many people got married younger, and were fortunate to be married 50 and 60 yrs. Maybe you’re looking at the shepherds but the sheep were the ones salting the earth in business, in schools, in hospitals, in the workplace, as good neighbors.
Click to expand...
You need to check history a little better. “One hundred years ago” was the 1920’s, hardly ancient history. For that matter, recipes for birth control potions go back to ancient Egypt. Condoms made from animal intestines developed in the Middle Ages if not earlier. Rubber versions developed in the mid 1800’s, and most certainly were in wide use by the early 20th century, likely more by Protestants, and there were laws technically forbidding birth control devices, which is why they were labeled “For the prevention of disease only” - and everyone outside of Boston looked the other way.
 
" You do realize that modern elections are a demonstrable farce, right? I hope you don’t actually think your vote matters."

except in , the usa (for the most part) , peru , colombia , argentina , and most of the Eu england etc .

where the vote does matter , and that is why candidates have for the most part try to convince its people to vote for them , despite landowenrs and powerfull people with control of one aspect of the economy helping them they dont make them prime minister or president they still have to be elected by the people , only then does the presdient back stab the people and give these companies their prefererance.

" That included bishop-electors, who as clergy really don’t have much to gain in this life as they have already chosen a job where the pay is terrible, you can’t get married and therefore can’t (or aren’t supposed to) have kids. Twice the work with none of the benefits anyone else gets."

yet as proven by the medechi and borgias , popes dont need to have sons , i mean lets say a catholic man becomes pope and his brother and he founded a buissness before that , he migth use the power and the money to help his buissness and crush the other .

also one thing is to leave it to gods will the other is leaving to mens will who claim they act in gods intrest.

what iam going to say is controversial but one of the reason why the west is free and advanced in terms of technology is due to the state and the church feuding with eachother.

the kings and the church always never got along and thus the king allied himself with the towns in some occasions against the papacy and his nobles which hated the idea of centralized power , this with the collapse of the feudal system led to capitalisim arraving , the many revolutions like the agricultural and economical ones and later industralization , it was all done by secular states since at this time the church was anti technology unlike the early medieval period.

in the islamic world and this a prime example of what happens when religion and state are not separated as the religious leader and the churches got along just fine and free thinking got squashed in the 1100 .

like i said if you want a caliphate but with a pope instead be my guess i rather have a church that despite not having political power is a beacon of justice and gods will on earth , rather than a dictador ship with a pretty face.
 
That’s a long reply but I will try to address all of your points.

First of all, there is voter fraud. A lot of it. Broward County, FL and another of recent memory but I don’t recall the exact name. I worked for a local candidate’s campaign and our opponent’s supporters, to include some local politicians and the son of our opponent’s employee, were used for counting the votes. He has since changed his stance on that candidate (we lost) and has openly admitted to what happened, including what he did himself. Stalin for all his barbarism was right when he said “It is not who votes that counts; it is who counts the votes.” In the UK, they have a “monarch”. All “bishops” of the “Church of England” are appointed by that “monarch” who is the “Pope” of the Anglican Communion and the most senior of them automatically hold seats in the House of Lords, which wields quite a lot of legislative power. The “monarch” also can issue peerages that give the same benefit. All laws must receive Royal Assent and the Prime Minister can be dismissed at any time. The “monarch” also commands the military, and generally if you have an army at your back, you’re in charge and people have no choice but to listen to you if they don’t wanna die. The “monarch” also appoints the Governors-General who wield enormous power over other countries; and was heavily involved in subsidizing organized crime and the drug trade in Hong Kong right up until 1997. I’ll give everyone an admission that I’m sure I’ll regret later, I voted for Donald Trump. I live in a red state that he cannot lose. He lost the popular vote, is that really democracy? If I lived in California, my vote essentially would not matter. I had a military roommate once from California who didn’t even bother voting because he knew his vote would be wasted and the leftist candidate would always win that state anyway (military people generally vote absentee from their home state). The world’s most accomplished mass murderer, Mao Zedong, was elected. I’ve stood in the same spot where he did when it happened. Hitler was not elected, but he was appointed through legal process because his party won the majority of legislative seats, in an election. The EU? I guess you’ve never seen the Yellow Vest people marching in the streets with giant paintings of King Louis XVI or their current and rightful King Louis XX. The travesty that Spain, Germany, Sweden, Italy, and Greece have become? And you do understand MANY European nations still have monarchs and state religions, that even continue to collect taxes?

I don’t know if you are American, but, our social constructs we call “rights” are enumerated in the Constitution. These “rights” are trampled by the government as a rule, with few exceptions. Take the Second Amendment for instance. If that were anything but imaginary, and if this country were truly the land of the free, then why are states like New York, New Jersey, and California nightmarish dictatorships with labyrinths of nonsensical and pointless gun laws? In many places I would have to go through an insane process of fees and applications to build a pool or a shed, much less an addition to my house.
 
Now this may be my personal opinion and I could be wrong, but I have never seen God as a time-waster. If this state of “freedom” where you can marry whatever you want, have sex with whatever you want, worship whatever you want, say and do whatever you want, as is the modern concept of freedom, then there would be no Hell and we would simply have universal salvation. God would not have wasted time creating the Catholic Church or even a moral code. If God believes in freedom of religion, there would not be a correct religion. If God believes in freedom of speech and of the press, there would not be a commandment against lying. You can cite “free will” etc all you want but the fact remains there is a huge list of things you can go to Hell for doing (without later repentance) so God obviously does not believe you have the “freedom” to do them, or else you would still go to Heaven anyway. Our legal system draws an imaginary line between one commandment and another, saying it’s wrong to murder (which is only wrong because God said so; there is absolutely no other reason it or anything can be immoral, except that God prohibits it) yet it’s totally fine to commit adultery (the law is still on the books in most places but good luck proving it, getting a prosecutor to file it, or keeping your job after pulling some mess like that).

You know a majority of Renaissance era scientific advancements came from Church-run schools and priests? The most precious of legal concepts in the west came from Catholic kings (presumption of innocence and right of appeals: Saint Louis IX, King of France; jury trial and equal protection clause: Saint Alfred, King of the West Saxons; bearing arms: King Henry III of England with roots in old Saxon tradition). The majority, probably all, of those schools were founded after 1100. Mass literacy is directly attributable to the efforts of Saint Alfred and the Blessed Charlemagne. The Magna Carta only exists due to the intervention of the powerful Church! When King Henry VIII declared himself to be Pope of their churches, and ransacked monasteries, tortured and murdered priests, desecrated graves, etc, the result was cutting the English literacy rate IN HALF. Since then they have declared that their right to rule comes from Parliament, not from God. They even became the world’s first drug cartel with the Opium Wars.

His brother might have a business…do you realize the situation you described is taking place in every level of government in the US right this moment? There are roads that have been under construction since before I was born, with the contract issued to a governor or mayor’s cousin or brother. Healthcare.gov was built by Obama’s college friend. In smaller towns, particularly with law enforcement, it is the norm and is expected that jobs are given to relatives of local politicians. I have a cousin who is a sheriff, his mom was the sheriff before him, his dad was the sheriff before her. And his cousins are the two deputies.
 
The Church is still powerful and the Pope is considered by experts to be one of the most powerful men in the world. The election process is even more closed now than it was in bygone eras. Yet you are not concerned about corruption now? Only in the past when it was even more open and transparent?

It is simple: Matthew 16 tells us the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church; that is your assurance and nothing further is needed. Whoever holds that title is chosen by God, no matter how he ended up on that chair. That is the eternal, immutable, uncontestable word of God. It is as sure as gravity and the sunrise; even more so. You will sooner turn into Superman than for this to become false.

Yeah man, anyone can become president here! As long as they are rich, powerful, influential, and connected. You can’t even get on TV unless you’re put there by the elites. Yet you think this system is free and the one where actual saints did rule is not.

I will not entertain the comparison to Islam, as you are comparing God’s rule to a nonsensical mishmash of Christian, Gnostic, Jewish, and pagan trash.
 
While I really like your posts, regarding the last part, there was also nepotism in the Church, see for example Cardinal Nephew

And you can’t end criticizing nepotism if Monarchy is basically institutionalized nepotism. It derailed from the original moral purpose of the post, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Riman643 said:
I think the most ideal form of government would be that where Catholic values are instilled and lead by the Vatican. I realize the Pope’s role is to lead the faithful to eternal salvation on the largest scale and not to run a government, but is there a way for a theocracy to be possible?
Click to expand...
Western Europe got pretty close in the 13th century.

Didn’t work out so well.

The institution became so powerful that there were multiple claimants for the papacy and the grumblings of rebellion/reformation grew in the face of growing power - as it is want to do.

The best system is one where church and state are separate and you get to be just as Catholic/Baptist/Buddhist/Nothingist as you darn well please - and your neighbor gets to make the same choice.
 
this is also going to be long reply

Broward County, as far as i know the court declared it not to be fraud , but maybe i could be wrong ,

the only real case of voter fraud was hilary clintion in the election primaries of 2016

In the UK, they have a “monarch”. All “bishops” of the “Church of England” are appointed by that “monarch” who is the “Pope” of the Anglican Communion and the most senior of them automatically hold seats in the House of Lords, which wields quite a lot of legislative power.

the Lords Spiritual have no party affiliation in theory and as far as i know there has been no corruption scandal with them since 1830s since there is a complex balance of power that does not allow the king to apoint his cronies and then pass every legislation he desires.

“He lost the popular vote, is that really democracy?” its not because america is not a democracy from number day number one the fouding fathers made that clear its a constintional republic .

“the world’s most accomplished mass murderer, Mao Zedong, was elected.” mao was elected as leader of his party he never got to be the president of china via election but civil war .

hitler is the only real example and he was elected only becuse germany was in bad state the nazis before the crash of 1929 where not popular at all, also you said that having america having the popular vote is wrong but now you are showing examples of the popular vote doing bad things that validates more the american possition of not having

monarchy does not mean denial a freedom since these are constinitunional monarchies where the king is a figure head and had limited amount of power

“like New York, New Jersey, and California nightmarish dictatorships with labyrinths of nonsensical and pointless gun laws? In many places I would have to go through an insane process of fees and applications to build a pool or a shed, much less an addition to my house”

beacuse thats what the people wanted most in these states dont want guns , wierd laws do exist for example despite san fransico having a housing problem the reason as to why taller buildings to accomdate more people are denied its beacuse the people think they are “ugly”

iam not denying that this world is horrible but why on earth would we want the church to be a part of his world when its not .
 
Emtguy89 said:
Renaissance era scientific advancements came from Church-run schools and priests? The most precious of legal concepts in t
Click to expand...
like i mentioned i dont like how the world is but i cant force my views on others who dont belive what i belive , that is not rigth i cant tell an athiest to live under the catholic dogma and catholic law when he does not belive in the religion .

"You know a majority of Renaissance era scientific advancements came from Church-run schools and priests? "
i know that protestans and athiest say one thousands years of stangnation bs

“bearing arms: King Henry III of England with roots in old Saxon tradition). The majority, probably all, of those schools were founded after 1100. Mass literacy is directly attributable to the efforts of Saint Alfred and the Blessed Charlemagne. The Magna Carta only exists due to the intervention of the powerful Church! When King Henry VIII declared himself to be Pope of their churches, and ransacked monasteries, tortured and murdered priests, desecrated graves, etc, the result was cutting the English literacy rate IN HALF.”
and i agree the church was really pro sience until the 16th century

the church during the later 16th century do to the trauma of the black death , the shisim of the 15th century , the hussites ,and later the protestans distrusted new ideas and became anti science but like i said new ideas in general.

example the prince of Machiavelli was a book exposing what the competorary italian city states and their families did for power especialy against what he hated ie the medici family that oh coincidentalty the pope at the time was part of and had it promtply baned and demonized its writter that and he was so succesfull that he today is sinonimus with power hungry political mastermind .

there is also the church later banning Nicolaus Copernicus books , comdeming Johannes Kepler , putting Galieo in house arrest ,
the church continued to dictate science but there science as conflicts between Copernican and church doctrine
the church was the one responsible advancments of the early medieval period but had no part in the early modern period , they had almost no part in the agricultural revolution neither the comercial revolution that was done by
secular private farmers that did all these advances and for the other trade , also the church had no hand in the advances of the industrail revolution, which was the result of the previous two

despite that we critizise the our current times for its moral corruption , it do the the things i mentioned and more is the reason why today we are living in the most peacefull and prosperous time in the history of mankind , like i said like 5 times the church should be a beacon of hope and truth in chirst not the world police.
 
Last edited:
Emtguy89 said:
rtain the comparison to Islam, as you are comparing God’s rule to a nonsensical mishmash of Christian, Gnostic, Jewish, and pagan trash.
Click to expand...
they are both theocracies , sure they have diferent laws but they are both kings that are the head of state and their religion both claiming to be succesors of a religious figure .

only that in one side people got along with the caliph and his ideas and like i mentioned freethinking was squashed and look at the islamic world today.
and the other secular powers desagreed with the church and got another result
ie in one side the philophophers won the religion -philosopher debate and in the islamic world the latter lost .
 
@AlbMagno my point in highlighting nepotism is just to show that the modern system does not fix any of the problems it claims to. At best, it’s business as usual with better liars.

@Hume it worked very well and was far more stable and healthy than what we have now. Modern society is decadent enough that had God not already promised never to flood the earth again we would be underwater.
 
@historyfan81 the courts do not always rule correctly. I’m in court all the time because of my job (police) and can tell you firsthand that the court system is an absolute joke. You can also go back in history to see that our wonderful system has made a lot of terrible case law and court decisions. Roe, Dred Scott, etc. What they rule most definitely doesn’t make something true. As for voter fraud there have been widespread accusations in other elections that weren’t investigated fully. I cannot imagine that I’m living on a little “island” where my local issues don’t occur anywhere else. Modern elections and universal suffrage are simply a contest of who can promise to give away more free crap.

Many Founding Fathers wanted Washington to be King and originally the Senate, not the people or the electoral college, was to elect him. For the first few generations of America, the vote was restricted to landowning males only. Not that I’m saying they are wrong but we should not hold up the Founding Fathers, despite their wisdom, as perfect models of governance who should be emulated without question.

Constitutional republic vs democracy is a matter of semantics to make people feel better about giving a stupidly huge arsenal of nuclear weapons to whoever promises to give away the most free stuff.

The House of Lords has the power to amend legislation proposed. That’s a pretty strong power. Having an army at his/her back, the “monarch” does not have to concede power to anyone and as I said, could dismiss the PM (a powerful position) at will. This is the law, and you either concede to the law or you use force to challenge it, yet the “monarch” has a monopoly on force and a mostly-disarmed population has no ability or desire to do so. Also note the widespread abuses by the UK government such as the police raping women who are victims of sex trafficking, arresting them, ignoring THOUSANDS of reports of sexual abuse etc, locking up people for making Facebook posts. The list goes on.

Mao was elected as party leader and the party rules the country. Until kinda recently the CPC chairman and the president of the PRC were not usually the same person; the former held the real power and the latter was a mostly ceremonial position. In the same way the Central Military Commission commands the PLA while the Ministry of Defense only deals with public relations and international liaisons. Even today the vast majority of Chinese people are very happy with their political system, which is far less tyrannical than western media portrays it (I have been there many times; my wife grew up there; I have an endless list of in-laws who are still there). They do not want their political system to be like ours, and for good reason.

Hitler lost the election. That was why Hindenburg had to appoint him chancellor; had he won, he would have been president, not chancellor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top