Santorum: "Load up the bombers and bomb Iran back to the 7th Century"

[r3volution 3.0]

This is not-so-subtle Democrat bait.

The response he's looking for is:

"Ah, yea, bomb them back to the 7th century...and you'll meet them there (abortion*, gay marriage, etc], tee hee!"

Nonsense identity politics for that anti-Catholic swine poseur, with a dash of smart politics (smart only because the electorate is moronic).

*Santorum voted funding to planned parenthood

[phill4paul]

Kill ALL, let God sort them out...

[r3volution 3.0]

Santorum would have been burned as a heretic in a more civilized age.

[hells_unicorn]

Santorum would have been burned as a heretic in a more civilized age.

Prior to the 19th century, Rome would not have been too keen on anyone tied into the Opus Dei given their heavy similarities with Masonic cults. Sadly that was one area where the Scots dropped the ball, though in their defense, most of their truly devout Presbyters were forced off the British Isles by both The Crown and Parliament and wound up in the American colonies.

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^Rome is clearly fallen, once again, to the barbarians.

That thing which sits on the throne of St. Peter now is not the Pope.

sede vacante

[Occam's Banana]

Load up our bombers and bomb [Iran] back to the seventh century

But, Rick!! What about the gay Iranians who would be killed? Don't you care about them anymore ... ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA_aOn586rg

[hells_unicorn]

^^^Rome is clearly fallen, once again, to the barbarians.

That thing which sits on the throne of St. Peter now is not the Pope.

sede vacante

I held the sedevacantist position prior to becoming a Presbyterian, and I still view it as a valid position from an Augustinian perspective, though I think even a valid Bishop of Rome shouldn't claim the powers attributed to said Bishopric since the end of Gregory I's tenure, and the same holds true for every erroneous council starting with 2nd Nicaea.

[r3volution 3.0]

I held the sedevacantist position prior to becoming a Presbyterian, and I still view it as a valid position from an Augustinian perspective, though I think even a valid Bishop of Rome shouldn't claim the powers attributed to said Bishopric since the end of Gregory I's tenure, and the same holds true for every erroneous council starting with 2nd Nicaea.

I cannot speak to the esoteric theological distinctions. I am an atheist (of the skeptical rather than militant variety) with the strong sense that the fate of Western Civilization is bound up with that of the Roman Catholic Church. My field is history and I know what role the church played, and that whenever the Church was overthrown or loosed its hold voluntarily, degenerate pietist-communists proliferated, such as the coercive Anabaptists. And I believe I understand the psychology of that monster. Consequently, I hate the reformation like grim death. High Church = good, Low Church = bad. This "Pope" in Rome now has betreyed the conservative tradition, the restraining role which the Church played against the 'oi polloi. Whatever the theology, he is an anti-Pope (sadly unchallenged), and there is no more Emperor to smack him back into order. I think the Church is finally being influenced by...democracy. Were I more faithful myself, I would be inclined to another term living the prefix "anti."

[hells_unicorn]

I cannot speak to the esoteric theological distinctions. I am an atheist (of the skeptical rather than militant variety) with the strong sense that the fate of Western Civilization is bound up with that of the Roman Catholic Church. My field is history and I know what role the church played, and that whenever the Church was overthrown or loosed its hold voluntarily, degenerate pietist-communists proliferated, such as the coercive Anabaptists. And I believe I understand the psychology of that monster. Consequently, I hate the reformation like grim death. High Church = good, Low Church = bad. This "Pope" in Rome now has betreyed the conservative tradition, the restraining role which the Church played against the 'oi polloi. Whatever the theology, he is an anti-Pope (sadly unchallenged), and there is no more Emperor to smack him back into order. I think the Church is finally being influenced by...democracy.

Which part of the Reformation do you hate? The Magisterial Reformers that were just as active in suppressing Anabaptist fanatics as Rome was, or the radical reformation that was the breeding ground for such thought? There were many reformations, and I would argue that the one you detest is the one that I've summarily rejected.

John Knox wrote a very powerful defense of Geneva's execution of Michael Servetus, who was heavily tied in with the degenerate communistic types you are referring to, but he was not what one would call High Church. Likewise, the rise of Bourgeois culture in Europe was an accomplishment of French Huguenot culture, not the crazy rationalist cult that followed Rousseau's lead and subjected France to the reign of terror as some might suggest. The Huguenots were noted for being fairly Low Church, but conflating them with Anabaptist communists would be a mistake.

Furthermore, I would argue that if you do a truly in-depth study of Rome's behavior following the Council Of Trent and the formation of the Jesuit Order (which is semi-Islamic in demeanor), they abandoned any notion of promoting Western culture, in direct contrast to the Magistrate Reformed nations. Likewise, the past 2 centuries of American and European history has seen a similar infiltration of commie influences into Lutheranism, Anglicanism and Presbyterianism via covert means. You might want to look into J. Gresham Machin's reason for breaking ties with the Presbyterian Church USA, it was on the grounds that the elders began the ordination of socialist ideologues.

[r3volution 3.0]

Which part of the Reformation do you hate?

All of it.

The very concept of breaking with Rome, of creating a theological chaos, civil war, democracy, was the root of the trouble.

It is impossible to deny that the reformation was, generally speaking at least, fueled by egalitarian, levelling motives.

The Lutherans, some of them, were fairly unobjectionable - but look at all the nutters they unleashed.

"Primitive Christianity" and so forth. Anabaptists, Taborites, luftmenschen, assorted psychotic cults.

None of this could possibly have existed absent the break with Rome.

The Magisterial Reformers that were just as active in suppressing Anabaptist fanatics as Rome was, or the radical reformation that was the breeding ground for such thought? There were many reformations, and I would argue that the one you detest is the one that I've summarily rejected.

John Knox wrote a very powerful defense of Geneva's execution of Michael Servetus, who was heavily tied in with the degenerate communistic types you are referring to, but he was not what one would call High Church. Likewise, the rise of Bourgeois culture in Europe was an accomplishment of French Huguenot culture, not the crazy rationalist cult that followed Rousseau's lead and subjected France to the reign of terror as some might suggest. The Huguenots were noted for being fairly Low Church, but conflating them with Anabaptist communists would be a mistake.

Calvin's Geneva was the the prelude to both Robespierre's "Republic of Virtue" and the Puritan-pietist tradition in America, leading to the progressives and (having shed its overtly religious character) our "modern" democratic socialism. Catholicism is inherently anti-democratic and therefore liberal, protestantism in all forms (though certainly some more than others) is inherently egalitarian and therefore socialistic.

[francisco]

Santorum is so refreshingly enlightened. What a noble spirit! What a bright, shining message he bears! My heart soars when I hear his pronouncements.

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^LOL

[osan]

How can anyone not see that the Israeli govt is puppeteering these people??

Most Americans would fail to see an alligator if I affixed one by its jaws to their nuts.

How could you expect them to see something more subtle?

[osan]

Scorch the earth!!

Forget the fact that the rest of is live there, too.

We got some killin' top do!

[osan]

I'm sure the Russians and Chinese would be thrilled Rick. Don't forget that we are a deadbeat nation dependent on foreign capital.

Yeah, these pinheads like Frothy talk from their sphincters as if we were in a position to seriously piss-off either China or Russia.

These brands of nonsense really do lead me to wonder what the global political reality actually is. Is this all theater? At times I cannot help but conclude that it must be because if we are in the hands of people as mad as these appear, then really it behooves us to start shooting because it's the ONLY chance we stand of not being annihilated, either as a nation or as a species.

[osan]

What's that saying? "Do unto others as you would HAVE THEM DO TO YOU BEFORE they do unto you?". Hypocritical much, Santy?

There's your error. Acme Sentence, Aphorism, and Scripture Repair Service Inc. comes to the rescue once again.

If you're going to quote a circus clown, please make sure you attribute the correct philosophical position.

[osan]

I can't believe this guy has a national stage and legitimacy within the Republican party. To any reasonable person hearing this, he sounds absolutely insane.

Gives you some vague notion of how many people in America are afflicted with reason.

Be afraid.

[osan]

Does Santorum happen to come with a straight jacket and a gag?

More like a black leather hood with zippered eyes and a ball-gag.

Here's an image of the Froth-meister at a recent social gathering.



Later that same evening, after a few too many cocktails...



As you see, Frothy's problems are both numerous and profoud. Note how he calls himself "Rubber Eva" when "off duty".

[osan]

I have a better idea, how about we load up a plane and drop Frothy into Iran, parachute optional.

Damn it man! Are you really that vicious? I mean, what did Iran ever do to you?

[osan]

Calvin's Geneva was the the prelude to both Robespierre's "Republic of Virtue" and the Puritan-pietist tradition in America, leading to the progressives and (having shed its overtly religious character) our "modern" democratic socialism. Catholicism is inherently anti-democratic and therefore liberal, protestantism in all forms (though certainly some more than others) is inherently egalitarian and therefore socialistic.

OK, either you have got to be kidding or you need to give this to us in gory-detailed logic because I don't see it. This looks like a train-wreck of non sequiturs. This may, in fact, require a thread all its own.

[hells_unicorn]

1. All of it. The very concept of breaking with Rome, of creating a theological chaos, civil war, democracy, was the root of the trouble. It is impossible to deny that the reformation was, generally speaking at least, fueled by egalitarian, levelling motives. The Lutherans, some of them, were fairly unobjectionable - but look at all the nutters they unleashed. "Primitive Christianity" and so forth. Anabaptists, Taborites, luftmenschen, assorted psychotic cults.
None of this could possibly have existed absent the break with Rome.

Calvin's Geneva was the the prelude to both Robespierre's "Republic of Virtue" and the Puritan-pietist tradition in America, leading to the progressives and (having shed its overtly religious character) our "modern" democratic socialism. Catholicism is inherently anti-democratic and therefore liberal, protestantism in all forms (though certainly some more than others) is inherently egalitarian and therefore socialistic.

1. The groups that you've mentioned had been cropping up like cancerous polyps since the 3rd century, and Rome was not always terribly effective at keeping them contained. Furthermore, while egalitarianism is, by its very nature, an abomination, I don't see a better eventuality in Roman totalitarianism, including but not limited to how vulnerable it is to infiltration, as we've seen both lately and throughout history. Leave us not forget that Rome's loss of power was largely self-inflicted, given their rabid love of military adventures and how they alienated the Greek church from Christendom with their authoritarian stubbornness. As Paul stated in Romans 13, "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." An atheist has no comprehension of what this passage implies apart from a blanket license for tyranny, but it is fitting that an atheist would gravitate to a church that models itself after absolute power in the hands of men who believe themselves stand-ins for God.

2. This is a patently absurd comparison, but to be expected from an atheist who views the church as simply being a bulwark of political authority. Calvin's reformation and its affiliates were anything but egalitarian, and the Westminster Confession of Faith has several key points where it repudiates the notion of democratic socialism in favor of a constitutional monarchy. I've read the rubbish on Protestantism that Most Holy Family Monastery posts, it's about as absurdly wrong and ahistorical as Christ Myth Theory, which is a joke among scholars of history in case you weren't clear on that point.

[acptulsa]

He's supposed to announce his candidacy today.

The froth is back.

[r3volution 3.0]

1. The groups that you've mentioned had been cropping up like cancerous polyps since the 3rd century, and Rome was not always terribly effective at keeping them contained.

To my mind, reformation:counter-reformation::revolution:reaction. I see a close parallel between religious developments since the reformation and political developments over the last couple centuries, particularly since 1789. Again, I don't care as much about the particular theology of any protestant group, as I do the very fact that they represent a revolution against the "monarchy" of the Catholic Church. Some of the protestant groups are unobjectionable in themselves, in what they believe and do. There's a much wider gulf between, say, Anabaptists and Lutherans than between Lutherans and Catholics. So what's my problem with Lutherans (or any other relatively moderate, high-church, Catholic-lite sort of protestant groups)? They opened the door to the others. Think about the political revolt against literal monarchy. Some of the results, at least in the short run, were not so bad. The United States and the United Provinces, for instance, had excellent forms of government at one time, as did Britain after the civil war. The problem is that a revolutionary, leveling, anti-authority, egalitarian, sort of precedent had been set - which would be allow more radical groups to continue the revolution, ala "If you can revolt against the King/Pope, why can't we revolt against you?" The revolution eats her own children, and we get dragged ever leftward. Look at what happened in the protestant world, how it kept balkanizing into ever more splinter groups of splinter groups, breeding increasingly radical egalitarian/socialist splinters. It's an analogue of how a revolution against the king might begin with plans for a modest constitutional monarchy, but ends up with the Bolsheviks/Jacobins. The ride doesn't just stop when you want it to.

2. This is a patently absurd comparison, but to be expected from an atheist who views the church as simply being a bulwark of political authority. Calvin's reformation and its affiliates were anything but egalitarian, and the Westminster Confession of Faith has several key points where it repudiates the notion of democratic socialism in favor of a constitutional monarchy.

See above. I wasn't saying anything about Calvinism in particular, but the entire revolutionary movement it represented.

Think about it like this:

Calvin:Reverend Wright::Lafayette:Robespierre::Kerensky:Lenin

[hells_unicorn]

To my mind, reformation:counter-reformation::revolution:reaction. I see a close parallel between religious developments since the reformation and political developments over the last couple centuries, particularly since 1789. Again, I don't care as much about the particular theology of any protestant group, as I do the very fact that they represent a revolution against the "monarchy" of the Catholic Church. Some of the protestant groups are unobjectionable in themselves, in what they believe and do. There's a much wider gulf between, say, Anabaptists and Lutherans than between Lutherans and Catholics. So what's my problem with Lutherans (or any other relatively moderate, high-church, Catholic-lite sort of protestant groups)? They opened the door to the others. Think about the political revolt against literal monarchy. Some of the results, at least in the short run, were not so bad. The United States and the United Provinces, for instance, had excellent forms of government at one time, as did Britain after the civil war. The problem is that a revolutionary, leveling, anti-authority, egalitarian, sort of precedent had been set - which would be allow more radical groups to continue the revolution, ala "If you can revolt against the King/Pope, why can't we revolt against you?" The revolution eats her own children, and we get dragged ever leftward. Look at what happened in the protestant world, how it kept balkanizing into ever more splinter groups of splinter groups, breeding increasingly radical egalitarian/socialist splinters. It's an analogue of how a revolution against the king might begin with plans for a modest constitutional monarchy, but ends up with the Bolsheviks/Jacobins. The ride doesn't just stop when you want it to.

See above. I wasn't saying anything about Calvinism in particular, but the entire revolutionary movement it represented.

Think about it like this:

Calvin:Reverend Wright::Lafayette:Robespierre::Kerensky:Lenin

Forgive my bluntness, but what you've said has to be, without a doubt, the most shallow and superficial calculus for understanding the history of Christianity I've encountered with maybe the exception of some of the crap that Christopher Hitchens and his New Atheist pals have put out. You've basically taken the Marx/Engels views of hard historic determinism and reversed it, taking the side of a singular power structure while accepting the same general premise. I'd give more credence to Thomas Hobbes' views of Social Contract Theory, and I utterly despise said political calculus.

Allow me to state my case in a succinct yet forceful fashion by cluing you in on Rome's version of unity and power. From the time of Gregory I (Magnus) up to the present day, there have been about as many differing, contradictory understandings of Church teaching as there have been Bishops of Rome, to speak nothing for the massive contradictions that began emerging between Rome's doctrines after The Great Schism. And while we're on that topic, why should I bend the knee to Rome based on some archaic historical claim when a similar claim could be made by the Patriarch of Constantinople or the head of the Coptic Church? Where is Rome's culpability for splitting Christendom in half and creating its own revolution against 1,000 years of unity between East and West, creating a disunity that has benefited Islam immensely I might add.

Roman Catholicism does not foster unity in any sense other than conformity of worship. If you doubt this, I can easily point to multiple schismatic groups outside of even the mainline Traditionalist/Sedevacantism movement that has maintained the doctrines codified at The Council Of Trent. Furthermore, it should be noted that the theology codified at Trent flied in the face of the Augustinian consensus of the entire Western Church, readopting the liberal Semi-Pelagian understanding of sin and atonement that was deemed heresy over a millennium prior, which is how you've gotten obnoxiously liberal pretenders like the current crop of Jesuit politicians in Washington D.C., as well as what you would describe as the recent string of anti-Popes. Any semblance of pre-16th century Roman Catholicism was persecuted out of the Roman faith when the last Jansenist was excommunicated, though there may be some hold outs keeping their peace in some present day Augustinian monasteries.

Allow me to throw one final thought your way to rock the closed off little historical box in which you currently reside. The Protestant Reformation as rightly fought through Luther, Calvin, Knox and their respective successors and affiliates was NOT A REVOLUTION. It was called the PROTESTANT REFORMATION precisely because it WAS NOT tearing down an institution of power, rather it was purging the church of a foreign influence that was alien to the faith. Furthermore, the notion of Papal Supremacy was not a universally settled issue until the late 19th century, after the Jesuits had returned from being dissolved and forced out due to the Popes not being able to control them. Vatican I and Trent do not square with the teachings and structure that was supported by the original fathers of the early church, and they were the ones responsible for the foundation of what became modern western civilization, NOT a succession of medieval popes, though I will credit Gregory I with a number of logistical victories against pagan and Arian tribal peoples who were threatening the existence of Christendom.

If Calvin had encountered Robespierre, Lenin, Wright, Kerensky or even Lafayette, he would have responded the same way that he did to Servetus. On a different note, I've read a fair amount of literature that points to The Jesuits being more directly responsible for the French Revolution than any Reformed group in France, be it the Huguenots or even the tiny smatterings of Radically Reformed Anabaptists.

[thoughtomator]

Santorum speaks like a man who knows there's no way in hell he'll ever be called on to put his ideas into action.

[r3volution 3.0]

@hells_unicorn

Your response is mostly irrelevant to my point and you have quite an attitude (and evidently a horse in the race), so I'm going to end the discussion here.

[hells_unicorn]

@hells_unicorn

Your response is mostly irrelevant to my point and you have quite an attitude (and evidently a horse in the race), so I'm going to end the discussion here.

That's fine, the crux of my post is that your point is pointless, since baseless and insubordinate authority (which is what Papal and absolute monarchy are) is a terror to civilization, not a servant of it. You say the revolution eats its own children (which is true), I'm telling you that Rome has been in the child eating business for longer than the egalitarian fanatics, sadly in a more literal fashion than my point would suggest in a number of cases.

You are correct though, I do have quite an attitude. I spent several years as a Roman Catholic convert, mostly because of the disaster that American Evangelical Christianity has become, and what I found behind the impressive cathedrals, tapestries and impressive governmental structures was something equally as chaotic. But I'll leave it at that, if nothing else than for the sake of not hijacking this thread's original topic further.

[otherone]

Santorum speaks like a man who knows there's no way in hell he'll ever be called on to put his ideas into action.

TPTB need a genuine freak show so their Chosen One appears reasonable.

[acptulsa]

TPTB need a genuine freak show so their Chosen One appears reasonable.

And hate the Paul family because they clearly demonstrate that the Chosen One and the rest are merely Dumb and Dumber.

All dumb as hammers. And they have something else in common with hammers, too--they're all tools.

[anaconda]

Hasn't Iran been completely compliant with the Nuclear Arms Treaty? Always?