[walford]

All legitimate authority by definition has to come from God according to the Judeo-Christian understanding of God ergo Divine Right as postulated by St. Thomas Aquinas. If one does not receive his authority to rule from God he has none, period.

And if one does NOT accept the Abrahamist [let's include Islam, shall we] perspective wherein a select few human beings are invested with authority/insight bestowed by the Almighty to tyrannize others? Well, then all we are left with is ruling with consent of the governed -- and we each have our own relationship with the Divine rather than having one shoved down our throats by clergy.

"And it most certainly is NOT fair to assume that the Almighty is indifferent to what we do if none are Chosen to impose their political will upon others by violence and purport it as Divine."

Why? Why is it not fair? Were you given some insight into the way the mind of God works?

Nice Orwellian twist. If I don't accept your dogmatic position that includes finite beings presuming to speak/rule/kill for the Infinite, then I am the one being dogmatic. I do not purport to know what is desired by the Almighty and have the utmost confidence that we are not needed to speak/act on His behalf. As limited beings, we can only HOPE we are doing God's will, but to cross the threshold and actually SAY we are is the most grievous of blasphemies.

Modern civilization since the Renaissance has been nothing but a milksopish copy of ancient pagan civilization. Full of weak-kneed mass conformity and pockmarked with diabolical inhumanity. Say what you will about Dogmatism and Orthodoxy, they at least can ONLY go so far. There is no limit to the evil of man acting in the name of his own divinity.

Whereas before, during the Dark Ages, we had Kings and Bishops piously purporting to rule in the name of the Almighty and pronouncing judgement upon others' immortal souls -- which can be purchased back at the price of an indulgence.

As I had said earlier, some are presenting the false choice between dogmatism and hedonism. I offer that there is another choice.

Do you even know what the word "largesse" means?

OK, I meant to say profligacy; the crown represents a false halo and self-indulgence on the backs of the serfs.

In any case if you want to believe that modern political parties and ideologies don't "exploit" then we might as well end this conversation now.

1. Quote me even hinting at such a thing. In my original post, I had already alluded to the existence of secular dogmatism, such as Marxism, that purport to a superior vision of an Ideal Society which must be imposed by force upon an ignorant populace that doesn't know what's good for them. That's only one example. Dogmatism is the problem, not religion or lack thereof.

2. You are being intellectually dishonest. You've constructed Straw Men, resorted to ad hominems, and otherwise mischaracterized my actual position from the start. I would shed nary a tear if you spared me any more of your haughty sputum.

[BarbaricGrandeur]

And if one does NOT accept the Abrahamist [let's include Islam, shall we] perspective wherein a select few human beings are invested with authority/insight bestowed by the Almighty to tyrannize others? Well, then all we are left with is ruling with consent of the governed

And if one does not wish to accept the tyranny of the "Greatest Number" then what are we left with?

Nice Orwellian twist. If I don't accept your dogmatic position that includes finite beings presuming to speak/rule/kill for the Infinite, then I am the one being dogmatic.

Yes you are if you claim my position is blasphomy; as was the point of your original post.

which can be purchased back at the price of an indulgence.

You also need to learn the theology behind an "Indulgance."

Quote me even hinting at such a thing. In my original post, I had already alluded to the existence of secular dogmatism, such as Marxism, that purport to a superior vision of an Ideal Society which must be imposed by force upon an ignorant populace that doesn't know what's good for them.

No you just implied it. If you claim modern systems of government are better than the older, and the older were bad because of “exploitation,” it is logical to assume you favor the modern because they are some how not subject to “exploitation.” I know the dialectics of modern politics establishes the mantra that ALL kings are 'greedy,' 'exploitive,' and 'cruel,' but it's not true. This may come as a surprise for you but claiming “Divine Right” does not make someone ipso facto 'evil.'

I can say with a straight face that the actions of terrorists are evil, because I know, I KNOW, they are contrary to the will of God. But I can't claim they are evil (or that there is even such a thing AS Evil) if I didn't know that.