Wednesday, December 7, 2022

Forgivness explained

In recent years there's been a growing trend among certain Social Justice inclined Leftists on YouTube and elsewhere to say that society's overvaluing of Forgiveness is bad actually, especially the Christian value of it being a moral failing not to Forgive.

The first problem is that the word "forgive" itself is another one of those words used in English Bibles that was still an accurate translation in 1611 but in how it's usage has evolved has become misunderstood.

The expression "forgive and forget" is often said with the implication that the former can't be done without also doing the latter, but that is not what Biblical Forgiveness is.  In The Bible only God is said to Forgive and Forget in Jeremiah 31:34 "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more." and Hebrew 8:12 "For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." and also 10:17, but that is ultimately Eschatological, it's about how things will be when the very existence of Sin has been eliminated.

The word "forgive" is an economic term in origin, to forgive a debt is to relinquish any expectation or even desire to be repaid.  And The Bible especially The New Testament's discussions of the concept are explicitly linked to that economic understanding, the "Parable of the unforgiving servant" in Matthew 18:21-35 is textually entirely about debt forgiveness, it's relevance to moral forgiveness is the metaphor.  That's why "earned" forgiveness is any oxymoron, if they somehow actually made up for what they did (which is usually not possible) then in this analogy they repaid the debt, no forgiveness is necessary.

Forgiving someone doesn't mean trusting a person who's proven themselves untrustworthy, or acting like nothing happened.  And Forgiving an abuser doesn't mean staying in or returning to a relationship with them.

The New Testament's emphasis on Forgiveness is entirely about rejecting Retributive/Punitive Justice.  And so this post is not me saying this common SJW position on forgiveness is actually perfectly compatible with Scripture, because these people mostly are in favor of Retributive Justice, even if they say they are not, you can say you prefer "Restorative Justice" all you want but if you have the attitude that it's a horrible injustice for a person not to be "punished" even though punishing them will not actually undo any of the harm they did, that's retributive justice.

But I'm not done yet talking about areas where I'm on their side of this issue.  One of the few morals common in Anime I don't like is how some seem to say children always owe something to their parents no matter how abusive and/or neglectful they were, this is part of joyce-stick's problem with the Mahou Shoujo Site Manga (the Anime hasn't gotten that far), and it bugged me in Clannad After Story.  On the blog that is primarily me talking about Anime I did a psot on After Story before I'd finished it appreciating it's found family element with an MC who's biological father was a drunken neglectful failure finding a surrogate father in Nagisa's father.  The problem is the show later devotes an arc to him reconciling with his father and even goes so far as tell him he did nothing wrong.

And I know a lot of Christians think this sense of unconditional loyalty to a sperm donor is Biblical because of the Fifth Commandment.  But in my opinion one has to do more then give birth to you and let you live in their house till a certain age to be worthy of the title of Father or Mother.  The New Testament is all about how true Family has nothing to do with biological relation.  So you can forgive a bad parent in the proper understanding of forgiveness I laid out above, but to "Honor" them as your Mother or Father when they weren't one would actually violate the Fifth Commandment by diminishing that Honor.

The Biblical understanding of Forgiveness and Atonement and Redemption is also easier to understand when you properly understand what Sin means and the materialist understanding that no one is entirely responsible for their own actions.

There is also the Psychological fact that for many people forgiving someone was good for their own mental health, finally being able to do it felt like a burden being removed.  The Bible even applies this to God Forgiving us in Isaiah 43:25 "I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins".

I guess it's time to get into how this ties into the discourse surrounding Redemption narratives in fiction.  One fairly well known Video Essay on the topic I can't remember the name of right now talks about a distinction between passive redemption and active atonement, being redeemed vs redeeming themselves, the former is as they acknowledge what The Christian Gospel is about but the latter is what she prefers.  The thing is this preference for "earned" redemption is a form of Meritocracy, a key pillar of the justifying ideology of Capitalism.

That video was cited in a Sailor Moon Video that's not watchable anymore because of Toei's incomprehensible copyright standards, I'm pretty sure it was a Unicorn of War video but I could be remembering that wrong.  It was about The Blaok Moon Saga of Sailor Moon and comparing different versions of it.  Now for this saga I am mostly in agreement that the 90s Anime version was a failure.  But this issue came up in the context of how they don't like the redemption of the Spectre Sister because it's passive redemption, and their redemption arc is one of the few aspects of the 90s Anime version I like.  Now in fairness the 3 episodes that cover their redemptions are not all equal, the forcing Calaveras and Petz to share the same spotlight episode again was ill advised, and Bertheir's felt uninspired.  But the Koan episode is one of my favorite episodes of the series and like most good episodes during this saga was written by Katsuyuki Sumisaya.

Ya know how there was this variation on Universal Salvation that framed it as those in Gehenna being let out when the Saints themselves ask Jesus to show Mercy?  Augustine alludes to it in City of God as the second most popular soteriology he doesn't like, and it's the form presented in the Apocalypse of Peter.  Well the Koan redemption episode of Sailor Moon really works as an analogy to that version of Universal Salvation.

Now there are many variation on this anti-Forgiveness attitude out there.  Lily Orchard is not representative of most, but I feel I have to bring her up because she's the most extreme, she is very vocally Revenge is Good actually and it's kind of insane to see a supposed Leftist being this in love with Retributive Justice, she kind of just debunks her own worldview by actually saying it out loud.

Thursday, November 3, 2022

Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine

I've talked more then once on this Blog about how I'm a Zionist but still one critical of the current Israeli Government.  

But beyond that I have disagreements with a lot of other people calling themselves Zionists because it's very popular now to call yourself a Zionist when supporting a Two-State Solution, including every professing Socialist Party in the current Israeli Knesset.

So I find myself oddly being a Zionist who feels more political affinity with some Palestinian Parties then I do any Israeli Parties.  Particularly the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine which is a Marxist-Leninist Party.

I think we need to understand that many calling themselves Anti-Zionist have had what Zionism means defined to them by bad faith actors.

If you support a Binational State where Jews and Arabs and other residents all have equal Citizenship and you're a Communist, then you basically have the same final goal as the founders of Labour Zionism like Aaron David Gordon and Ber Borochov.  

At a certain point the disagreement becomes a matter of semantics, whether the Binational State should be called Israel or Palestine.  I propose calling it the People's Republic of The Land of Abraham, that embodies the common heritage of the two peoples.

The DFLP are the Palestinian Party who are exactly the kind of "Anti-Zionists" I'm talking about, at least originally, their opposition to the Two State Solution has seemingly been softened somewhat over the years but a Binational State seems to still be their ideal preference.

Other Palestinian Parties calling themselves Communists seem to prefer a Two-State Solution or a more problematic One-State Solution.  Hamas is an Offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood making them pure reactionary Wahhabism.  And Fatah is the NSPAP, their current leader is the worst kind of Holocaust Denier and their founder was trained by the SS Officers working for Nasser.  So the DFLP are definitely the best viable option in the Palestinian Authority.

Update August 2024: The Popular Front for the Libertarian of Palestine also claims to be Marxist-Leninist, but not Maoist.  Also while the DFLP emphasizes the equality between Jews and Arabs in their vision the PFLP intends to tolerate Jews only as a Minority.  And George Habash that founder of the PFLP had strong tied to Francois Genoud.

Thursday, October 6, 2022

Circumcision is Good Actually

Anti-Circumcision rhetoric can be found all over the political spectrum, but I shall in the secular part of this post mainly be thinking of Left Wing opposition to the practice since I am Left Wing and consider Conservatives and "Libertarians" people who's opinions on such matters shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place.

The first problem to complicate the perception of Circumcision is how Female Genital Mutilation is often incorrectly called Female Circumcision.  FGM is both in terms of what it does and why it's done not in anyway similar to Circumcision, it should be called Female Castration because that is far more parrel to what's actually being done.  

There is I suspect a direct connection to that barbaric practice being wrongly equated with Circumcision and the way many people decided to start describing Circumcision as "cutting part of your dick off".  The Forsaken is part of the dick in the same way hair is part of your head or fingernails part of your hand.  But the best comparison is actually the ambilocal cord, both serve a function while in the Womb but are obsolete as soon as the infant is born.

It angers me to see so many of the same people chanting "Believe the Science" when the Science seems to be contradicting something religious people believe in, will then ignore the endless scientific studies that have proven the health benefits of Infant Circumcision.  There are many health benefits to Circumcision in general but what's most directly relevant to Infant Circumcision is Urinary Tract Infection, Uncircumcised AMAB children have a significantly increased risk of developing UTI before they even turn 2 years old.  It is absurdly hypocritical how some of the same people who support mandatory vaccinations of children even when the parents are uncomfortable with it to also then turn around and try to ban allowing parents to circumcise their children.

The Science has shown that the benefits of Circumcision far outweigh the hypothetical risks. In addition to the UTI issues it also reduces risk of STDs and HPV and cervical cancer  Now I've seen people seek to respond to all these health arguments with a weird little slogan of "wash your dick", thinking it's that simple is clear evidence of having the privilege of being Cut your whole life.  

Science has also debunked the notion that Circumcision effects male sexual enjoyment one way or the other.

The only Anti-Circumcision claim that has any statistical validity at all is the claim that it has a negative psychological effect and even that is inconclusive.  But the thing is even if that is true that is Socially Constructed.  We live in a society that conditions people of every gender but especially Cis-Males to place much of their self worth in their sex organs, and then idiots start telling Circumcised people that they had part of their dick cut off when they were a baby.  Putting all that value on a piece of vestigial skin because it can technically be considered "part of the dick" is pure Toxic Masculinity.

There is also an obvious overlap between anti-Infant Circumcision arguments and the arguments of TERFs and other Transphobes, this idea that anything related to the natural state of a child's reproductive system is sacrosanct and shouldn't be allowed to be altered until they are unambiguously an adult.  Puberty Blockers weren't even originally created for Trans People but for the rare condition of young girls starting puberty way too early.  The foreskin being technically "natural" doesn't make it not harmful.

But the real bigotry behind Anti-Circumcision rhetoric is Anti-Semitism.  It fascinates me how many things are considered Anti-Semitic dog whistles online simply for being something also believed by some past Anti-Semites.  But all this demonizing of a ritual custom that has been foundational to Jewish cultural identity since the first book of The Bible is apparently fine.  But it's not just the Jews, it's also part of the cultures of a number of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia and other places.

I still remember the first Anti-Circumcision webpage I ever stumbled upon.  I was reading it genuinely sympathetic to the author's concerns, but then they just casually inserted an unsourced claim that "Rabbis lick the blood off the circumcised Baby's penis" and my jaw just dropped, that's literally an allusion to the Blood Libel and they just dropped it in there and moved on like it was nothing.

But if you really want to see just how insanely conspiratorial Anti-Circumcision people can get, watch this video on the Silent Hill Wiki.

That's the secular arguments, now I shall get to specifically Christian attitudes towards Circumcision.

Everything Paul says that sounds Anti-Circumcision is in the context of his opposing those who want to make it mandatory for Adult Gentile Converts.  But those I call Reverse-Legalists abuse these passages to claim Circumcision and other Jewish Customs are outright sinful for Christians to engage in.  

Paul also talks about how the true Circumcision is spiritual, but he does the same with Baptism often in the same passages and no one argues that the physical Water Baptism ritual is abolished by those verses [correction there are sects like The Quakers that do basically argue that, but they're outliers].  

In Acts 16 Paul helps Timothy get Circumcised, so he was clearly not entirely agaisnt doing it even for adult gentile converts.  

First Century Christians were still a sect of Judaism, and Jewish Paulian Christians like the Nazarenes continued practicing it at least into the late Fourth Century.

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

Free Will and Personal Moral Responsibility.

On the issue of Free Will vs Determinism I am a type of Compatibilist, I reject hopeless Fatalism but also believe there are enough mitigating factors in the world to render no one truly ultimately fully responsible for their own actions.

My perspective on this has changed some but this is no complete reversal of any prior post I've made on the subject.  This is somewhat true of me in the past but it's especially true going forward that when I seem to speaking as a pro Free Will person I'm speaking agaisnt Calvinist Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace or Augustinian Original Sin or the Reprobate Doctrine as it is taught by some Arminians.  And I've also argued against Free Will being inherently incompatible with Universal Salvation.

However when I seem to be anti Free Will I am advocating a form of Determinism not Calvinist Predestination.  Determinism is what any Atheist who says they reject Free Will is talking about, but it's not only Atheists, if you're any type of Materialist then you're also some type of Determinist.

Determinism has unfortunately become a contentious topic among many people it shouldn't be.  Much of what I'm arguing in this post is controversial not just among my fellow Christians regardless of their politics but also among fellow Leftist regardless of their religious affiliation.

For example some Leftists think because we reject Scientific Racism and Eugenics then we should also reject any conception of "Biological Determinism" or inheritable traits.  The specific claims of those pseudo sciences are both factually wrong and morally repugnant.  But it's still true that we are the way we are in part because of how are brains are wired.  And acknowledgment of those factors should be a cause for sympathy and understanding not a justification for hate and discrimination.

Here's one good YouTube video on Determinism, but it is by someone not as Left Wing as I am and probably not as Compatibilist either.

And all of that is just one aspect of Determinism, we Leftists also care about Historical Materialism, Material Conditions and Systemic Oppression and so on.  

As a Christian Compatibilist it is my position that when people do good they are by the Grace of God acting in their own Free Will.  But when they do Evil it is them falling victim to their conditions in some way.  That is equally as true of both the morally best people who've ever lived as it is of the morally worst.

To many in the Ancient World including Socrates and I firmly believe every author of the New Testament, it was oxymoronic to even consider debating if a evil act someone committed was or wasn't committed by their own free will because they believed Humans are innately Good and so any Evil deed one commits is by definition a deviation of their true nature and not something they could have possibly done of their own free will.  

To Socrates it seems it is chiefly Ignorance that is to Blame, and that can be supported by what Jesus said on The Cross "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".  But also when Jesus called Matthew and some objected He said that Sinners are sick people who need a doctor not criminals who need punishment, so that implies other factors as well.  

Mark 7:11 and John 8:31-36 talk about Jesus making us Free, as does Romans 8 verses 2 and 32 and Galatians 5.  Grace is spoken of as a Free Gift by Paul because we don't have to pay anything for it, it is given to everyone, permission is not asked.  The only NT verses that seem to truly speak of metaphysical Free Will are in Revelation 21-22 in the New Heaven and New Earth.

In Ancient Greek Gentile schools of Philosophy it is surprisingly only Atheist Determinism I can't find.  The Epicureans were Atheist Existentialists and Objectivists, the Stoics were Compatibilists but often seen by their Platonist rivals as more Determinist, the only hard Determinist was Aristotle who basically invented Deism.  And the Theistic Existentialists were the Middle Platonists like Plutarch who wrote against the Determinism of the Stoics.

In Josephus's descriptions of The Sects of First Century Judaism, the Essenes seem like Middle Platonists or Neopythagoreans on everything but their position on Fate vs Free Will, while the Sadducees seem like Aristotleans on everything but Fate vs Free Will.  It looks like Greco-Roman era Jews for some reason swapped that one part of those two ways of thinking.  However the Pharisees out of whom came the Zealots and Early Christians seemed to agree with the Stoics on both Fate vs Free Will and other metaphysical issues, the Stoics merely lacked knowledge of The Resurrection.

Pelagianism is a trend in Christianity that already existed before the person for whom it is named (in Early Arianism it's shown how the Arians were proto Pelagians).  That trend is the bizarre notion that it's because Humans are innately Good being made in the Image of God and given Life by the Breath of God that we are supposed to believe in Absolute Free Will and that each human is personally responsible for their moral failings.  It's actually absurd to believe those two things at the same time, but because Augustine normalized The Latin Church taking the exact opposite position on both those things Christians were conditioned to think they go together.

However I feel a lot of modern Internet SJWs are basically Secular Pelagians.  They claim to believe in the innate goodness of Humanity at least when they're refuting the Authoritarian Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes.  But then turn around and are very against allowing "excuses" for the people they consider evil.

Like for example the notion that suggesting someone's Mental Illness or Trauma was even partly to blame for their wrongdoings is offensive to the people with the same issues who didn't do anything like similar.  And I wish they could see how that same Logic is applied to Economics by the Right.  Conservatives who keep thinking they can refute everything about how inherently unfair our current system is by pointing to "Rags to riches" stories of people who succeeded in-spite of their disadvantages.  And we correctly explain how that probably had as much or more to do with Luck then it does Merit.

Instead of jumping to call it Ableist to suggest that Crimes are a result of Mental Illness we should start considering that there is no such thing as a person not Mentally Ill, we just haven't diagnosed all the illnesses we have yet.

But another factor is how many of them have the same Vengeful Emotional Desire for Retributive Justice that leads to Conservatives attacking Democrats for being Soft on Crime have, simply directed agaisnt "The Nazis".  And make no mistake it is better to direct your desire for Righteous Vengeance agaisnt those with real Power, but at the end of the day it's still an unhealthy mindset.

We should be seeking to dismantle our current Criminal Justice System entirely, not redirect it.

Too many of the people who've figured out how Evil Capitalism is, are still buying into parts of it's justifying ideology.  Meritocracy, Individualism and Personal Accountability are all vital fundamentally linked to each other pillars of neoliberal ideology, believing in one of them will always eventually lead to the others.

In Platonist Philosophy 80- BC to AD 250 by George Boys-Stones chapter 12 talks about how the Middle Platonists and Stoics disagreed on Free Will, it's not prefect as the author seems to be on the Platonist side in this chapter.  He notes how the Platonists didn't even believe God is All Knowing, so even Bible Verses on God knowing the End from the Beginning (like Isaiah 46:9-11) make it more compatible with Stoicism then Platonism.

He says one of the problems with Stoicism is that it "removed moral responsibility" and doesn't explain why that's a problem, that conclusion is as an argument itself.   It reminds me of In Praise of Shadow's YT video on Lovecraft, after an hour of basically utterly debunking the notion that Lovecraft had Free Will he suddenly asserts that "he chose" to be a Racist.  Personal Moral Responsibility is such a given in our Capitalist Society that even many who say they oppose Capitalism refuse to question it.

Update April 2023: I've since learned that most Epicureans were not strictly Atheists but just as Deist as Aristotle.  So the Sadducees can then be viewed as Jewish Epicureans.  

The Essenes I think were ultimately more Pythagorean then Platonist and so that could explain why they had such a different position on Free Will from Middle Platonists.  

Tuesday, September 13, 2022

Homoousion Stoicism

The Irony is I began my flirtation with Christian Stoicism by considering certain assumptions all sides of the Nicene V Arian controversy agreed on regarding the Usias of God possibly wrong in my God and the Universe post.  But I have since found that the Stoics did sometimes use the word Usias in defining their distinction between God as the Active Matter and the visible material world as Passive Matter.  Meaning in that sense even Stoic Christians could agree that Humans other then Jesus are not exactly Homousian with God in the same way Jesus is.

However my argument was never that the Nicene Creed was wrong, and I still consider the fixation on various forms of Usias a partial distraction from the original point of the Arian heresy.  And what I've learned reading Early Arianism shows that Arius and Athanasius arguments did hinge a lot on both agreeing with Divine Immutability.

The reason why I'm making this new post on the subject is Tertullian.  Many Scholars have observed a degree of Stoicism in Tertullian including his willingness to argue that God is in a sense Corporeal.


Now Tertullian's Stoicism is definitely tainted a bit by later Roman Stoicism when it comes to things like Sexual Morality so he's still fallen away from the New Testament in that sense.  But the Metaphysics is the point of discussion here.

He was still critical of some Stoic ideas just like I am, but what baffles me is how he thought Marcion who was more Gnostic then the Gnostics in his attitude towards the material world owed anything to the Stoics?

Tertulian is also famously cited as the only Pre-Nicene Father who even comes close to defining the Trinity in Nicene-Homousian terms with his use of Substantia which is arguably the Latin equivalent of Usias. So could even Tertulian's use of Substantia be influenced by Stoic uses of Usias?

According to Eusebius of Caesarea it was Constantine himself who insisted on the Homousian thermology.  But we also know that at Nicaea Constantine didn't know Greek very well, he was a firmly Western Latin in his language.  And since Tertullian was the first Latin Church Theologian, I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest Constantine got this Homousian idea from Tertullian's Trinitarian use of Substantia.

So it could be that in-spite of how much Platonism was already running strong in the Fourth Century Church that Homoousionism was one final win for the Stoic Theology.

Sunday, September 4, 2022

Mary Magdalene was the Beloved Disciple.

Now most people proposing that theory do so while claiming the Text of the Fourth Gospel must have been changed in some capacity.  I do not, the two passages commonly taken as distinguishing her from them are when analyzed closely actually saying the opposite.

John 20 verses 1-2.
The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.  Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
The key word here is "other" no other Beloved Disciple verse says that, the implication is that the primary Disciple to whom that title belongs was someone already in the scene, which only leaves Mary.  

Add to that how this is the only Beloved Disciple verse using a form of Philia instead of Agape and it clearly isn't good for ruling anyone out.

Now look at John 19:25-27, my personal translation.
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his maternal sister Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.  When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, "Woman, behold thy son!" Then saith he to the disciple, "Behold thy mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
As an aspiring writer myself it's clear to me that when Verse 25 describes a group of people including his mother standing by The Cross, then verse 26 says Jesus observed two people standing by, the intent is clearly that both people referred to in verse 26 are among those identified in verse 25, not merely one of them.

"But sons are male!" you may object.  It is already the point of this passage that Jesus is giving the legal responsibility of being her son to a person who's not literally biologically her son.  So likewise I don't think the biological sex or gender identity of the Disciple in question matters either.

Likewise the pronouns used here and at the end of chapter 21 may not be as gendered in the Greek as the translators assumptions have lead us to believe.  But even if they are it could be because of this legal sonship and nothing else.

I also now believe Magdalene and the sister of Lazarus & Martha are the same Mary.  In John 11 when you see a from of "love" in the English, in the Greek a form of Philia is used both times it's only referring to Lazarus in verses 3 and 36, but Agape is used when it refers to Lazarus and Martha and their sister together in verse 5.  Elsewhere in the same chapter the remaining sister is named Mary, I think this chapter which proceeded all the usual Beloved Disciple passages sets the precedent that Mary will sometimes not be referred to by name but as someone Jesus loves using Agape.  This also results in my concluding the other disciple who Jesus loved Philia in chapter 20 is Lazarus.

I've talked before about my belief that there has been some slight corruption in the letter of Polycrates.  
"We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumeneia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man'...I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus."[Eusebius, Church History, Book V, Chapter 24]
I believe the "John" of this letter was originally either not named at all or was named Mary.  I also think it's a misinterpretation of the letter to think this Disciple is wearing the Brest Plate of the High Priest, that reference is tied to them being who rested on the Bosom of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, I think they symbolically are the Breastplate with Jesus as the High Priest.

There are known traditions independent of this that say Mary Magdalene came to Ephesus, but they usually involve her coming there with "John" and Mary the Mother of Jesus, among those is Gregory of Tours.  Since the earliest Christians of Southern France were Ionians who migrated there in the 2nd Century the later tradition of Mary going to France could derive from the Ephesian tradition.  

Still I am skeptical of her even going to Ephesus, she may be among the Early Christians buried at the Dominus Flevit Church on the Mount of Olives.

Friday, July 15, 2022

You can't oppose Capitalism while supporting The Federal Reserve system

The fact that not all Capitalists support the Federal Reserve doesn't change the fact that the Federal Reserve is an inherent expression of Capitalism.

The problem is back in the late 90s and 2000s talking about the Federal Reserve at all on the Internet was largely monopolized by Paleo-Conservative and Libertarian Conspiracy Theorists, with literal Nazis from Stormfront sometimes worming their way into those communities.

I don't agree with the anti-Breadtube narrative of Caleb Maupin and Peter Coffin, but I do agree that Breadtube in many areas are poor ambassadors of Communist Ideology because they are Anti-Conservatives first and foremost, they say they know the American Right's conflation of Liberalism and Socialism is wrong, but to them the difference is often just a matter of extremes, to them Liberalism is synymous with Centrism and Socialism is about being even more opposed to Conservatism then the Liberals are.  The truth is much of the American Right unintentionally agrees with proper Socialism on some issues, not as many as Maupin and Coffin thinks, but still they do in fact agree sometimes.  This Breadtuber problem is why you have an epidemic of people online who think it's okay to call yourself a Socialist while supporting Gun Control, and it's also why we now have pseudo leftist defenses of the Federal Reserve.

There are three reasons to oppose the Federal Reserve system.  Well there is a fourth which is abolishing Money altogether which is the long term goal of Communism but that really can't be achieved without changing our economic system altogether.  Within the context of having Money there are three reasons to oppose the Federal Reserve, two are inherently capitalist and/or anti-capitalist in a way that is reactionary, the third can also be co-opted by liberals or reactionaries but is at it's core what Socialists should believe about Monetary policy.  

One reason is to oppose "Soft Money" and demand a return to the Gold Standard or something like it, the most well known form of this is the Austrian School.  Now I find it amusing when modern online Leftists act like calling for the Gold Standard is an Anti-Semitic Dog Whistle, because when the Gold Standard was what we had all Anti-Semites without exception opposed it, one of the sad blemishes on the classical American Populist/Progressive movement was how many people couldn't stop themselves from bringing their Anti-Semitism into their opposition to the Gold Standard.  You see Anti-Semites see Gold as inherently a tool of the Jews.  George W. Christians was a prominent American Nazi of the 1930s who's platform included Abolition of the Gold Standard.

Nazis only really started opposing the Federal Reserve when Eustace Mullins published his book on the subject in the 1950s.  The NSDAP Regime didn't abolish the German equivalent but simply put Party members in charge of it, one was literally a reappointment of someone who'd already ran it before.  Meanwhile in Italy it was specifically the Fascist regime that first gave the Bank of Italy the exclusive right to print the currency.

Breadtubers also don't seem to get that not all opponents of the Federal Reserve are Gold Standard supporters.  In Sarcasmitron's video on the subject he talks about Trump era conspiracy theorists being unable to reconcile their inherently Hard Money ideology with supporting a Soft Money president and even being unable to see the contradiction.   But Blackbigeonspeaks endorsed the soft money policies of Lincoln and JFK and based his narrative on the documentary The Money Masters which is an explicitly anti-Gold Standard documentary, I know this because I've watched it more times then I can count, originally over a decade ago as someone less critical of it then I am now, but I also rewatched it more recently with my new perspectives in mind. Sarcasmitron however seems to have not heard about it till it came up in an Alt-Right YouTube video he wanted to debunk and then just sorta skimmed it.  Same with Munecat, I actually endorse most of her anti Crypto video, but when she starts throwing in the Federal Reserve stuff she clearly didn't do as much research.

The Money Masters film makers are like a lot of people in the old Progressive movement who opposed the Federal Reserve's creation even though they had just spent decades calling for Soft Money, they feel that the Federal Reserve doesn't undo the problems of the Gold Standard but rather makes it worse.

The second reason to oppose the Federal Reserve is to be a supporter of Paper Money but feel it gives the government too much regulation of the Economy.  These people may have been fine with the original Aldrich Bill before Wilson and Bryan added more government oversight to it.  

The Chicago School is often confused with the Austrian School, but the core difference is the Chicago Boys are not Gold Standard supporters.  Some of them are fine with the Federal Reserve in fact many heads of the Fed have been Chicago Boys, but those who do oppose it fit into type two.

The third reason to oppose the Federal Reserve is feeling it doesn't regulate the economy enough.  When Marx made creating a Central Bank one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto, he was NOT referring to anything like what the Federal Reserve wound up being, nor the Central Banks that already existed in the Western Capitalist powers he was criticizing like England and France.  He's referring to a Central Bank directly controlled by the Proletariat (The Working Class).

The Money Masters seem to also fall into the view that the Federal Reserve isn't regulated enough, that alone wouldn't make them Socialists, the movie gives me little to go on regarding their economic views outside of specifically how Money is printed.  The movie is wrong about certain historical subjects like repeating the Nathan Rothschild and Waterloo myth.  But it seems to Sarcasmitron it was inherently Anti-Semitic to mention the Rothschilds at all (yet his own making a secret supervillain out of Milton Freidman in his Covid video is fine), I however was shocked when I first watched it that they ignored Jacob Schiff keeping their history of American banking focused on J.P. Morgan who was a 100% Gentile, but that is more accurate Morgan was in fact way more influential.

Scarasmitron says it would be a bad thing to have the Printing of money directly controlled by the Government, and cites Turkey as an example.  That's because Turkey isn't a democracy, neither is the US of course but what I am calling for the US to do is have the printing of Money directly regulated by Congress, not monarchically controlled by a Presidential appointee.

Monday, June 13, 2022

Elections are incompatible with the Classical Definition of Democracy

This goes beyond even how we usually talk about the distinction between Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy.  

Even the most direct Democracy still needs magistrates of some sort to enforce laws and manage things, and make quick decisions in a crisis when there isn't time to debate.  In classical Athenian direct democracy these magistrates were not chosen by voting but by the Lot (Sortition), meaning a qualified citizen was selected at random.

The never implemented hypothetical constitution proposed by Hippodamus of Miletus is described as "less democratic then Athens only in that magistrates were chosen by Election rather then by lot".  In other words it's not just that Elections weren't required for Democracy, they were contrary to it.  Sparta is thought of as the antithesis of Athens and in turn the most anti-democratic City-State of Classical Greece, but Sparta did have elected magistrates in the Ephors, and they were often the actual Power in Sparta rather then the Kings.

Athenian Democracy considered Elections a threat because they didn't want one person to become too Popular, Popular enough to form a popular Tyranny, and choosing magistrates by popularity inevitably leads to cults of personality.  

The evangelists of Athenian Style Democracy considered the accountability they held magistrates to vital.  Elections make accountability more difficult, when everyone in power is also basically the face of a segment of the population holding them accountable for even the most basic of wrongdoings becomes politicized.  We see this in modern US Politics, in 2016 it was considered dangerous for Trump to make even the suggestion of criminally prosecuting Clinton a campaign promise, but now post January 6th a lot of the same people think it's a dangerous precedent not to prosecute Trump even as he's officially running for president again.

When people accuse modern western Democracies of actually being Oligarchies they usually mean that in the sense of how the Rich use their Money and influence to undermine how the system is "supposed" to work.  However Oligarchy as a Greek word is not inherently synonymous with rule by the Wealthy (that would be Plutocracy), it simply means rule by a small group.  Meaning even if American Democracy did work exactly how it claims it's supposed to, that would still be Oligarchy, that would still be rule by a small group rather then the masses, membership in that small group being decided by winning popularity contests (or being appointed by a winner of a popularity contest) doesn't matter, especially when there is no real accountability for representatives who brazenly defy the will of who they represent.  Whatever legitimacy Representative Democracy used to have was destroyed in the Anglosphere by Edmund Burke.

And as long as there are some people who are massively more wealthy then most people, they'll find a way to influence and control the representatives.  Any "campaign finance reform" you pass to address how they're doing it now will only result in them changing their methods.

Now one difference between Classical Athenian Democracy and ours definitely doesn't make theirs look better, and that is the restrictions on who could vote, women, slaves and non native residents were all excluded.  However the United States started with all those same restrictions and more, the Athenian Constitution to which I refer didn't have property requirements, but the U.S. originally did.  We also started with a from of Slavery far more brutal and dehumanizing even then how Sparta treated the Helots.  Women didn't get to vote for over a hundred years, and we still haven't enfranchised all non native born residents.  Plus we take the Vote away from convicted criminals permanently even after they've paid their debt to society.

There is evidence that there were people in Ancient Athens who sought similar reforms, perhaps the people being satirized by Aristophanes in The Assemblywomen, if the Athenian experiment hadn't been cut short by being conquered by Sparta, Macedon and Rome perhaps those reformers too could have succeeded in time. And then in the Hellenistic Era we get the Stoics who I've already talked about on this blog.

Tuesday, May 10, 2022

Class Struggle is Identity Politics

Politically Identifying with other people based on being the same Economic Class as them is also an Identity Politic.

Just as most Leftists agree that being Apolitical is defacto support for the status quo, rejecting "Woke" identity politics is defacto support for the White Supremacy, Patriarchy and Cisheteronormativity, and rejecting Class Politics is defacto support for the continued domination of the Bourgeoisie.

So when it comes to the little Civil War the Terminally Online Left is currently having, I have sympathies with both sides and frustrations with both sides, but they aren't equal.  And there are really more then two sides but for now I'm focusing on the "Woke Anarchists" like Thought Slime and Sophie vs "Anti-Imperialist" MLs like Caleb Maupin and PACD.

Both sides deny that they are what the other side accuses them of being, but the validity of the accusations are not equal to each other.  Maupin and PACD are Class Reductionists, doesn't matter that they pay certain lip service to other issues in ways that an old school Class Reductionists of the 1930s wouldn't have, and I also massively disagree with their "Anti-Imperialist" understanding of international Geo-Politics.  My position on the war between Russia and Ukraine is that both sides are bad and no sane Leftists should take a side on it.  But I don't think everything they are accused of is fair either, being a Class Reductionist is not the same as being actively Racist.  And you can't call someone a Class Reductionist and a Fascist or Nazi at the same time, because Fascism and Nazism were built on Class Collaboration.

Thought Slime and Sophie are not Class Collaborationists, I suspect they may agree with the title of this blog post and it's first full paragraph.  But they aren't as well read as they pretend to be.  I don't even agree with proper Anarchism anymore yet still there are better Anarchists then them on YouTube like Zoe Baker, Libertarian Socialist Rants and veritas et caritas.

PACD and Maupin like to say that most Working Class Conservatives are not horrible racist people, they are just misguided and we need to include them in our class solidarity.  And I agree with that sentiment, if that was indeed all they were doing in their flirtations with the Right I would be fine with it.  But they then turn around and engage in this massive demonizing of fellow Leftists who disagree with them, this whole "synthetic left", "Color Revolution" nonsense, and that's what makes their playing nice with Conservatives look like totally hypocritical BS.

But I also agree with them that we need to stop viewing the political spectrum as a simple Binary, or even just overlapping Binaries.  True Socialism and Communism is not simply to the Left of the Democrats and the Green Party.  It's really closer to being like a Venn Diagram, if your understanding of Socialism refuses to acknowledge that we sometimes agree with Conservatives over Liberals, most importantly on the matter of Gun Rights, then it is legitimate to accuse your Socialism of really just being edgy Liberalism.

Saturday, May 7, 2022

The Reformation and the Resurgence of Democracy

It is pretty well known that what we commonly call THE French Revolution was not the last French Revolution.  But what if I told you that, from a certain point of view, it wasn’t the first either?  It can be argued that the French Wars of Religion of the 16th century were a French Revolution that was Protestant rather than Secular in nature. But tragically like many of the later Secular French Revolutions it was betrayed by the very person who won it, Henry Bourbon converting to Catholicism was the Clerical Equivalent of Napoleon being Crowned Emperor. 


This post is a sequel of sorts to Capitalism is Atheistic in Nature, I’m not titling it as a direct parallel because I can't claim Democracy wouldn't exist without Christianity, Ancient Greece definitely had it, and I believe so did Sumerian Kish before Etana.  I mentioned how Capitalism loving New Atheists and YouTube Skeptics love to credit the rise of Capitalism to the Secularism of the Enlightenment, but they also claim credit for Democracy and like the Christian Capitalists of the Eisenhower era try to paint Capitalism and Democracy as inseparable.  But the truth is Capitalism and Democracy are actually incompatible, the only truly Democratic socio-economic system would be Anarcho-Communism, and the only acceptable Representative Democracies are Socialist Republics like Cuba and Vietnam.


That post also acknowledged that some people blame/credit the Protestant Reformation for Capitalism.  The Renaissance and the Enlightenment had both Protestant and Secular sides to them (also a Catholic side but the Catholic Renaissance and Enlightenment was like the New Deal and Huey Long, attempting to appease the people to keep them from running into the arms of the revolutionaries).  And those two sides were not always mutually exclusive, you had Christians who were largely Secular in their mindset or methodology, and non Christians unafraid to draw on Scripture to support their ideas like Thomas Paine in Common Sense.  My thesis in that prior post was that Capitalism is chiefly the product of the Secular side, while here I shall argue that the Return of The Demos was mostly the product of the Reformation.


Part 1: Ecclesiastical Polity


Church Governance was not the initial main point of dispute upon which the Reformation started, but it very quickly became an important topic of debate.  There are primarily three different positions on Church Governance, others do exist like the weird system Methodism has, but they were devised much later and can be argued to be simply fiddling around with these three.


Episcopal Polity: The form used by The Church of The East, The Oriental Orthodox, The Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans (Episcopalian as a name for a denomination usually means Anglicans in the United States), and some Lutheran Churches.


Presbyterian Polity: The form used by the Reformed Churches of the Continent in Switzerland, The Netherlands and parts of Germany as well as the Huguenots and Protestant minorities in France.  But Presbyterian as the name of a denomination refers to the denomination founded by John Knox which became most popular in Scotland, they are today also the largest Christian Church in South Korea.


Congregational Polity:  As the name of a specific denomination refers to a subgroup of the Puritans that included the founders of Boston MA and Oliver Cromwell., but it was also the Polity used by most of the most well known Puritans including the Plymouth Pilgrims, the Baptists and the Quakers.  It also seems to apply to Anabaptist sects like the Mennonites, Hutterites and Amish.  It can be hard to determine with Proto-Protestant groups that no longer exist, but it looks to me like the Waldenses and Taborite were probably Congregational.


Episcopal Polity is basically Clerical Monarchy, Presbyterian Polity is Clerical Oligarchy or Parliamentarianism, and Congregational Polity is Clerical Democracy.  There are of course differences within each form as well, for example what Separates Catholicism from other Episcopalians is viewing The Bishop of Rome as beyond just a Duke(Bishop) Archduke(Archbishop), Prince(Cardinal) or King(Patriarch) but as essentially the Emperor of The Church.


I like to describe my own personal position on Ecclesiastical Polity as Congregationalism with Presbyterian Characteristics.  The reason being that the most well known Congregationalists, those who bear the name and Baptists, seem to be classified this way chiefly for their localism over regionalism but sure seem to have Episcopal Characteristics in how the Local Pastor is viewed.  But even in Presbyterian Denominations it still seems like the weekly Church service is usually one person giving a speech everyone else listens to, which I view as a monarchial tending problem itself. And that criticism itself parallels criticisms of modern Secular Democracies. In many ways I think the Quakers are doing most things better then anyone else.


All three words used to define these forms of Church Government are Biblical, so the first step to seeing who is Biblically Correct is looking into how these words are used in The Bible.


Episcopas is a Greek word that is most literally translated Overseer, but in translations like the KJV more often becomes Bishop, and KJV only Independent Baptists usually use Bishop as the chief Biblical synonym for what they mean by Pastor.  Interestingly the Spartan title of Ephor is derived from the same Greek Root but in a different dialect making it equivalent in it's essential meaning.


Presbyter is a Greek word that is usually translated Elder but I actually feel like Senior conveys the intended meaning better at least in how The New Testament uses it.  Better yet, if I were based on my perspective as a Christian who watches a lot of Anime asked to consult on a Japanese translation of The Bible, I would advise them to translate Presbyter as Senpai and Newtron as Kohai at least in 1 Peter and the Pastoral Epistles.


Neither of these words was meant to refer to an office in any kind of hierarchy, the word “office” is used, but it means a job or function not a position of authority.  I’m a supporter of the House Church Movement, which means I’ve observed how there were no Church buildings till the 3rd Century, the Early Church met in each other’s homes.  Any context where Episcopas seems to be in use in a very singular sense, as in this Church at this time seemingly only has one, it’s probably the owner of the house they’re currently meeting in, the host of the meeting is naturally also responsible for organizing and overseeing it.  But in other contexts like Acts 20 and 1st Peter even many who defend the Episcopalian developments of the 2nd through 4th Centuries admit that all the Presbyters are Overseers in those passages.  However I feel the word Deacon is also used interchangeably with Episcopas, Deacon means a servant.


When 1st Peter is talking about elder and younger believers, I don’t think he means by how long it’s been since they came out of their mother’s womb, but by how long they’ve been a Christian.  Anarchist Philosophers have argued it does not conflict with Anarchism to defer to the authority of someone more experienced than you on a certain subject, and for Christian Anarchists that is how Divine Authority is reconciled, God is older and more experienced than all of us but Scripture actually does depict Him as okay with His decisions being questioned.  This is a form of that, Peter is saying that newer believers should seek guidance from those with more experience, but also stresses how those elders need to take seriously the responsibility that comes with that.


William Tyndale chose not to use the word Church in his English Translation of The New Testament, during this early period some Protestants were concerned the word Church itself was perhaps too inherently owned by the Catholic Church, and it was in fact never a good direct translation of The Greek.  So the Greek word Ekklesia he translated as Congregation, and even in the KJV (which is largely just a revision of Tyndale) and more modern Bibles "Congregation" instead of Church is still used a few times.  Because it is a pretty good literal translation of what Ekklesia means, but not the only way to translate it. 


You see the word Ekklesia was previously a big part of Greek politics and discussions of politics where in those contexts it is often translated Assembly.  The Ekklesia was in Athens and other Greek Democracies the word for the gathering together of the citizenry to discuss an issue and then vote on it, but they did exist in less strictly Democratic states as well since even the most monarchial monarchies often felt the need to consult the people.


The New Testament usage is not unrelated to the Civil Government usage, The Church is the Kingdom of Heaven, and Christ is King but even in The Davidic Monarchy the King still had to involve The People, indeed Ekklesia is also used in the Septuagint to translate equivalent Hebrew Words, as well as in Stephen’s Description of the Mosaic gathering of the people in Acts 7.  And there are hints in the New Testament of the local Ekklesia making decisions democratically.


So the first argument for Congregationalism is that only Congregationalists don't need to massively add to the meaning of the Biblical word they're named for. The word itself was inherently an expression of Democracy in Ancient Greek. Meanwhile Episcopas was not a word Monarchists would use for a Monarch and the closest similar word used in a political context was an example of representative democracy.


Most ancient Oligarchical forms of Government originated as Councils of Elders including pre Solon Athens and Sparta, either the heads of all of the Tribes families, or the heads of the aristocratic ruling families like Parliament's House of Lords.  A Council of Elders is what the Latin in origin word Senate actually means etymologically, and it’s also what the Sanhedrin is in Numbers 11 (Josephus called it the Senate of the Jews).  A council of Elders can play a role in how a Democracy functions, but it shouldn’t be the final and certainly not the only authority.


The Episcopalians’ main argument is that they have a lot of precedent on their side, the Church had been pretty Episcopal for well over a thousand years, you can’t even conceivably blame Constantine for this one. Indeed I don’t think one single big bad is to blame, though Ignatius of Antioch is the earliest Church writer we have who explicitly argued for Episcopalianism.  Ignatius gets referred to as a student of the same “John” who Polycarp was a student of, but the oldest sources on Polycarp being a student of a “John”, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Papias, mention only him and not Ignatius, and Ignatius in the letter he supposedly wrote to Polycarp makes no mention of them having a shared mentor, and neither refers to a “John” as their mentor in any of their own authentic writings.  Papias the oldest source on Polycarp and this John clearly distinguishes him from John The Apostle calling him John the Presbyter. 


Some supporters of Episcopalianism will admit that originally Churches founded by Peter and Paul were Presbyterian (I don’t even think they were that) but claim that "Johannian" Churches in Asia were Episcopalian, basing that largely on Ignatius and Polycarp.  However Polycarp in his one letter refers to himself as one Episcopas among a group. But either way something starting in Asia isn't a good sign since Paul referred to Asia departing from him, and in Revelation 2-7 most of the Churches in this region have some doctrinal problems. I'm not the only person to argue that Episcopal Polity is the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans.


The second century seems to be the key transitional century for the rise of Episcopalianism, some have argued it was a “necessary” development for dealing with the Heretics, needing an authoritative leader to refute and oppose them.  These Heretical sects were often founded by individual Heretics with a bit of a cult of personality around them like Cerinthus, Maricon and Valentinius.  So the "Proto Orthodox" responded to the Heretics by imitating their tactics.


But the second century was also the century over the course of which Platonism supplanted Stoicism as the leading Metaphysical Philosophy of the Greco-Roman World, including the beginning of its influence on Christianity. 


In Stoicism and Early Christianty I argue that the Early Christians were somewhat Stoic, but Stoics who were socially and morally more like the original Stoicism of Zeno rather than later Roman Stoicism.  Zeno was born a Phoenician on Cyprus but he founded his School in Athens.  The original Stoics were people who’s criticism of Athenian Democracy was that it wasn’t Democratic enough, they wanted full Gender Equality and the abolition of Slavery, as well as a Socio-Economic system we would today call Communist. This lines up well with Paul in Galatians 3 who says that in Christ's Ekklesia there is no distinction between Male/Female or Free/Slave or Jew/Gentile (Native/Immigrant).


However Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle were Athenians who HATED Democracy, they idolized many aspects of Sparta (though in The Laws attributed to Plato the Athenian blames Sparta for the spread of the Homosexuality he wanted to stamp out).  Aristotle of course broke with his former teacher on many things, and his books on Politics criticized both of Plato’s constitutions, he praised Sparta but ultimately gave higher praise to Carthage and Solon’s Constitution. It was actually Xenophon who was the most unconditionally in-love with Sparta.


Plato’s Republic gets misconstrued as Communist because it technically has no Private Property, but it is still very much a class based society, there was no discussion of liberating the Slaves.  In The Republic the Monarchy of a "Philosopher King" is Plato's ideal but an Oligarchy of "Guardians" is the acceptable alternative in the absence of a perfect ruler, and so I suspect Platonized Christianity gave rise to both Presbyterianism and Episcopalianism. The Republic's Communalism was only for the elite class of Guardians not the common people which I think may play a role in where Monasticism came from. Plato's Statesman also argued for Monarchy being the ideal.


But a degree of congregationalism might have survived longer then we generally assume. Just look at the history between the first two Ecumenical Councils when the Empire actually had two Arian Emperors. People will often take the the technical fact that both Arian Emperors at least started as Eastern Emperors to imply Arianism was actually popular in the East during this time, but this ignores the history of the Bishoprics of Antioch and Alexandria, where Arian Emperors kept trying to remove the Nicene Bishops like Athanasius of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch and Cyril of Jerusalem and replace them with personally appointed Arians yet the people of those Congregations refused to accept them. Same with the Arab Rebellion lead by Queen Mavia agaisnt the Arian Emperor Valens. It even happened in Constantinople itself, the Nicene Paul I of Constantinople always had the popular support of the people, Cosntantius II used violent force to defy them.

Or even later when we look at Bede's account of Augustine of Canterbury's disagreements with the Briton/Welsh clergy at meetings like the Synod of Chester, the Bishops themselves left the meeting open to at least some of Augustine's proposed changes but said they'd have to check with the People first, at it's core that's Congregationalism.

Now remember what I said about Capitalism and Democracy being incompatible?  Part of that is how Socialists believe Democracy should be expanded to the workplace.  Most Corporations are either Monarchies with one absolute CEO or Oligarchies ruled by a Board of Directors representing the wealthy shareholders. Worker owned Co-Opts would be Democracy but they are rare, the current status quo actively opposes allowing such experiments to succeed.

I've talked about the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers before, but those passages often come hand in hand with the Kingship of all Believers. Christ and God are both King, but they intend to share their Scepter with Us.

Paul Cartledge has a lecture you can watch on YouTube called Ten Things You Really Should Know about Ancient Greek Democracy. One of the points of the lecture is that it seems like in ancient times the word Democracy may have been inherently derogatory and thus rarely if ever used by people who actually supported it, most of the ancient Greek works that have survived are not very pro Democracy, even the writings of the early Stoics are mostly lost. So in that context the word Democracy not being used in The New Testament may itself be evidence that it's one of the few pro Democracy Ancient Greek Texts to survive. And maybe the word Ekklesia could have been the key word in whatever now lost label the ancient Democrats called themselves.

Here are some articles on Congregational Polity, one of them ties in their Dispensationalism which I disagree with.

That last one contains more documentation on what I said above, popular election was playing a role in how Bishop were chosen all through the 4th Century.

Part 2: Applying Ecclesiastical Governance to Civil Governance.


Protestants applying their views of Church Government to Civil Government started before the Reformation proper actually, when we look at the history of Proto-Protestantism, John Ball and his Peasant Revolt was contemporary with John Wycliffe and the Hussite Reformation was soon followed by the Taborite Rebellion.


Then not long after Martin Luther’s message had developed a big following Thomas Munster led an Anarcho-Communist revolt in Germany, then Luther being the evil scumbag he was ordered the Aristocratic Feudal Lords he had converted to his new doctrine to put them down, and there were other Anabaptist revolts as well, but by the end of the 16th century most Anabaptists were absolute Pacifists.


It was Rebels seeking to empower Presbyterianism who were the first to gain success with Zwingli making his preference for Aristocracy clear followed by the Dutch Revolt that started in the 1560s.  And then the English Revolutions of the 16th Century only empowered Parliament (the Presbytery they’d had since long before the Reformation) not the People.  Though more genuinely Congregational rebel groups were involved like Gerrard Winstanley’s Diggers.


Jennifer Tolbert Roberts in Athens On Trial: The Antidemocratic Tradition in Western Thought observes in the chapter on the English Revolution how it was the philosophers of Absolute Monarchy like Thomas Hobbes and Robert Filmer who had studied the Classical Pagan Texts of Greece and Rome and felt they supported their conclusions since it was mostly critics of Athens who's works have survived not Athens' defenders. While it was the most radical of Democrats like the Diggers and Levelers who showed no interest in any secular Classics but based their conclusions on how they interpreted The Bible.

And to verify my point about Democracy and Capitalism not going together originally, the earliest Enclosures of the Commons done in the 17th Century were by the Jacobite Monarchs, James I and Charles I, they were among the grievances that the Presbyterian and Congregational rebels held against them, and then after that Revolution they were put on hold till deep into the Hanover period. England's first even kind of Democratic Revolution was in part a resistance to primitive Capitalism. Robert Filmer not John Locke was the real English Language innovator of the modern Capitalist understanding of Private Property, and he was staunchly anti-Democracy.

Over in the Colonies New England was founded by Congregational Puritans, and Pennsylvania by the even more Congregational Quakers.  But Maryland was founded by Catholics and the South by Royalist Anglican Cavilers loyal to the Jacobite Monarchs.  In a way the American Civil War was a long delayed Sequel to the English Civil War.  Atun Shei Films has a video on Puritanism that acknowledges both their good and bad points.   It was also under the influence of Puritans like Richard Bernard that England under Cromwell ended it's ban on Jews that had stood since the 13th Century.


In the 17th Century English Revolution different people's positions on Ecclesiastical Polity lined up pretty consistently with their positions on Civil Governance, the Catholics and Anglicans were the Monarchists, the Presbyterians were the Parliamentarians and the Puritans and Quakers were the Democrats.


Later on plenty of Protestants would become openly explicit in not wanting the same kind of Governance for The State they do for The Church.  Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party was religiously speaking dominated by the New England Congregationalists, a denomination founded on Clerical Localism, so why were they so opposite politically?  Well they still had the Puritan Attitude that the State should regulate Morality, so they wanted a strong Federal Government regulating public morality, and that's what Hamilton and Adams promised them.


But it's also noticeable that in-spite of their voting base being Congregationalist the leadership of the party was largely Episcopalians, Hamilton, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris, Rufus King, Charles Cotesworth Pickeny, John Rutledge, Edward Rutledge, George Walton and William Samuel Johnson. And then there's Patrick Henry who was a rare Federalist who had been an opponent of ratifying the Constitution. These are largely the same people Eric Nelson talks about in Royalist Revolution who wanted the office of President to be King in all but name. There were Congregationalists who ultimately sided with the Democratic-Republicans like Samuel Adams, Josiah Bartlett and both representatives of New Hampshire at the Constitutional Convention. John Hancock never joined either Party but his concerns about the Constitution clearly showed Democratic-Republican leanings.


Modern Evangelical Dominionists will talk about how the phrase “Separation of Church and State” comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Pastor, and say it explains how it's there to protect the Church from the State not the other way around.  The historical context they are leaving out is that this was a Baptist Pastor, and back then Baptists were very much still a minority religion even in the State they had founded.  And the Boston Congregationalists especially hated the Baptists remembering Roger Williams as an Apostate from their Church.  Jefferson was promising a minority religion protection from the majority religion in bed with the then ruling Party.


I don’t feel like retreading all the Roger Williams territory here, I recommend John M. Barry’s book Roger Williams and The Creation of The American Mind.


Roger Williams and John Clarke weren't the only association the Baptists had with the fight for Freedom of Religion, it goes back to the founders of the General Baptists John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, and after them Richard Overton of the Levellers during the English Revolution and John Leland contemporary with the American Revolution.  Nor are they the only association the Baptists have with the Abolitionist movement, Elhanan Winchester was a prominent early American Abolitionist as was Morgan John Rhys, Slavery in the British Empire was finally outlawed as the result of a Slave Rebellion in Jamaica lead by Baptists called the Baptist War, and Charles Spurgeon also strongly opposed Slavery, and George Washington Williams is also worth mentioning as are Amos Tuck and Edwin Hurlbut. The Randalite Free Will Baptists were also known for their opposition to Slavery Then in more modern times the PNBC was important to the Civil Rights Movement.  The Southern Baptists were originally very much the atypical Baptists, breaking off from the the oldest American Baptist Church (the one founded by Williams and Clarke) because it opposed Slavery, it was a long complicated history that made them the largest Protestant Church in the U.S.  And even today while Southern Baptists are America's largest single Baptist Denomination they are still less then 50% of the total.


However the Quakers became even more virulent abolitionists.


But let’s go back to the discussion of France.  John Calvin himself made a Christian argument for Regicide during the French Wars of Religion.  During the French Enlightenment, of the key Philosophs who died before The Revolution broke out, the only one who was a Christian was Rousseau who was raised Calvinist went Catholic for a while but then returned to Calvinism. He was also the only one who was a Communist rather than a Liberal.  He is a key transitional figure in the Secularization of Communism as unlike prior Christian Communists his argument for it was Secular.  Montesquieu was however not as hostile to religion as Voltaire and did use The Bible in his writings, though exactly how has been misrepresented by certain Evangelicals.


The French Revolution was the beginning of the Secularization of both Democracy and Communism, and at the same time the final stage of them being seemingly separated from each other.


France was the first place where certain ideas that began as inherently Protestant were slowly able to be considered by Catholics, and eventually non Christians. Partly this is because of the French perspective that people like Calvin provided to the Reformed Tradition from the beginning. Partly it's because Rousseau was good at making his ideas sound appealing to those who don't share his Faith. And partly it's because a lot of the Philosophs and early French Revolutionary leaders were kind of Anglophiles.


Contrary to popular stereotypes about the French Revolution, it was initially lead more by Christians (mostly Catholics but some Protestants) some were even clergy, the Atheists and Deists were present from the start but it took them years to take over. These Christians include Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes who authored the Revolution's original Declaration of Independence, so too probably were his allies Baily and Lafayette. Jacques Necker and other Calvinists from Geneva. Jean-Paul Rabaut Saint-Etienne who authored France's first Edict of Toleration. Claude Fauchet who originally lead the Cercel Social where he first argued for a Rousseau inspired Democratic reorganization of the Gallican Church. Henri Gregoire, Antoine-Adrien Lamourette, Pierre Claude Froncois Dauno and Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Dobel who were important supporters of the Civil Constitution of The Clergy. And Jacques Roux who was the leader of the actual Communists of the Revolution (the Jacobins were all Classical Liberals) the Enrages.


Same was true for the English Sympathizers of The Revolution which include Richard Price, the Christian Communist Thomas Spence and the founders of modern Unitarianism Gilbert Wakefield and Joseph Priestley.


There is a neat video on YouTube about how Rousseau's radical Democracy came from the local largely informalized Democratic values of his hometown of Geneva.

The Roots of Modern Democracy

Well the Geneva that Rousseau grew up in was a product of Calvin. The Regional Synods of we usually associate with Presbyterianism came from others not Calvin himself, Calvin organized a local Church Government for the city of Geneva, in the grand scheme of things he may well have been more Congregationalist then people assume.