Tuesday, August 07, 2007

the criminal history of the papacy.

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Papacy1.html

there have been those who wish to seperate the actions and fallability of the humans named pope, while preserving the infallability of the office of the pope and the law of the catholic church.

to those i would ask how one makes the distinction between the person and the words of a person. (?)

do as i say, not what i do?

if you haven`t seen a history of the papacy before and are easily shocked, i would suggest bracing one`s self and have a good grip on one`s jaw.

11 comments:

X. Dell said...

It was said that Luther went to Rome with garlick, and came back with onions. Of course, Alexander the VI wasn't what anyone would see as a moral man. After all, he bought the papacy--which proved to be quite a time-saver.

But I cannot imagine that someone would ever attempt to separate the infallibility of the man from the infalibility of his ruling on religious doctrine:-)

dr.alistair said...

oh good, it would be a difficult position to hold in open debate.

SJ said...

If there is power there is abuse of power. It takes an extraordinary person to have power and not try to use it all the while convinced that he/she is doing the victims a favor. Don't see why religious heads are to be exempt from this law.

dr.alistair said...

the preaching of morality is what gets under my skin.

it teaches people to be sanctimonious.

you are right about the power thing.it`s part of how our brains are structured.

my focus is, and always has been, on the state of the individual`s internal state.

the contradictions of a catholic upbringing with it`s hypocracy and installation of guilt makes for a sociological minefield that most people never make it through intact.

one can defend the high level of philosophical strength of any institution when you read it`s corporate manifesto or mission statement, but if the culture doesn`t trickle down to the shop floor then what good is that?

BBC said...

Been there, seen that. They have always been a bunch of sick butt fuckers.

And all those nuns around to service. The fucking idiots. Um, maybe you wasn't talking about the Catholics?

My mother loved being a Catholic, go screw some men, go to confession, get a clean slate, go screw some more men.

Frankly, I never did get it. She had a need, she took care of it, so what? It was the thing I most admired about her, her ability to get screwed.

And she made some men happy in the process. I have no idea if she was any good in bed, but I'm assuming that she was.

I know that her sister was. :-)

dr.alistair said...

i was refering to catholics in specific, but to religions in general, and to all administrations in a broader sense.

the exploration of religious culture is a metal health issue.

people who label themselves as religious tend to be neurotic, and while i realise this is a broad generalisation, the origins of a fair number of neuroses have roots in church dogma.

X. Dell said...

Your comment to SJ, about the brain constructed towards a tendency to abuse authority, is something I haven't heard before, but it sounds interesting. Would it be possible to explain to a layman how that is?

dr.alistair said...

my comment, while it could be interpreted as meaning abuse, was suggesting that we have a will to power that stems from how our brains function.

philosophically this is reflected in macciavelli and specifically in nietzche`s "will to power."

interestingly, both writers are much maligned in contemporary circles.

the limbic or reptilian structures of the "old brain" deal in territory, property, combat, reproduction etc, and are by definition the warrior center.

http://www.crystalinks.com/reptilianbrain.html

the boot camp training is specifically designed to make us act from this center to become ready to fight on command.

in modern society this behaviour is seen in the sociopath or corporate executive.

dr.alistair said...

x, your last comment dissapeared into cyber-something or other.

you asked whether the brains of sociopaths tend to show different eeg activity under threat than a non-sociopath.

i would assume that there is a physiological component and quite possibly endocrine as well.

the glandular responses are interesting and not well understood.

wilhelm riech got himself jailed for his research into that field and his work in only now being resurrected, as it is still a crime to apply some of his modalities.

she said...

wow. im so glad i dropped by! i feel so tolerated and welcome and understood and shyt. grrrherhaha

i love the link and the blurb about the author. impressive creds! heck it MUST be true.

heres another link

http://www.icanfindsomebodytoagreewithanydamnclaimimakehoweverfullofshit!.com


i agree with SJ.

i do not agree with this

"the contradictions of a catholic upbringing with it`s hypocracy and installation of guilt makes for a sociological minefield that most people never make it through intact."

really dr? really? *got link?* or could this be another dinnertable worldview?

bbc: you are one stellar spiritualist! grrherhahaha!

twilight of the idols is a favorite read. of course if i wanted to invalidate nietzche`s ideas by examining his personal life it would be the proverbial fish in the barrel scenario.


damn this word veri

dr.alistair said...

nietzche, macciavelli, or anyone who calls the game as it were, becomes the target of the status quo.

i have felt that i have linked enough articles that support my position regarding the church and it`s bureacratic delivery mechanisms.



i find the catholic one particularly pervasive in it`s obvious tyranny. it has "evolved" from medieval times as an out-and-out murderer to a mere stealer of souls.

my commentaries aren`t going to change that one bit, but may offend the sensibilities of some who are "in" the church, and that is a reasonably benign byproduct of the whole process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

one may also find a discussion of the stockholm syndrome illustrative of the type of relationship that the church/cult has with it`s congregation.

and finally.......

it`s not an opinion that the catholic church uses guilt as a form of control, and while they are not alone in the practice, they are a shining example.

and all of this is a dinnertable worldview. i would hate to think any of us had the power to force the other to accept a position.......like the catholic church does.