>>520996871
You are mistaken if I think say that as a companion to Christianity.
I'm 100% on board with the neopagans precisely for what you say.
Rousseau's analysis is correct:
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
Rousseau's criticism of Christianity
>You may ask: ‘Why were there no wars of religion in the pagan world, where each state had its own form of worship and its own gods?’
>My reply is that just because each state had its own form of worship as well as its own government, no state distinguished its gods from its laws. Political war was also theological war; the gods had, so to speak, provinces that were fixed by the boundaries of nations. The god of one people had no right over other peoples. The gods of the pagans were not jealous gods
>This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels.
>However, as there was always a prince and civil laws as well as a church, this double power created a conflict of jurisdiction that made it impossible for Christian states to be governed well; and men never managed to discover whether they were obliged to obey the master or the priest.
>Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighbourhood, have tried to preserve or estore the old system–tired and failed, because the spirit of Christianity has won every time. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the sovereign and not essentially linked with the body of the state.
>Among us Europeans, the Kings of England have been made heads of the Church, and the Czars have done much the same.
4chan Search
5 results for "dfee5fa12ed03049ae37e20b60fe31fa"
Rousseau, for instance, accuses Christianity of separating Church and State:
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
Rousseau's criticism of Christianity
>You may ask: ‘Why were there no wars of religion in the pagan world, where each state had its own form of worship and its own gods?’
>My reply is that just because each state had its own form of worship as well as its own government, no state distinguished its gods from its laws. Political war was also theological war; the gods had, so to speak, provinces that were fixed by the boundaries of nations. The god of one people had no right over other peoples. The gods of the pagans were not jealous gods
>This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels.
>However, as there was always a prince and civil laws as well as a church, this double power created a conflict of jurisdiction that made it impossible for Christian states to be governed well; and men never managed to discover whether they were obliged to obey the master or the priest.
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
Rousseau's criticism of Christianity
>You may ask: ‘Why were there no wars of religion in the pagan world, where each state had its own form of worship and its own gods?’
>My reply is that just because each state had its own form of worship as well as its own government, no state distinguished its gods from its laws. Political war was also theological war; the gods had, so to speak, provinces that were fixed by the boundaries of nations. The god of one people had no right over other peoples. The gods of the pagans were not jealous gods
>This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels.
>However, as there was always a prince and civil laws as well as a church, this double power created a conflict of jurisdiction that made it impossible for Christian states to be governed well; and men never managed to discover whether they were obliged to obey the master or the priest.
Rousseau, for instance, accuses Christianity of separating Church and State:
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
Rousseau's criticism of Christianity
>You may ask: ‘Why were there no wars of religion in the pagan world, where each state had its own form of worship and its own gods?’
>My reply is that just because each state had its own form of worship as well as its own government, no state distinguished its gods from its laws. Political war was also theological war; the gods had, so to speak, provinces that were fixed by the boundaries of nations. The god of one people had no right over other peoples. The gods of the pagans were not jealous gods
>This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels.
>However, as there was always a prince and civil laws as well as a church, this double power created a conflict of jurisdiction that made it impossible for Christian states to be governed well; and men never managed to discover whether they were obliged to obey the master or the priest.
>Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighbourhood, have tried to preserve or estore the old system–tired and failed, because the spirit of Christianity has won every time. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the sovereign and not essentially linked with the body of the state.
>Among us Europeans, the Kings of England have been made heads of the Church, and the Czars have done much the same.
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
Rousseau's criticism of Christianity
>You may ask: ‘Why were there no wars of religion in the pagan world, where each state had its own form of worship and its own gods?’
>My reply is that just because each state had its own form of worship as well as its own government, no state distinguished its gods from its laws. Political war was also theological war; the gods had, so to speak, provinces that were fixed by the boundaries of nations. The god of one people had no right over other peoples. The gods of the pagans were not jealous gods
>This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels.
>However, as there was always a prince and civil laws as well as a church, this double power created a conflict of jurisdiction that made it impossible for Christian states to be governed well; and men never managed to discover whether they were obliged to obey the master or the priest.
>Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighbourhood, have tried to preserve or estore the old system–tired and failed, because the spirit of Christianity has won every time. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the sovereign and not essentially linked with the body of the state.
>Among us Europeans, the Kings of England have been made heads of the Church, and the Czars have done much the same.
I recommend reading Rousseau Social Contract pages 67 through 73.
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
>This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels.
>But this religion, having no special relation to the body politic, leaves the laws with only the force they draw from themselves without adding anything to it; which means that one of the great bonds for uniting the society of the given country is left idle. Worse: so far from binding the citizens' hearts to the state, it detaches them from that and from all earthly things. I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit.
>They tell us that a populace of true Christians would form the most perfect society imaginable. I see only one great difficulty about this idea, namely that a society of true Christians wouldn't be a society of men.
>Christianity is an entirely spiritual religion, occupied solely with heavenly things; the Christian's country is not of this world.
>But I'm wrong to speak of a Christian republic--those terms are mutually exclusive. Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favourable to tyranny that it always profits by such a régime. Genuine Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and don't much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes.
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
>This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels.
>But this religion, having no special relation to the body politic, leaves the laws with only the force they draw from themselves without adding anything to it; which means that one of the great bonds for uniting the society of the given country is left idle. Worse: so far from binding the citizens' hearts to the state, it detaches them from that and from all earthly things. I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit.
>They tell us that a populace of true Christians would form the most perfect society imaginable. I see only one great difficulty about this idea, namely that a society of true Christians wouldn't be a society of men.
>Christianity is an entirely spiritual religion, occupied solely with heavenly things; the Christian's country is not of this world.
>But I'm wrong to speak of a Christian republic--those terms are mutually exclusive. Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favourable to tyranny that it always profits by such a régime. Genuine Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and don't much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes.
>>519575193
Christianity makes native citizens like foreigners in their own land, like slaves in Egypt.
That is the problem I have. If Christianity is taken seriously (& most people don't), it is pretty bleak.
Rousseau Social Contract pages 67 through 73.
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
>This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels.
>But this religion, having no special relation to the body politic, leaves the laws with only the force they draw from themselves without adding anything to it; which means that one of the great bonds for uniting the society of the given country is left idle. Worse: so far from binding the citizens' hearts to the state, it detaches them from that and from all earthly things. I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit.
>They tell us that a populace of true Christians would form the most perfect society imaginable. I see only one great difficulty about this idea, namely that a society of true Christians wouldn't be a society of men.
>Christianity is an entirely spiritual religion, occupied solely with heavenly things; the Christian's country is not of this world.
>But I'm wrong to speak of a Christian republic--those terms are mutually exclusive. Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favourable to tyranny that it always profits by such a régime. Genuine Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and don't much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes.
Christianity makes native citizens like foreigners in their own land, like slaves in Egypt.
That is the problem I have. If Christianity is taken seriously (& most people don't), it is pretty bleak.
Rousseau Social Contract pages 67 through 73.
https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf
>This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels.
>But this religion, having no special relation to the body politic, leaves the laws with only the force they draw from themselves without adding anything to it; which means that one of the great bonds for uniting the society of the given country is left idle. Worse: so far from binding the citizens' hearts to the state, it detaches them from that and from all earthly things. I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit.
>They tell us that a populace of true Christians would form the most perfect society imaginable. I see only one great difficulty about this idea, namely that a society of true Christians wouldn't be a society of men.
>Christianity is an entirely spiritual religion, occupied solely with heavenly things; the Christian's country is not of this world.
>But I'm wrong to speak of a Christian republic--those terms are mutually exclusive. Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favourable to tyranny that it always profits by such a régime. Genuine Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and don't much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes.