Link: Copy link
So you agree that the highest levels of the Catholic hierarchy are part of the elites (which was my point), you agree that Siddhartha Gautama was an elite (which was my point), and you don't contest that the Roman priests or the head of the CoE were/are elites. I don't think I need to try again, since you have conceded all my points. Would you care to try again?sergeante wrote: You pretty much have to be a cardinal and arcbishop of a big city to be in with the elites in the West these days. Otherwise, not so much. And the budhha rejected his socially elite origins. Care to try again?
None of this addresses my point, so you have, indeed, missed it entirely.sergeante wrote: Missing the point entirely. Very, very few Roman Catholic administrators are in the social elite. The overwhelming majority of the clergy, the ones that actually teach the religion and serve the flock, are highly non-elite. In terms of Christian doctrine, the final prophet/teacher explicitly removed the rich and the priesthood from the center of things.
The buddha may have started out a prince, but he very intentionally took religion out of the social elite, for doctrinal reasons very similar to those of Jesus.
The mixture of church and state in the West was a phase -- a long one, but still just a phase -- that is over. Buddhism never became a piece of the state.
Yes, I was pretty sure you hadn't really read what I said, and this confirms it. You are arguing against a straw man. Good luck with that.sergeante wrote: The point I was addressing was your assertion that the interests of religion are hardly distinguishable from the interests of the social elites, and that the "priestly class" was mostly made up of social elites. You threw up Roman Catholic hierarchy and the buddha as examples. I invalidated those examples, both doctrinally and practically.
Sorry, I teach people to comprehend and analyze reading for a living. I don't do it for free. If you can't do that, you are on your own.sergeante wrote: Not arguing against a straw man. Arguing the point you apparently tried to make. If the appearance detected is not your point, please try making it again, in a way that it can be accurately interpretted.
Sorry, I've already been taught. I've always gotten As in English, both literature and composition, through college. If your point is incomprehensible at that level of competence, you're either an intellectual astronaut or just not communicating. Which?Joe Steel wrote:
Sorry, I teach people to comprehend and analyze reading for a living. I don't do it for free. If you can't do that, you are on your own.