Did Christianity do anything unique in history?

[The Fallen Serpent]

Back to the OP, has any other religion created its own nation state analogous to the Vatican? As far as I know, only the RCC has observer status at the UN, thus making it unique.

What traits would count as analogous to the Vatican? Head of a State while being officially head of a religion that exists outside of the State? I think the Vatican is a unique remnant in modern times rather than a unique state in history.

 

[zooterkin]

What traits would count as analogous to the Vatican? Head of a State while being officially head of a religion that exists outside of the State?

That definition would also apply to Betty Windsor.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

That definition would also apply to Betty Windsor.

Exactly why I am wondering what the criteon we are discussing is. It determines how to answer the question. I did forget about the Anglicans though, so that is a good point.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Back to the OP, has any other religion created its own nation state analogous to the Vatican? As far as I know, only the RCC has observer status at the UN, thus making it unique.

Methinks that folk are forgetting Tibet which had long been a Theocratic Nation ruled by Dalai Lamas before China annexed it in the 20th century.

Not to mention, that the current Dalai Lama's "government in exile" seems to receive a certain amount of special status and recognition at the UN, even if not necessarily "official."

GB

 

[ddt]

Back to the OP, has any other religion created its own nation state analogous to the Vatican? As far as I know, only the RCC has observer status at the UN, thus making it unique.

The Vatican certainly is not a nation-state. State at most - but then a state which doesn't take part in international treaties. When you say the RCC has observer status at the UN, it's the Holy See and not the Vatican which does so. Makes you wonder why they whined for nearly 60 years to get a square mile of land.

That definition would also apply to Betty Windsor.

Or to any of the Scandinavian kings, which are head of their national Lutheran churches. The major distinction is what came first, methinks. The Pope first was just a bishop, and later acquired secular power. Betty's predecessor Henry VIII first was King of England, and then set himself up as head of the CoE.

As such, I think, the Vatican is indeed unique among currently existing states. But Muhammed and the early Caliphs would count as well among historic examples.

 

[SezMe]

Methinks that folk are forgetting Tibet which had long been a Theocratic Nation ruled by Dalai Lamas before China annexed it in the 20th century.

I don't pretend to know Tibetan history but question if the Lamas "ruled" that country in the same sense that "rule" is used today...but I'm prepared to be enlightened.

Not to mention, that the current Dalai Lama's "government in exile" seems to receive a certain amount of special status and recognition at the UN, even if not necessarily "official."

Can you say more or link to this "special status"?

 

[SezMe]

When you say the RCC has observer status at the UN, it's the Holy See and not the Vatican which does so.

You're right but I assert a difference without a distinction.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I don't pretend to know Tibetan history but question if the Lamas "ruled" that country in the same sense that "rule" is used today...but I'm prepared to be enlightened.



Can you say more or link to this "special status"?

Well they have been for centuries (at least from the 17th century to the 20th century with some interruption due to invasions) both the Political Head of State and The head of the Tibetan Buddhist Order. The current Dalai Lama has pledged though, that if he is ever returned to power that he would institute democratic reforms, and separate the powers in accordance with modern thought.



The "special status" is more of an honourary thing. If I recall correctly he has been allowed to address the UN assembly more than once. Though recognition of his status as Tibetan Head of State in exile is challenged by current Chinese Authorities.

http://www.cosmicharmony.com/Tibet/DalaiLama/DalaiLama.htm

http://www.friendsoftibet.org/main/appeal.html

And he has attended many State functions at the US and other Nations as the Tibetan Head of State in exile.

In any case, this demonstrates that the Vatican is not the only "State" in which the Political Head of State is also the Head of a National Religious Order. So that can't be used as evidence that this is a unique feature of Christianity.

GB

 

[DOC]

As opposed to having heads, limbs, ears, tongues, and other body parts cut off by Christians? Or being mass murdered by Christians? Or being enslaved by Christians? Or having their wealth stolen by Christians? Or being infected with disease by Christians? Or having their Civilization utterly wiped out by Christians?

Really DOC, you have no sense of history at all.

GB

Yes, I know its all love your enemy Jesus' fault.

 

[SezMe]

In any case, this demonstrates that the Vatican is not the only "State" in which the Political Head of State is also the Head of a National Religious Order. So that can't be used as evidence that this is a unique feature of Christianity.

Thanks for the info.

But I was noting that the Vatican/Holy See was created specifically for the RCC. Tibet, on the other hand, was a nominally recognized country, not one created for specifically religious purposes.

That said, I don't wish to press the point. I don't claim any particular expertise or perspective.

 

[m_huber]

Yes, I know its all love your enemy Jesus' fault.

It wasn't Jesus, but Jesus' followers. That's sort of what Christianity is. The followers of Christ. They don't necessarily focus on loving their enemies all the time. If you don't believe me, take a trip to Sudan. Or just look at Eddie Long.

 

[Aepervius]

Yes, I know its all love your enemy Jesus' fault.

You have either to admit that Christian did stuff as bad as the aztec did , and probably as numerous, or you have to use a "true scottman" fallacy.

Which is it with your little quoted sentence?

 

[Elizabeth I]

Yes, I know its all love your enemy Jesus' fault.

Well, it was all done in His holy name.

 

[bikerdruid]

Yes, I know its all love your enemy Jesus' fault.

nope...jesus was a groovy guy that taught and modelled love.
it's his followers that are screwed up.
some examples could be:
'kill a commie for christ'
'jesus hates fags.'

 

[ddt]

You're right but I assert a difference without a distinction.

The difference is crucial for this discussion. The Vatican state holds sovereignty over that square mile of land inside Rome. The Holy See holds no sovereignty over land - but is somehow treated as a sovereign state, one without actual land, just like the Maltese Order. Even after the Lateran Treaty, it is the Holy See that signs treaties, has observer status with the UN and with the Council of Europe. The Vatican has not signed any international treaties - you could more rightfully say the Vatican is a rogue state than that North Korea is one.

Given the above, this whole talk of the Pope being the "prisoner of the Vatican" in the period 1870 to 1929, is only a bunch of whining as he doesn't actually use the control of that patch of land for being a sovereign entity. The recreation of a Papal state has changed nothing in international relations.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Yes, I know its all love your enemy Jesus' fault.

Wait a minute. You're the one that claimed it's "Jesus' fault:"

Maybe not all, but I think those thousands of people who got their hearts cut out as human sacrifices and were then eaten by the Aztecs would have wished the explorers and their religion came sooner.

You can't have it both ways DOC. If the "Explorers" and their Religion are to be "credited" with "saving" the Aztecs, should they and their Religion not be blamed for destroying the Aztecs?

GB

 

[DOC]

Well, it was all done in His holy name.

It was more likely done in the name of a yellow malleable metal.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

It was more likely done in the name of a yellow malleable metal.

Perhaps, but these are THE SAME GUYS that you suggested were the explorers and their religion which the Aztecs should have welcomed with open arms:

Maybe not all, but I think those thousands of people who got their hearts cut out as human sacrifices and were then eaten by the Aztecs would have wished the explorers and their religion came sooner.

Again DOC, you can't have it both ways. That's intellectually dishonest.

GB

 

[SatanicSheep]

I totally get it.

The killing was motivated by greed, but all the discovery was motivated by Jesus.

 

[Aepervius]

I totally get it.

The killing was motivated by greed, but all the discovery was motivated by Jesus.

It is a sort of expanded true scottman fallacy. See in the eye of DOC, if it is done in the name of the christ and is positive, it is christian. If it is done in the name of the christ , and is deemed negative in modern time, then it was not done by christian. See ? All logical.

NOT.