Re: [UC] Gods and Emperors

[Benseraglio2]

Thanks, bananafishy. I was hoping somebody would say that. I mean, a theological discussion on the UC list, when we should be concentrating on vinyl windows? Sheesh.   Having said that, the Christian doctrine of separation of church and state up to the time of Constantine is quite different from at least the Japanese Buddhist solution. The model of the Buddhist king is Ashoka. In Japan, the formulation was that the gods protect the emperor, in good Mahayana fashion, but also that the emperor is a god. The Dalai Lama is a temporal ruler as well as a manifest Bodhisattva.   In the West the situation was dicier, because as things developed, although Constantine made Christianity the state religion, you always had the conflict between Pope and Emperor in medieval times. The Pope crowned Charlemagne and he was always wanting the Emperor to kiss his ring. And remember Canossa!   But it took the radical Anabaptists in the Reformation to make an absolute distinction between state and church and to totally reject the power of the state over the church.   But we really should TAKE IT TO CULTURE!!   Ross Bender http://rossbender.org   In a message dated 9/1/2004 2:52:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is an interesting discussion and all, but where's Bender's excoriation when you need it, with the obligatory command that everyone involved should "take it to culture"? >From: Richard Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Richard Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [UC] Gods and Emperors >Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 14:07:05 -0400 > >I've always struggled to determine what is the emperor's and what is  >God's. I'd be interested in hearing how you and others on this list  divide >up the two. This comes up, using different terminology, in  Buddhism as >well. My take is that there really isn't much that is one's  but not the >other's. >-Ricky