|
| Thread: Christianity and European history |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Drakon-Deus 
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
posted June 19, 2013 08:43 AM |
|
|
To your questions in the last paragraph, I'd say yes, from what I've read, Eastern Rome had its problems, but all in all it was one of the more decent empires out there in regard to human rights and other matters.
It's also one historical empire I take great pleasure in lecturing upon, and not just because it was Christian.
clicky
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 19, 2013 08:55 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:04, 19 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
There is the general term "religion". It may surprise you, but when it comes to "religion", the simple fact that every known people has one would make you think. To make this short, considering the development of the human race it would seem that for every sufficiently large body of people with societal bonds the development of a "religion" seems to have been a necessity, maybe even for sheer survival.
Just a parenthesis: I think it would be much more accurate to say that the concept of religion was an episode, a phase, maybe even a milestone of our ability of abstraction. There was a time when religions really made sense and they were the best explanation of, say, why the sun rises every morning or why is there life on earth and why do dogs obey us. Yes, in a world full of famine, disease, child death, constant barbaric wars, etc etc, their role of maintaining social order was quite critical too (in poorer parts of the world, it still is) yet, the answer to that may have not necessarily evolved as religion, if we were capable of a different type of epistemology at those times.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 19, 2013 09:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
There is the general term "religion". It may surprise you, but when it comes to "religion", the simple fact that every known people has one would make you think. To make this short, considering the development of the human race it would seem that for every sufficiently large body of people with societal bonds the development of a "religion" seems to have been a necessity, maybe even for sheer survival.
Just a parenthesis: I think it would be much more accurate to say that the concept of religion was an episode, a phase, maybe even a milestone of our ability of abstraction. There was a time when religions really made sense and they were the best explanation of, say, why the sun rises every morning or why is there life on earth and why do dogs obey us. Yes, in a world of full of famine, disease, child death, constant barbaric wars, etc etc, their role of maintaining social order was quite critical too (in poorer parts of the world, it still is) yet, the answer to that may have not necessarily evolved as religion, if we were capable of a different type of epistemology at those times.
Artu, I think this is such a big "If", that it's a non-issue: IF we had come with two brains, IF we had had two thumbs on each hand, IF we had lived in paradise the whole time.
I would say that a different (that is, a more complex, rational, differentiated and logical) epistemology NEEDS a somewhat evolved society where the individual is reasonably "secure". If you need to go there it would seem that more than the simplest forms of epistemology would be impossible - which makes your "if" basically not hypothetical but more like impossible. You HAVE to learn to walk, before you can run.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted June 19, 2013 09:27 AM |
|
|
I agree JJ.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 19, 2013 09:59 AM |
|
|
|
You realize what you agree to puts you in the still walking state, dont you?
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted June 19, 2013 10:06 AM |
|
|
I'm still learning, "walking". I never tried to deny that. And I'm not talking just about religion here.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 19, 2013 04:51 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:54, 19 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
The only distinction I can find between the two is that modern philosophy is stuck in semantics.
There are many differences.The most important are:
a) Religion has sociological/cultural aspects, this is usually why someone who is religious becomes of that specific religion anyway. You don't have Hegelists or followers of Heraklitos densely in this area or that country. Religion on the other hand always spreads like that.
No, religion does not always spread like that. Some people come to embrace the religion of their parents, some reject the religion of their parents. Some people convert faiths. Some non-believers become believers. The same is true of philosophy. Parents through their words and deeds teach children their philosophy/religion and as children grow, and learn they accept or reject those beliefs.
For Christianity, one becomes a Christian because of his "encounter" with God. Everyone starts out life as a non-believer. Being open and responsive to the Spirit of God will result in one beginning to travel on a spiritual journey. Not being responsive to the wooing of the Spirit means an individual will not become spiritually enlightened.
If the truth a person intellectually knows becomes internalized it certainly affects his life. A person who just mouths the words of a truth or who acknowledges the truth but who does not live it will be stuck in a spiritual rut. No further advancement until he acts on what he knows.
Truth can be discovered by the diligent truth seeker who desires to know truth. Those who think they already "know" God does not exist very unlikely to ever "find" him, though he seeks us all and surrounds us simply because they have already shut him out of their lives.
Christianity has the best of both "worlds." Critical thinking and spiritual enlightenment. 
Quote:
b) Philosophy demands cognitive conviction. You are expected to rationally make a point and follow logical rules when presenting it as an argument. Religion can be totally emotional or intuition based.
Christianity has always emphasized rationality, but not only rationality. The Bible frequently admonishes the Christian to study the Word of God, to think upon its meaning, to meditate, to seek the council of others. But also to pray, to fast, to worship, to listen for God's voice, ect.
There is more truth than can be discovered with the intellect alone. Life has a spiritual aspect, which is discovered though the human spirit as it relates to the Spirit of God. Those who reject spiritual enlightenment will forever remain in the dark spiritually because spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
Quote:
c) Philosophy is not dogmatic. Every major philosopher starts by criticizing the ones that came before him. Religion is the opposite, it is based on carrying the tradition as intact as possible. Religion only changes when social evolution demands it so inevitably, the other option is to become extinct like the gods of Egypt.
Nah. Theologians can and do disagree with each other on various issues and engage in debates.
Religion is about TRUTH, at least Christianity is. If a Christian discovers he has been taught something wrong he is to reject it. Jesus warned of holding on to tradition that is contrary to the Word of God. Christianity is about relationship with God, not about religiosity.
Quote:
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
But certainly what is true will forever remain true. Neither time nor culture can ever make raping a baby moral. So, yes, some things ARE dogmatic.
Oh, and philosophy begins with certain assumed truths.
Quote:
d) Philosophy has no rituals, social stuff like wedding ceremonies , funerals, bar mitzvahs, baptism etc etc are totally irrelevant when it comes to philosophy.
Oh, most people have their own little daily "rituals."
But you assume that everything you have mentioned is only a ritual. You are wrong. Marriage has a spiritual dimension where God spiritual joins the man and woman in a spiritual union. Christian baptism is also a part of the new birth experience according to Jesus Christ (he said one must be born of water and of the Spirit) involving the "washing away" of sin.
Quote:
Also I don't remember who but someone famously said philosophy asks questions that may never be answered. Religion provides answers that may never be questioned.
Well, whoever originated that anonymous quote probably deliberately lied or knew little about religion in general. Unfortunately there are people who do enjoy lying about religion and there are people who are quite ignorant about religion who love to pontificate on it daily.
I was always told "a closed mouth does not get fed." Never once was I rebuked for any question and the Bible records people actively questioning God. I also know not of a single denomination that rebukes any unbeliever for questioning a single aspect of their faith.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 19, 2013 05:28 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 19:08, 19 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
Christianity has the best of both "worlds." Critical thinking and spiritual enlightenment.
Critical thinking about what? Every time when someone tries to criticize your religion, you accuse him of lies and insults. In your case, you are yet to show that you have any idea what "critical" or "logical" means.
For the record, I do know Christians who are quite capable of critical thinking - but that has nothing to do with the fact that they are Christians. Truths, in general, can not be criticized and that's their greatest flaw in philosophical aspect. In order to criticize something, you must first doubt it. You should be able to complete the paragraph on your own.
Quote:
Christianity has always emphasized rationality
Yes, it's incredibly rational to think that the entire human race has its roots in a fully developed man and a fully developed woman (the latter created by the former's rib) which miraculously came to being, that someone can hit the ground with a stick and seperate a sea, that another another one can resurrect people and in general that everything is happening because of the will of some inexplicable being which nobody has ever seen. That's the very foundation of rationality, you got it right. 
Quote:
Those who reject spiritual enlightenment will forever remain in the dark spiritually because spiritual things are spiritually learned.
That's a prime example of tautaology.
Quote:
Christianity is about relationship with God, not about religiosity.
Believe it or not, I can actually agree with that statement. But that's not what the practice shows. Most Christians (and not only Christians) don't find it enough just to believe and maintain their commitment to God. Again, you are a perfect example.
Quote:
Marriage has a spiritual dimension where God spiritual joins the man and woman in a spiritual union.
Oh, that is very cool. What if you're born in China? Or somewhere near the North Pole? God doesn't have many embassies there and many people may have never heard of him. Are they still "spiritually joined" by him when they marry? Or you have to be a Christian to trully marry someone?
Quote:
Well, whoever originated that anonymous quote probably deliberately lied or knew little about religion in general.
I'd say he knew much more about it than you ever will.
Back on-topic (mostly).
The main thing that differentiates the Eastern Roman Empire from what was formed on top of the ruins of the Western one is the state, the government traditions. When the various barbaric invaders finally settled on the lands of the former Western Empire, they still had the same old-fashioned organization which they had had for hundreds of years. The various tribes had just conquered something that kept them in awe for many generations and even destroyed, it was still considered a superior form of organization which they need to learn to immitate.
The Eastern Empire, on the other hand, remained intact, although a bit shaken. That is what eventually made a serious difference. In the east, the emperor remained an undisputed ruler, above all other social institutions, including the church. There had never been a serious conflict between the state as a representation of the eathly matters and the church as a representation of the heavenly ones simply because the church, as an institution, was established and recognized by the very same state - the Roman one - in the past times. There was no transition to a new organizational structure like in the West (there were reforms of course but nothing drastically changing the power structure) or simply put - the emperor kept his place on the top of the pyramid.
The barbaric states in the West practically had to start from a scratch. Their subsequent Christianization was a way to unite them but also allowed the institution representing that unity to infiltrate not only their spiritual lives. Unlike the East, the West did not have any political centre represented by some traditional government structure but was converted to a common ideology and that ideology had its own institutional representation - the Church. Eventually that institution - which quickly became too influential to remain only concerned with spiritual matters - overwhelmed to a large extent the local governments and became a super-state structure which could affect the processes if the "normal" state.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted June 19, 2013 05:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I also know not of a single denomination that rebukes any unbeliever for questioning a single aspect of their faith.
Westbro Baptist Church. 
But thaat's entirely off topic (as we are currently talking about the Byzantine Empire, after all, not Christianity in general... again.)
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 19, 2013 09:05 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:06, 19 Jun 2013.
|
@Elodin
I see Zenofex replied some of the stuff earlier, I won't repeat his points but let me mention I mainly agree with almost all his objections to your objections. Other than that:
a) Religion always spread like that. There are of course individuals who are exceptions to the rule, but they are not the ones spreading the religions on a greater scale. Let me put it as simple as this: We have the Atlas of World Religions, countries and zones are colored by this or that religion. You can never have that in philosophy. Also, keep in mind that the conversion stuff you talk about is seen relatively much less in other parts of the world, even illegal in some others. US is a country of immigration and religious freedom, so your ratio of converters will be much higher than most countries. But even in your country, most Arabs will be Muslim and most Irish will be catholic. People will still be a little surprised to meet an Irish-Muslim.
b) Scholastic logic (or any other logic that is not to touch the dogmatic basics) is limited. Rationality comes with doubt and you can't know what you'll end up doubting when you start contemplating things. So we come to C:
c) Philosophical axioms and religious dogma are not the same thing. Theologians discuss how to interpret the dogma (an as I stated earlier, usually because social change demands it inevitably or back in old times, to adjust the dogma to some monarch's political agenda etc etc. However, they can not debate about the reality of the dogma itself. (Raping babies is a very marginal example, they can't even discuss if Jesus was a prophet or not). Philosophical axioms on the other hand, vary from philosopher to philosopher. According to Descartes, existence of God is an axiom (yet, he arrives at that axiom with his own reasoning, he does not take any holy scripture for granted) and according to Nietzsche it is definitely not.
d)
Quote:
Oh, most people have their own little daily "rituals."
Those are personal habits, if someone calls them rituals, it's a figure of speech. Ritual comes from rite: a formal or ceremonial act or procedure prescribed or customary in religious or other solemn use. Also people's daily "rituals" has nothing to do with the philosophy they read. Religion has rituals, philosophy don't, the spiritual experience some people go through during those rituals is irrelevant.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 19, 2013 09:45 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:49, 19 Jun 2013.
|
Edit: This was a reply to Serhapim commenting on JJ's answer to me, I see now while I was writing it, he removed his post but since my post elaborates things on the matter, I decided to keep it.
Well, I thought he had a fair point
What I wanted to emphasize was that, when analyzing why religions came into existence in the first place, I mainly focus on the fact that back in their time, they were indeed the only kind of explanations that made sense. Science as we know it wasn't even born, technology was too limited to observe things in greater detail, 99 percent of people were illiterate anyway etc etc. So the survival advantages of the social aspect of religion comes secondary to me and had we have better explanations maybe we could maintain them by something else. That is indeed very very speculative, but his real objections is this: To achieve the level of sophistication demanded for better explanations, we had to have something simpler before. Think of games like Civilization or Warcraft, you first build stables to have horsemen and then you level up so you can build chariots etc etc.
How was a hunter-gatherer tribe going to develop a better method of explaining things instead of some pagan belief? Were they going to have a Stephen Hawking? Even today, people living as tribes don't produce science, and they have examples to look for. So it was a valid objection.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted June 19, 2013 10:19 PM |
|
|
Oh, sorry artu. I just deleted it because I felt that it was pointless to argue about the trivial objection that JJ made.
Next time, I'll delete something that I wrote and dislike immediately.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 06:35 PM |
|
|
@ Zenofex
Great post on the Eastern Rome, better than I could explain it.
Quote:
Most Christians (and not only Christians) don't find it enough just to believe and maintain their commitment to God.
I do find that enough. But you are right about the majority.
Quote:
Yes, it's incredibly rational to think that the entire human race has its roots in a fully developed man and a fully developed woman (the latter created by the former's rib) which miraculously came to being, that someone can hit the ground with a stick and seperate a sea, that another another one can resurrect people and in general that everything is happening because of the will of some inexplicable being which nobody has ever seen.
If we accept the idea that God created everything and is all-powerful, how can ANYTHING appear unbelieveable? It's like complaining that Marty McFly was hit by his grandfather's car after we accept that he traveled through time.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 07:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If we accept the idea that God created everything and is all-powerful, how can ANYTHING appear unbelieveable?
The idea that God created everything and is all-powerful is quite irrational, you know. So yeah, if anyone is complaining, then about McFly's time-travelling, not his adventures themselves.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 07:52 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:02, 20 Jun 2013.
|
@Zen
Quote:
The above post is an epic load of nonsense of course, following the best traditions of ignorance combined with self-conviction. Moving on.
Rather than calling my post "an epic load of nonsense" address the things you believe to be incorrect. So far I've seen you post nothing that proves anything I said was incorrect.
Quote:
Critical thinking about what? Every time when someone tries to criticize your religion, you accuse him of lies and insults. In your case, you are yet to show that you have any idea what "critical" or "logical" means.
Of course you statements about me are false. I've never called anyone a liar for criticizing any religion. When I've called someone a liar it has been because they repeatedly made false statements about my person after I made efforts to correct any misunderstanding about me or what I believe that the person may have had and they continued to make false statements about me or my beliefs.
Quote:
Yes, it's incredibly rational to think that the entire human race has its roots in a fully developed man and a fully developed woman (the latter created by the former's rib) which miraculously came to being, that someone can hit the ground with a stick and seperate a sea, that another another one can resurrect people and in general that everything is happening because of the will of some inexplicable being which nobody has ever seen. That's the very foundation of rationality, you got it right.
I'd say that believing God is responsible for the existence of man is more in line with science than faith in an eternal universe or a universe that created itself out of a steady state of absolute nothing. And as I've said a number of times, I'm not a young earth creationist. If one believes a being created the universe surely parting a sea or raising a dead person would not be too difficult for such a being.
Anyways, Christianity belief in a rational, logical, ordered universe with natural laws is what propelled the West to an immense scientific advantage over the rest of the world.
Quote:
Most Christians (and not only Christians) don't find it enough just to believe and maintain their commitment to God. Again, you are a perfect example.
Thank you. Head belief means nothing. It is internalized truth that transforms a person. As Jesus said, "If you continue in my word (continue to follow it) you'll know the truth and the truth will set you free.
I'd say a fair number of atheists are not content with merely believing that God does not exist but preach to others that their beliefs are wrong and that God does not in fact exist. Fortunately the Christian ideas lead to the enshrinement of the rights to free speech and the right to freely practice one's religion so atheists, Christians, Muslims, ect, can freely live out their convictions and openly speak of them in public in the nations where those Christian ideas still stand as the foundation for the nation.
Quote:
Are they still "spiritually joined" by him when they marry? Or you have to be a Christian to trully marry someone?
Of course God honors the marriage of any man and woman no matter their beliefs and spiritually joins the couple.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also I don't remember who but someone famously said philosophy asks questions that may never be answered. Religion provides answers that may never be questioned.
Well, whoever originated that anonymous quote probably deliberately lied or knew little about religion in general. Unfortunately there are people who do enjoy lying about religion and there are people who are quite ignorant about religion who love to pontificate on it daily.
I was always told "a closed mouth does not get fed." Never once was I rebuked for any question and the Bible records people actively questioning God. I also know not of a single denomination that rebukes any unbeliever for questioning a single aspect of their faith.
I'd say he knew much more about it than you ever will.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. But I'd say the quotation you presented by some anonomous person seems to be bigoted against religious people and was probably made by someone who never bothered to learn anything about the religions he condemns.
@Gunfred
Quote:
Lol at Elodin's joke post above.
Yet you presented nothing to disprove it.
@artu
Quote:
Philosophical axioms and religious dogma are not the same thing. Theologians discuss how to interpret the dogma (an as I stated earlier, usually because social change demands it inevitably or back in old times, to adjust the dogma to some monarch's political agenda etc etc. However, they can not debate about the reality of the dogma itself. (Raping babies is a very marginal example, they can't even discuss if Jesus was a prophet or not). Philosophical axioms on the other hand, vary from philosopher to philosopher. According to Descartes, existence of God is an axiom (yet, he arrives at that axiom with his own reasoning, he does not take any holy scripture for granted) and according to Nietzsche it is definitely not.
Philosophy starts with certain core beliefs that are considered true. It differs not one whit in the various religions with regard to this.
Well, of course a Christian could not ever debate with sincerity that "Jesus is not God" because the definition of Christian includes belief that Jesus is divine. But a person could be religious and debate whether or not Jesus is God. And many Christians disagree on various things and debate about them.
Well, I don't see need for a Scripture to say God exists either. It is obvious from the mere existence of the universe. Not all truth has to have a direct supernatural revelation from God.
Quote:
Religion has rituals, philosophy don't, the spiritual experience some people go through during those rituals is irrelevant.
My religion (Christianity) has nothing that is merely a ritual. Baptism, marriage, communion, ect, are all spiritual experiences, not mere rituals. The Catholic church is correct to call them "sacraments."
Quote:
What I wanted to emphasize was that, when analyzing why religions came into existence in the first place, I mainly focus on the fact that back in their time, they were indeed the only kind of explanations that made sense.
And "religious" explanations are still the only ones that make sense for many things, in my opinion.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 08:20 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 20:24, 20 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Critical thinking about what? Every time when someone tries to criticize your religion, you accuse him of lies and insults. In your case, you are yet to show that you have any idea what "critical" or "logical" means.
Of course you statements about me are false.
That's what he was talking about - he criticized you and you said that he's "of course false". In that case, it's simple that you have no idea what critical thinking is. But, of course, you'll probably say that I'm also wrong and do nothing about it, proving it again.
Quote:
I'd say that believing God is responsible for the existence of man is more in line with science than faith in an eternal universe or a universe that created itself out of a steady state of absolute nothing.
In some way - yes. The "scientists" had to prove that any God-being isn't responsible for this or that and can't be the answer, so they came up with many answers - and that's called science. So without religion we would probably be more like "What's the point?", but with religion and its God-did-it-explanations we had to go further and debunk some myths that religion made or deepened, like geocentric model or creationism (which, sadly, is still present in some pseudo-science organizations).
Quote:
Christianity belief in a rational, logical, ordered universe with natural laws is what propelled the West to an immense scientific advantage over the rest of the world.
How about that an immense scientific advantage propelled the Christianity to a belief in a rational, logical, ordered universe with natural laws?
Yeah, Christianity wasn't always about evolution and science. Look it up in the Bible.
Quote:
I'd say a fair number of atheists are not content with merely believing that God does not exist but preach to others that their beliefs are wrong and that God does not in fact exist. Fortunately the Christian ideas lead to the enshrinement of the rights to free speech and the right to freely practice one's religion
I think it (the first part of quotation) is somehow true in the USA, not in Europe. And it's quite understandable since in the USA religion seems to be everywhere (see this and this, AFAIK it sums it up very well - let these links be my answer to the second part of the quotation).
Quote:
Philosophy starts with certain core beliefs that are considered true.
If I'm correct, philosophy starts with doubting those core beliefs. Is doubting God religious? If so, am I religious?
Quote:
Baptism, marriage, communion, ect, are all spiritual experiences, not mere rituals.
In that case, there is no such thing as "mere rituals" since everything can be called spiritual.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 09:44 PM |
|
|
Folks, the topic is Christianity and European History. There are general religion threads available if you want to go in that direction.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 09:54 PM |
|
|
But it's still about European History - we're still talking about what Europe achieved with Christianity and what would without it.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2013 10:17 PM |
|
|
Bollocks.
It has omce again degenerated into a general discussion.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted June 21, 2013 04:50 AM |
|
|
@ Hobbit
My point was, don't complain about the events themselves when you know that you're dealing with omnipotence.
Back to the topic at hand, I believe the Protestant reformation was not only needed but a change for the better. Far too often the Catholics and Orthodox put their traditions above the Scriptures.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
| |
|
|
