Christianity

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 3 May, 2009 03:12 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon wrote:
Eventually, they fell into despotism, just as Greek or Roman democracy, though. I mean the latest millenium.


With respect to what? We've already agreed that Christianity is not a significant feature in the rise of democracy. We've agreed that certain Christian teachings, which are shared by Hinduism and Buddhism, help facilitate democracy.

So, the only thing left is 'Why hasn't the east, in the last thousand years, did not have democracy until roughly fifty years ago?'

In many places - colonialism. India for example was under colonial rule until Gandhi's efforts, which directly resulted in the casting off of colonialism and a democratic India. A supposedly democratic western power prevented the eastern democracy. In Japan, it was isolationism: a policy clung to essentially so that western powers would not be able to colonize the island nation. China strained under western intervention and colonization, which pushed China into radicalism and communism. The steppes were dominated by Russia. Indo-China and the East Indies were dominated by colonial powers.

Eudaimon wrote:
It is interesting to hear that Chinese communism has some commonalities with Legalism: if I am not mistaking, Legalism was an ideology of ruling classes that preached oppression of plebeians (i.e. that very workers and peasants), decided to apply force against them because of their "bad nature".


Not quite. Legalism is essentially carrot and stick: you punish those who break the laws, and reward those who obey the laws. All of this operates under a set of clearly outlined laws so that outcomes are predictable by any observer.

Eudaimon wrote:
Furthemore, in all those so-called Communist countries: Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, church was in opposition to the regime, but can we say the same about Confucianism or Taoism in modern China?


Confucianism and Taoism are not analogous to western churches.

Eudaimon wrote:
What about atheists, pagans, adherents of cults that foran his teaching: I really doubt that all they accepted his teachings so peacefully.


No, in many instances they did not accept the teaching.

Eudaimon wrote:
Is it lawful to commit violence against those who are real infidels?


Depends on the situation.

Eudaimon wrote:
And what is fundamentalism: return to initial principles, is it not?


That's tricky when we get to Islam. Fundamentalism was a term coined to describe Christians, not Muslims. If we translated Fundamentalism directly into Arabic, we get usuliyyah meaning the study of the sources of the various rules and principles of Islamic law. The colloquial meaning, however, is analogous to the Christian fundamentalist: someone who reads the scripture literally and tends to introduce a variety of socially extreme and repressive notions to the tradition.

Eudaimon wrote:
If a Christian or a Buddhist decided to return to his non-violence, surely it wouldn't be a problem for his neighbours, but why is it in Muslim societies?


Why can't some Muslims return to non-violence? Because western powers have been oppressing Muslims for centuries. Most Muslims are peaceful people - as peaceful as you or I. However, when you systematically oppress a population for generation after generation, those people begin to fight back. They develop an ideology of violence and resistence and this leads to violence.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Sun 3 May, 2009 10:55 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
With respect to what? We've already agreed that Christianity is not a significant feature in the rise of democracy. We've agreed that certain Christian teachings, which are shared by Hinduism and Buddhism, help facilitate democracy.

So, the only thing left is 'Why hasn't the east, in the last thousand years, did not have democracy until roughly fifty years ago?'

In many places - colonialism. India for example was under colonial rule until Gandhi's efforts, which directly resulted in the casting off of colonialism and a democratic India. A supposedly democratic western power prevented the eastern democracy. In Japan, it was isolationism: a policy clung to essentially so that western powers would not be able to colonize the island nation. China strained under western intervention and colonization, which pushed China into radicalism and communism. The steppes were dominated by Russia. Indo-China and the East Indies were dominated by colonial powers.

These are surely very significant factors but no one can be called the crucial. It's a question that can never be resolved completely, I deem.
However, my statement remains: only amidst those teachings that taught tolerance or its highest level: non-violence, there might appear democracy (not only as a state regime but as way of treating others). I suppose thou agreest that in those doctrines as Stalinism or Nazism (if their rule had been longer) there could hardly appear tolerant people. So the only question is whether a certain religion really contributes to that tolerance.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Not quite. Legalism is essentially carrot and stick: you punish those who break the laws, and reward those who obey the laws. All of this operates under a set of clearly outlined laws so that outcomes are predictable by any observer.

And is it different from Confucianism or Taoism?

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Confucianism and Taoism are not analogous to western churches.

Why? Because they idolise any regime? With modern (religious) Taoism everything is clear: this is set of different practices aimed at attainment of longevity; it generally does not deal relationships at all. What about Confucianism?

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Depends on the situation.

Hahaha, nice answer! On what situation? If I went to bazar and started speaking: "Men, ye are deluded! There is no Allah in the heaven, Mohammed deceived you. Don't listen to your Mullah and go to your mosques -- these all are fictions!", would it be enough to cut off my head?

Didymos Thomas wrote:
That's tricky when we get to Islam. Fundamentalism was a term coined to describe Christians, not Muslims. If we translated Fundamentalism directly into Arabic, we get usuliyyah meaning the study of the sources of the various rules and principles of Islamic law. The colloquial meaning, however, is analogous to the Christian fundamentalist: someone who reads the scripture literally and tends to introduce a variety of socially extreme and repressive notions to the tradition.

But their writs really contain those "extreme" notions, do they not?

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Why can't some Muslims return to non-violence? Because western powers have been oppressing Muslims for centuries. Most Muslims are peaceful people - as peaceful as you or I. However, when you systematically oppress a population for generation after generation, those people begin to fight back. They develop an ideology of violence and resistence and this leads to violence.

Most Muslims are generally peaceful people because people are generally peaceful. That is not because of their teachings, but in spite of them. And again, terrorism, fight against oppressors have not been so rare amongst oppressed folks, but nowhere has it been so intense as amidst Muslim socities; generally it faded with the end oppression in other countries, unlike Muslim ones. Is it not because violence has found itself a certain ground in the original Muslim notions? Muslim societies surely were not the most oppressed as the others, I should even say the least oppressed comparing Africa, India etc.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 05:11 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon wrote:

However, my statement remains: only amidst those teachings that taught tolerance or its highest level: non-violence, there might appear democracy (not only as a state regime but as way of treating others). I suppose thou agreest that in those doctrines as Stalinism or Nazism (if their rule had been longer) there could hardly appear tolerant people.


Then you have the difficulty of explaining how democracy can come into being in places where non-violence is not taught in such a way: for example, ancient Greece and the early Phoenician democracy.

Eudaimon wrote:
So the only question is whether a certain religion really contributes to that tolerance.


No certain religion in of itself. Only certain teachings that tend to be paired with certain religions.

Eudaimon wrote:
And is it different from Confucianism or Taoism?


Having read The Analects and the Tao Te Ching: completely different.

Eudaimon wrote:
Why? Because they idolise any regime? With modern (religious) Taoism everything is clear: this is set of different practices aimed at attainment of longevity; it generally does not deal relationships at all. What about Confucianism?


Because Confucianism is not a religion. Taoism does not have the stratified central authority. Even Taoism is not a religion in the way western churches are religions.

Eudaimon wrote:
Hahaha, nice answer! On what situation? If I went to bazar and started speaking: "Men, ye are deluded! There is no Allah in the heaven, Mohammed deceived you. Don't listen to your Mullah and go to your mosques -- these all are fictions!", would it be enough to cut off my head?


Depends on where you say this. You cannot generalize about all Muslim communities. In some places, they would execute you or imprison you. In most Muslim communities they would boo you and call you rude, but otherwise leave you alone.


Eudaimon wrote:
But their writs really contain those "extreme" notions, do they not?


No.

Eudaimon wrote:
Most Muslims are generally peaceful people because people are generally peaceful. That is not because of their teachings, but in spite of them.


No, my friend. Islam teaches peace first and foremost.

Eudaimon wrote:
And again, terrorism, fight against oppressors have not been so rare amongst oppressed folks, but nowhere has it been so intense as amidst Muslim socities; generally it faded with the end oppression in other countries, unlike Muslim ones. Is it not because violence has found itself a certain ground in the original Muslim notions? Muslim societies surely were not the most oppressed as the others, I should even say the least oppressed comparing Africa, India etc.


Where do you get the idea that Muslim resistance to oppression has been the most intense in history? Have you forgotten the Vietnamese struggle against France and the United States?

Further, the oppression of Muslims has not ended. It continues to this day. Why would the resistance fade when the oppression is ongoing?

Again, Islam is a religion of peace.

If you want to talk about comparative oppression between Muslims, India, Africa, ect, you are playing a fools game. Each of these people have been brutally oppressed.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Tue 5 May, 2009 02:58 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Then you have the difficulty of explaining how democracy can come into being in places where non-violence is not taught in such a way: for example, ancient Greece and the early Phoenician democracy.

These communities didn't have so defined ideology as modern societies (beginning from the foundation of so-called world religions). Paganism itself is much more democratic than certain ideologies. They did not have hallowed written laws as new religions. So, in many cases harsh tyranny ended after the death of tyrant. Look, even the vey formation of paganism: adoption of new gods from nearby tribes shows its democratic spirit.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
No certain religion in of itself. Only certain teachings that tend to be paired with certain religions.

Ah, this is exactly what I want to convey. When I spoke about Christianity (I mean only the teachings of Christ, not the old testamenst etc.) I said that its teaching on forgiveness, tolerance, non-resistance are very beneficial for liberalism.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Because Confucianism is not a religion. Taoism does not have the stratified central authority. Even Taoism is not a religion in the way western churches are religions.

Modern Taoism is completely different from that of Tao te ching or Huainan-zi, thefore we cannot apply ideas presented in them to it. Confucianism is not a religion? Well, I understand religion as a set of beliefs, that is of something that cannot be derived from direct experience. In this sense Confucianism with its mistification of the nature of authority and seeking out metaphysical arguments for that is certainly a religion.
Even without strict organisation it is evident that every true Christian or Buddhist, or Jain cannot support despotic regime unlike those Confucians or "Taoists".

Didymos Thomas wrote:
No, my friend. Islam teaches peace first and foremost.

Where do you get the idea that Muslim resistance to oppression has been the most intense in history? Have you forgotten the Vietnamese struggle against France and the United States?

Further, the oppression of Muslims has not ended. It continues to this day. Why would the resistance fade when the oppression is ongoing?

Again, Islam is a religion of peace.

If you want to talk about comparative oppression between Muslims, India, Africa, ect, you are playing a fools game. Each of these people have been brutally oppressed.

So, thou maintainst that Islamic jihad does not have, among all other ways of propagation of the teaching, violent way? See that thou dost not pass desirable for reality.
Muslim countries were surely less oppressed than others. Allow me to remind me the fact that Turkey, Persia, Nejd, Afghanistan unlike India or Africa were independent states. Furthermore nowadays we do not hear about Vietnamese terrorism or Hindu terrorism: they got what they wanted and calmed down and now have conflicts only between themselves. Now even former Muslim colonies are prospering which does not prevent them from violence, however.
Didn't those who hijacked airplanes on the 11th of September find justifications and grounds for their deeds in Koran? Radical interpretations? See, if a teaching allows to give it double interpretation, it is a bad teaching. When Jesus, for example, said that we should love our enemies and do good in respond to their evil, this can by no means be interpreted that we should kill them.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 5 May, 2009 02:31 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon wrote:
These communities didn't have so defined ideology as modern societies (beginning from the foundation of so-called world religions). Paganism itself is much more democratic than certain ideologies. They did not have hallowed written laws as new religions. So, in many cases harsh tyranny ended after the death of tyrant. Look, even the vey formation of paganism: adoption of new gods from nearby tribes shows its democratic spirit.


Which undercuts your thesis that certain teachings, like non-violence, are necessary for democracy.

Eudaimon wrote:
Ah, this is exactly what I want to convey. When I spoke about Christianity (I mean only the teachings of Christ, not the old testamenst etc.) I said that its teaching on forgiveness, tolerance, non-resistance are very beneficial for liberalism.


And I agree that those teachings help promote liberalism. However, those teachings are not necessary for democracy, even if those teachings might help bring about democracy.

Eudaimon wrote:
Modern Taoism is completely different from that of Tao te ching or Huainan-zi, thefore we cannot apply ideas presented in them to it.


Sort of. "Modern" Taoism is no different than that of the Tao Te Ching or Chuang-Tzu - except in so far as Taoism tends to be fused with other traditions, such as traditional deity worship in China.

Eudaimon wrote:
Confucianism is not a religion? Well, I understand religion as a set of beliefs, that is of something that cannot be derived from direct experience.


Then you have a definition of religion which most religious teachers would object to. Either way, Confucianism is not a set of beliefs of something that cannot be derived from direct experience. Confucianism is a number of political/social/ethical notions derived from experience alone.

Eudaimon wrote:
In this sense Confucianism with its mistification of the nature of authority and seeking out metaphysical arguments for that is certainly a religion.


Confucianism does not mysitfy authority: if you read the Analects, you find authority being grounded in pragmatic arguments. There may be traces of metaphysical arguments in the Analects (though, even that is suspect) but that does not make Confucianism any more a religion than Kantian philosophy.

Eudaimon wrote:
Even without strict organisation it is evident that every true Christian or Buddhist, or Jain cannot support despotic regime unlike those Confucians or "Taoists".


No sir. Neither Christianity nor Buddhism nor Jainism contains any specific guidlines for government. Nor does Taoism. Confucianism, being a policitcal philosophy, does: but the focus is not on whether or not the government should be despotic or democratic, but the way in which a person in a position of authority should handle said authority.

Eudaimon wrote:
So, thou maintainst that Islamic jihad does not have, among all other ways of propagation of the teaching, violent way? See that thou dost not pass desirable for reality.


No: that's not what I said. Jihad does allow for violence under certain dire circumstances.

Eudaimon wrote:
Muslim countries were surely less oppressed than others. Allow me to remind me the fact that Turkey, Persia, Nejd, Afghanistan unlike India or Africa were independent states.


Because Turkey, Persia, ect are the only Muslim nations? Try again. Further, Iranians have been oppressed a great deal by foreign powers, both British and Russian.

Again, comparing the relative degree of oppression in various societies is senseless. African and Muslims nations have strained under the weight of colonialism. Bottom line.

Eudaimon wrote:
Furthermore nowadays we do not hear about Vietnamese terrorism or Hindu terrorism: they got what they wanted and calmed down and now have conflicts only between themselves. Now even former Muslim colonies are prospering which does not prevent them from violence, however.


So what? India and Vietnam both faced severe oppression at the hands of colonial powers. As have Muslim nations.

Eudaimon wrote:
Didn't those who hijacked airplanes on the 11th of September find justifications and grounds for their deeds in Koran? Radical interpretations? See, if a teaching allows to give it double interpretation, it is a bad teaching. When Jesus, for example, said that we should love our enemies and do good in respond to their evil, this can by no means be interpreted that we should kill them.


Have you forgotten the Crusades? The teachings of Jesus were corrupted, just like the Koranic teachings, into a message of violence.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Wed 6 May, 2009 12:27 am
@Eudaimon,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Which undercuts your thesis that certain teachings, like non-violence, are necessary for democracy.

Absolutely not. Non-violence, non-resistance are only the top of tolerance when we do not do harm even to those who do or think that do that to us. Completely another thing is when everyone, even if he doesn't threaten us, is compelled to shut up and pretend that he believe in what he does not believe.
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Sort of. "Modern" Taoism is no different than that of the Tao Te Ching or Chuang-Tzu - except in so far as Taoism tends to be fused with other traditions, such as traditional deity worship in China.

As far as I know modern "Taoism" is completely different from ancient one. What is modern Taoism: seeking for elixir of immortality, sexual practices, shamanism. Essentially it is based on fear of death. Those treatises are said to be metaphoric, so that only a trained one may understand them. Ancient Taoists were not afraid of death unlike modern ones. "I know that death does not resemble life; but that it is evil, I know not" is a famous saying, which I find one of the most precious.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Then you have a definition of religion which most religious teachers would object to. Either way, Confucianism is not a set of beliefs of something that cannot be derived from direct experience. Confucianism is a number of political/social/ethical notions derived from experience alone.
Confucianism does not mysitfy authority: if you read the Analects, you find authority being grounded in pragmatic arguments. There may be traces of metaphysical arguments in the Analects (though, even that is suspect) but that does not make Confucianism any more a religion than Kantian philosophy.

Derived from experience alone? "In times of olden kings they did it in such way..." is it not idealisation of ancient times? Is it not belief in something that cannot be derived from experience? And we may well call Kantian philosophy religion, why not?

Didymos Thomas wrote:
No sir. Neither Christianity nor Buddhism nor Jainism contains any specific guidlines for government. Nor does Taoism. Confucianism, being a policitcal philosophy, does: but the focus is not on whether or not the government should be despotic or democratic, but the way in which a person in a position of authority should handle said authority.

I understand democracy as tolerance to other more rather than in political sense. Confucianism proclaims absolutely another values: hast thou forgotten that episode when Confucius insisted on execution of musicians just because they break a certain rite? "But what connexion has it with Marxism and Chinese socialism particulary?" -- The spirit of intolerance. Though the form is different, essence is the same.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
No: that's not what I said. Jihad does allow for violence under certain dire circumstances.

Please, remove my ignorance: under what dire circumstances?

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Because Turkey, Persia, ect are the only Muslim nations? Try again. Further, Iranians have been oppressed a great deal by foreign powers, both British and Russian.

Again, comparing the relative degree of oppression in various societies is senseless. African and Muslims nations have strained under the weight of colonialism. Bottom line.

So what? India and Vietnam both faced severe oppression at the hands of colonial powers. As have Muslim nations.

What I wanted to convey is that Muslim countries were certainly not the most oppressed among other nations (even may be the least, does not matter, however). Now that oppression came to an end, did it not. But terrorism and hatred against other confessions remains and even increases.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Have you forgotten the Crusades? The teachings of Jesus were corrupted, just like the Koranic teachings, into a message of violence.

Those Crusaders were illiterate, so no wonder that they believed in what pope was saying. Find another explanations, it's evident that Crusaders had nothing to do with Christ. Under Christianity I understand only the words of Christ alone -- here we can in no case find a ground for terrorism or violence against others. Christ 'abolished' old testament commandments, which are the top of intolerance -- is it not evident, so if some use those writs in order to justify their acts, this is Judaism, not Chrstianity.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Wed 6 May, 2009 05:51 am
@Eudaimon,
From my scan of this discussion, I don't know if anyone has picked up this point - a distinctive aspect of Christianity was the emergence, early in the piece, of a centralised, authoritarian, organised, lawful, segregated, heirarchical institution, namely the Roman Catholic Church. Surely the existence of this specific institution, unique in the history of the world, is material to this discussion, is it not?
 
Lily
 
Reply Wed 6 May, 2009 08:42 am
@Eudaimon,
Well, Jesus talked about how one should live his life. And he did not mention killing jews or muslims. But still, the crusaders went on(or where they just looking for the graal?) and killed many people. Jesus said that rich people wouldn't get to heaven and he himself were just a carpenter's son. But then the catholic churches just had to be highly decorated.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Wed 6 May, 2009 09:24 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:
From my scan of this discussion, I don't know if anyone has picked up this point - a distinctive aspect of Christianity was the emergence, early in the piece, of a centralised, authoritarian, organised, lawful, segregated, heirarchical institution, namely the Roman Catholic Church. Surely the existence of this specific institution, unique in the history of the world, is material to this discussion, is it not?

Christianity was formed, as I see it, under influence of two Weltanschauungen: Greek, philosophical, humane and Jewish with its strong hierarchy, with its "lawity", legalism. Christianity does have some ideas that may be understood as encouraging establishment of church, that tries to instill fear before future "eternal perdition" in souls of common men (which is exactly the basis of Judaism). But on the other hand, it teaches that "the kingdom of God is within you", that man should be as perfect as he heavenly father is perfect, that is be beyond good and evil as they are understood commonly. This part, I presume, was much influenced by Greek philosophy. However, even with establishment of church (which was initially community around the most advanced in virtue) and all distortions, there is a thing that can never be connected with the teaching of Christ: he never, in no case preached that violence may be permissible, even in face of possible death.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 6 May, 2009 02:22 pm
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon wrote:
Absolutely not. Non-violence, non-resistance are only the top of tolerance when we do not do harm even to those who do or think that do that to us. Completely another thing is when everyone, even if he doesn't threaten us, is compelled to shut up and pretend that he believe in what he does not believe.


Your thesis was that certain teachings, like non-violence, are necessary for the emergence of democracy. As it turns out, democracy existed in times and places where non-violent Christian-like teaching was non-existent.

Eudaimon wrote:
As far as I know modern "Taoism" is completely different from ancient one. What is modern Taoism: seeking for elixir of immortality, sexual practices, shamanism. Essentially it is based on fear of death. Those treatises are said to be metaphoric, so that only a trained one may understand them. Ancient Taoists were not afraid of death unlike modern ones. "I know that death does not resemble life; but that it is evil, I know not" is a famous saying, which I find one of the most precious.


I'm unfamiliar with this famous saying. Where did you find it?

Eudaimon wrote:
Derived from experience alone? "In times of olden kings they did it in such way..." is it not idealisation of ancient times? Is it not belief in something that cannot be derived from experience? And we may well call Kantian philosophy religion, why not?


There are references to the past in the Analects, but these are not simply idealizations of the past, instead they are recognitions of traditions that are practical.

And to call Kantian philosophy a religious would be disingenuous. Kant did not intend to found a religion, he was a devout Christian. We could take a self-help book and call the contents the basis of a religion, but this would also be disingenuous.

Eudaimon wrote:
I understand democracy as tolerance to other more rather than in political sense. Confucianism proclaims absolutely another values: hast thou forgotten that episode when Confucius insisted on execution of musicians just because they break a certain rite? "But what connexion has it with Marxism and Chinese socialism particulary?" -- The spirit of intolerance. Though the form is different, essence is the same.


If the only connect between Marxism and Confucianism is that both prescribe particular rituals/rites for society, then any political thought is similarly related. In other words, the connection you draw between Confucianism and Marxism is so weak that the same connection could be made with Marxism and Democracy. Democracy demands that the majority rule - it is intolerant of the minority opinion, and in this way the same was Marxism. See how easy that was?

Eudaimon wrote:
Please, remove my ignorance: under what dire circumstances?


For example: the Mongols are sweeping in and killing everyone in sight.

Eudaimon wrote:
What I wanted to convey is that Muslim countries were certainly not the most oppressed among other nations (even may be the least, does not matter, however). Now that oppression came to an end, did it not. But terrorism and hatred against other confessions remains and even increases.


But you miss the point that oppression is not over in the Muslim world. Check out Palestine when you get a chance. Also, in some places, while the direct oppression by colonial powers may be over, the effects of oppression linger. We can see this in Afghanistan today.

Eudaimon wrote:
Those Crusaders were illiterate, so no wonder that they believed in what pope was saying. Find another explanations, it's evident that Crusaders had nothing to do with Christ.


No sir, the Crusades had a great deal to do with Christ. The Crusades were carried out in the name of Christ.

Further, not every Crusader was illiterate. The masses were, but there was a minority of literate people, of people who could even read Latin and therefore the Bible.

You want another example? How about when Former President Bush called US intervention in Iraq a Holy obligation.

Eudaimon wrote:
Under Christianity I understand only the words of Christ alone -- here we can in no case find a ground for terrorism or violence against others. Christ 'abolished' old testament commandments, which are the top of intolerance -- is it not evident, so if some use those writs in order to justify their acts, this is Judaism, not Chrstianity.


Jesus did not abolish the Old Testament commandments: instead he put them into context. Recall, when he was asked 'what is the most important commandment' Jesus replied

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.""

All of the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments. In other words, understand the old laws in the context of these two commandments.

By the way, "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" comes from Leviticus. So, Jesus cannot be abolishing commandments that he employs.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Thu 7 May, 2009 10:02 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Your thesis was that certain teachings, like non-violence, are necessary for the emergence of democracy. As it turns out, democracy existed in times and places where non-violent Christian-like teaching was non-existent.

I should repeat once again: non-violence in this sense is only the top of tolerance: one who may permit others even to kill him surely will not oppress others. Some lower levels, as paganism, may also work. Imagine a situation: Stalin or Hitler may remain on his throne forever, is it not understandably that under such yoke tyranny will remain for ever also?

Didymos Thomas wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with this famous saying. Where did you find it?

I don't remember exactly, it was like some one being asked why he was not afraid of death, while others do, gave such an answer. Anyway, the same thought may be found in Dao de ching or, for example, in Huainan-zi:
BEGINNING AND REALITY

Didymos Thomas wrote:
And to call Kantian philosophy a religious would be disingenuous. Kant did not intend to found a religion, he was a devout Christian. We could take a self-help book and call the contents the basis of a religion, but this would also be disingenuous.

In this sense Christianity is also not a religion, hehe. Christ have never proclaimed that and was a devout Jew.
Kantian philosophy was different from other philosophies in its metaphysics, why can't it be called religion?

Didymos Thomas wrote:
There are references to the past in the Analects, but these are not simply idealizations of the past, instead they are recognitions of traditions that are practical.

If the only connect between Marxism and Confucianism is that both prescribe particular rituals/rites for society, then any political thought is similarly related. In other words, the connection you draw between Confucianism and Marxism is so weak that the same connection could be made with Marxism and Democracy. Democracy demands that the majority rule - it is intolerant of the minority opinion, and in this way the same was Marxism. See how easy that was?

Between Chinese 'socialism' and the Soviet there is big difference. Between democracy in the US and Russia or Egypt there is also difference. Why? I think we have stumbled here over a question which suit maybe a new discussion: is it possible to adopt new ideology at all? Or, rather, it is but a development of ideas that were present before in, maybe, latent manner?
Democracy in political sense is surely intolerant. However, in a certain sense it gives us ability to critisise even that democracy. 25 years ago it would have been impossible (as it impossible now in, say, N. Korea) for me and thee to send one another such messages. And this undoubtedly not the merit of technical progress only.
Didymos Thomas wrote:
For example: the Mongols are sweeping in and killing everyone in sight.
But you miss the point that oppression is not over in the Muslim world. Check out Palestine when you get a chance. Also, in some places, while the direct oppression by colonial powers may be over, the effects of oppression linger. We can see this in Afghanistan today.

Well, Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya... How about billionaire O. bin Laden from Saudi Arabia. Or Hattab, thou probably dost not know him, a son of oil-billionaire, started his "carrier" in Afghanistan, then moved to Tajikistan to set there Sharia law, eventually appeared in Chechnya. No doubt, that from its very origin Islam permitted violence against infidels, whoever they may be.
Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didymos Thomas wrote:
No sir, the Crusades had a great deal to do with Christ. The Crusades were carried out in the name of Christ.

Further, not every Crusader was illiterate. The masses were, but there was a minority of literate people, of people who could even read Latin and therefore the Bible.

You want another example? How about when Former President Bush called US intervention in Iraq a Holy obligation.

All that was not based on Christ's words. But if thou wilt, I should try to explain. Christian teaching has contradiction within its spirit: on the one hand it taught non-violence, etc. on the orther, it hallowed personality of Jesus. The teaching became value itself regardless of its contents. Then, naturally, those who agreed with the teaching were loved by 'patriarchs' more than those who rejected them. Gradually it resulted in that in the head of church there appeared people absolutely alien to non-resistance, for whom the writ, every its letter (unfortunately, not the sense) was hallowed.


Didymos Thomas wrote:
Jesus did not abolish the Old Testament commandments: instead he put them into context. Recall, when he was asked 'what is the most important commandment' Jesus replied

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.""

All of the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments. In other words, understand the old laws in the context of these two commandments.

By the way, "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" comes from Leviticus. So, Jesus cannot be abolishing commandments that he employs.

He tried to find in Moses' law what was suitable for him. What was alien for him he rejected in his mount sermon.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 01:22 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon wrote:
I should repeat once again: non-violence in this sense is only the top of tolerance: one who may permit others even to kill him surely will not oppress others. Some lower levels, as paganism, may also work. Imagine a situation: Stalin or Hitler may remain on his throne forever, is it not understandably that under such yoke tyranny will remain for ever also?


So let's sum up your point. Correct my mistakes: you mean that as tolerance increases, so does the ability to have democracy?

Eudaimon wrote:
In this sense Christianity is also not a religion, hehe. Christ have never proclaimed that and was a devout Jew.
Kantian philosophy was different from other philosophies in its metaphysics, why can't it be called religion?


Because Kantian philosophy does not contain prescriptions for spiritual practice. Jesus' teachings do.

Eudaimon wrote:
Between Chinese 'socialism' and the Soviet there is big difference. Between democracy in the US and Russia or Egypt there is also difference. Why? I think we have stumbled here over a question which suit maybe a new discussion: is it possible to adopt new ideology at all? Or, rather, it is but a development of ideas that were present before in, maybe, latent manner?


Whenever a people adopt a new ideology, they will infuse older concepts in this new ideology. A great example is China's acceptance of Buddhism: they adopted the new religion, but also altered the new religion by means of existing Chinese thought.

Eudaimon wrote:
Democracy in political sense is surely intolerant. However, in a certain sense it gives us ability to critisise even that democracy. 25 years ago it would have been impossible (as it impossible now in, say, N. Korea) for me and thee to send one another such messages. And this undoubtedly not the merit of technical progress only.


I agree, but that's not the point. The point was that Confucianism and Chinese Communism are as much the same as Democracy and Marxism.

Eudaimon wrote:
Well, Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya... How about billionaire O. bin Laden from Saudi Arabia. Or Hattab, thou probably dost not know him, a son of oil-billionaire, started his "carrier" in Afghanistan, then moved to Tajikistan to set there Sharia law, eventually appeared in Chechnya. No doubt, that from its very origin Islam permitted violence against infidels, whoever they may be.


What's the point of mentioning wealthy Muslims from the Arab world? There are also wealthy people in Africa.

And yes, Islam does permit violence in some cases. I never said otherwise. My only point is that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamic teaching, except when interpreted by radicals, permits the use of violence only in the most dire of circumstances when peace is not an option.

Eudaimon wrote:
All that was not based on Christ's words. But if thou wilt, I should try to explain. Christian teaching has contradiction within its spirit: on the one hand it taught non-violence, etc. on the orther, it hallowed personality of Jesus. The teaching became value itself regardless of its contents. Then, naturally, those who agreed with the teaching were loved by 'patriarchs' more than those who rejected them. Gradually it resulted in that in the head of church there appeared people absolutely alien to non-resistance, for whom the writ, every its letter (unfortunately, not the sense) was hallowed.


Yes, the Crusades were justified by the use of Christ's teachings - even though the teachings were terribly corrupted for this end, they were used. This is no different than the corruption of Islamic teaching to justify unholy violence.
You are right that the meaning of Christ's teaching were corrupted, but that's exactly the point. The Crusades were related to Christ in that his teachings were corrupted to support the Crusades.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 02:31 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
So let's sum up your point. Correct my mistakes: you mean that as tolerance increases, so does the ability to have democracy?

Exactly.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Because Kantian philosophy does not contain prescriptions for spiritual practice. Jesus' teachings do.

What is spiritual practice? Can there be a religion without spiritual practices?

Didymos Thomas wrote:
Whenever a people adopt a new ideology, they will infuse older concepts in this new ideology. A great example is China's acceptance of Buddhism: they adopted the new religion, but also altered the new religion by means of existing Chinese thought. The point was that Confucianism and Chinese Communism are as much the same as Democracy and Marxism.

But what is really new in new ideology? Or rather it's clarification of the old ideas? Let us consider the mechanism of adoption. There comes a teacher to their land and starts teaching them. But there is always certain ground for his teaching which he appeals to. So these new forms are only effects of old causes.
Explain then why democracy (if it have ever been there) failed, but communism find its ground.

Didymos Thomas wrote:
What's the point of mentioning wealthy Muslims from the Arab world? There are also wealthy people in Africa.

And yes, Islam does permit violence in some cases. I never said otherwise. My only point is that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamic teaching, except when interpreted by radicals, permits the use of violence only in the most dire of circumstances when peace is not an option.

Yes, the Crusades were justified by the use of Christ's teachings - even though the teachings were terribly corrupted for this end, they were used. This is no different than the corruption of Islamic teaching to justify unholy violence.
You are right that the meaning of Christ's teaching were corrupted, but that's exactly the point. The Crusades were related to Christ in that his teachings were corrupted to support the Crusades.

Thou toldest me that Muslim violence is the result of their poverty and oppression. I have given thee examples of wealthy Arabs from thriving countries, what's more?
In case of Crusades it was not perversion Christ's words: neither in his life, nor in his sayings there can never be found grounds for violence, it was just ignoring them. Its only part of its spirit inherited from Judaism that was authoritarian.
Islam, on the contrary from its very beginning, implied violent propagation of religion:
Quote:
Jihad has also been applied to offensive, aggressive warfare, as exemplified by Muhammad's own policies and the entire subsequent history of the spread of Islam. From the first generation of Islam, jihad ideology inspired the conquest of non-Muslim populations, forcing them to submit to Muslim rule or accept outright conversion (although conversion was not generally demanded of "Peoples of the Book," this too could be forcibly imposed on non-"Peoples of the Book").Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 03:24 am
@Eudaimon,
Quote:
My only point is that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamic teaching, except when interpreted by radicals, permits the use of violence only in the most dire of circumstances when peace is not an option

Somewhat reluctantly, I need to challenge this statement. If you look into the origins of Islam, it was most certainly not peaceful. It was a martial religion, a 'fighting creed', right from the get-go. Read your history.
 
Yogi DMT
 
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 12:43 pm
@Eudaimon,
I am for one an athiest, and also do not like using that term because the lack of religion is somehow categorized as a religion. The thing is i don't like the word religion at all, and preferred to not even be classified under a religious category (Athiest) because religion infers usually infers a god, which i beleive is nonsense. Do i believe in things, yes, but i prefer to call my beliefs philosophies or ways of life instead of having any connection with religions such as christanity which i look down upon.

So back to the topic, i think that much of christanity is especially in the medieval times, contradicting and usually the religion is contradicting itself to benefit the "authorities of the religion". Catholic christianity at what point was very violent, unfair, powerful, abusive, and manipulative. Thank we cam up with the idea of separation of church and state. The more you look the more conflicting ideas within the religion you will find. One very simple idea is that if god created us, why would he ever have people go to hell or more of the important question, if god created us and wanted us to follow the religion and obey every word written in the bible, why would he bless us with free will and the ability decide not to follow the religion. That's a major contradiction for me. Another thing that bothers me about the religion is that fact that there is such a definite and set idea of rights and wrongs in the bible. Many of these sins, seem to have no negative value. I just think that christanity contradicts itself in many ways.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 01:24 pm
@Yogi DMT,
The seperation of church and state was not a noble act but represented the desires and ambitions of powerful and ruthless men, who had been held in check by the church for centuries. We live in a world shaped by such men, and it is terrible to behold.
 
Eudaimon
 
Reply Fri 15 May, 2009 11:07 pm
@Eudaimon,
Avatar, dost thou mean that when we had fires of the inquisition, life was better than now? How did church hold them in check?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 01:33 am
@Eudaimon,
I am starting to gravitate towards the idea of being pre-religious. I think the founders of the great faiths, or those around whom religions were built, were not actually 'religious people'. I don't think they had religious beliefs, went to church, prayed for good fortune, and the rest. They were generally just completely alive, awake and aware people, not burdened with possessions or ideology or anything else. But of course I can't prove any of this. It is just an intution. (Oh, and yes, be thankful for the separation of church and state. If a theocracy ruled Europe we would be going about in horsecarts and living in thatched huts.)
 
Lily
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 02:42 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
The seperation of church and state was not a noble act but represented the desires and ambitions of powerful and ruthless men, who had been held in check by the church for centuries. We live in a world shaped by such men, and it is terrible to behold.


Just let me remind you, the church wasn't very cuddly either. I think Jesus was a great philospher, and said a lot of thing we should listen to. But the church has a tendency to do the oposite. If everyone were nicer the world would be nicer, if weren't allowed to say what we think or make scientific progress the world would be horrible.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Sat 16 May, 2009 05:59 am
@Eudaimon,
Eudaimon wrote:
Avatar, dost thou mean that when we had fires of the inquisition, life was better than now? How did church hold them in check?

Had luther been stopped, the french wars of religion, the 30 years war, the war of spanish succession, a very large number of witch burnings, the destruction of the monastrys, the creation of the Prussian state and eugenics would never have occured. So yes, things could have been better. Also I appreciate serious argument, as opposed to peurile mockery.
Lily wrote:
If everyone were nicer the world would be nicer, if weren't allowed to say what we think or make scientific progress the world would be horrible.

The church sponsored intellectual and scintific progress, and resisted many of the hideous philosophies that have led to many of the worst regimes and evils the world has ever seen.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/13/2024 at 10:01:36