 |
| |
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DaShi
Christianity has been ingrained in Western thought since it's dominance. Along with it Jewsih thought hence Judeo-Christian. Religion played both helped and restricted scientific thought. In the Middle Ages, the Church created one of the few areas where philosophy could flourish.
Despite the common stereotype of the "kill the heathen" Catholic Church, the Midieval church was quite open to new ideas. True, they were mostly restricted to relgion and God, but few philosophies before modern times aren't. Christain thought laid the foundation of the more secular thought of the Renaissance. A casual look through Dante demonstrates this. Even then the Church didn't abolish science. Galileo is famous for demonstrating the Church's aversion to new ideas, but it is a half truth. Yes, he pissed off the Church. Not because he was preaching blasphomy (the Church did accept his ideas), but because the Church didn't feel that the public was ready to know this. This paternalism may show some restriction of science by the Church, but does not paint them as the creationist Bible-thumpers to later arise out of protestantism.
The early Catholic Church was quite aware of its role in Europe and the power it held. In fact, during its height, it acted more like a political empire than an overbearing theocracy. It was the Church's eventual lack of religious convinction in its actions that gave rise to several protestant sects. Those are your Bible-thumping loonies.  |
It's true that science wasn't uncommon to the church rule, but usually it should be based on the church' view, otherwise the researcher ended up like galileo. Even worse, it took centuries to get rid of these religious based "research results" and thereby slowing things down.
I certainly agree to that the church wasn't wery keen on letting loose facts that would weaken it's power, but i don't buy that it should be because they were worried about if common people were ready to know the truth, it was because they knew they would loose power.
If you don't mind, i'll call a church that has a habit of burning people who dares to speak against the church wiew on the truth as certified "Bible-thumping loonies".
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I see.
Does this mean that those who do behave as Christians do but have never heard of Christianity, ought to be considered Christians? |
I'm not quite shure what you mean ? If you are talking about common sense and sensible interaction between people, then i won't consider that as a specific christian virtue. If you are referring to be beliving in an almighty god, then you will be right - they might be called something else but christian would be acceptable.
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
I indeed think it is connected.
Majority of people stop religious activity due to "lack of time", for they are engulfed in work, wanting to earn more and more and are angry at restrictions in their hedonistic lifestyles.
Only then they start to think out an excuse for their behaviour.
Dieing out of Europeans is due to the same problem - they claim they can not afford children, because they want to live on higher level - while it is not the only thing the children need and not the only thing they need |
I certainly disagree. I know it's wery popular to say that people doesn't have any time left, but in my experience through the last 30 years (the period where i has been consious about this), is that long before the concept of "no time" religion was dropping down and that in a fast way. If i don't get it wrong, religion is factually growing in these times of "no time left" although it's not christianity that has the largest grow.
I don't know how it is where you are living, but i know that here (Denmark) people are still interested in having children, they just don't want to start a football team from age 18, and that's quite sensible since you no longer need a large bunch of children (where 3/4 probably dies in young age) to secure your old age. European population isn't dying out, it just don't grow with that catastrophic rate it did before.
Barinthus : i couldn't agree more 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
I would say no, as (especially for some fundamental christian sects) you must have knowledge about certain things tlo be called christian.
|
Does it? Paul says in Romans, that the one without the law, that still lives by the law, is a law unto himself.
quote:
Many fundamental christians for example would probably definitely say no, because these people would have to accept Jesus as their only Lord and savior and therefore, as they donīt know about Jesus, are considered to be bloody heathens and go to hell, no matter how strong they obeyed the ten amendments and no matter how much good things they did to the world.
|
Actually, I don't think they would. From my point of view, I think Paul is right, that these Christians would recognise the trust in God by these pagans, and rather than calling them as such, would work with them to help them gain understanding of God.
quote:
My own Opinion is alike. If they naturally act according to the ten amendments and the like, but donīt believe in any gods, they rather should be consideres (practising?) Atheists than christians (as Christianity involves knowledge of Christ)
|
Is knowledge of Christ a prerequisite for salvation? I don't think scripture says this. Knowledge of Christ encourages people to follow him, but it is not a prerequisite.
quote:
(Practised atheism on the other hand doesnīt necessary involve any special behavior, aside from the standpoint that there arenīt any gods and everything could be explained by natural causes, so atheists could aside from this behave like christians but still be practising atheists)
|
Is it natural behaviour to behave according to the law? If that were the case, then why doesn't everyone follow the law without being told?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
In many states, even Poland, have almost zero growth, and some have negative one.
Europe's not in need of cheap labour?
Why then it allows and sometimes even encourages mass immigration for pernament or/and season works?
Others religions are growing - simply because they had 0 deal earlier, or close to it. |
No, Eourope has a relatively high unemployment and many countires has already a problem with integration of immigrants wich have extremely high unemployment rates. It's not true that eouropean countries are encouraging mass imigration - on the contrary, they are seeking for ways to stop what has happened the last 20 years. In the last three years immigration in denmark is reduced to approx 10 % of the previouis rate and other countires are considering to do the same.
I'm confused, please elaborate : "Others religions are growing - simply because they had 0 deal earlier, or close to it"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sort of. I'm talking about, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet, those sorts of things.
Why would one apart from the law accept such constraints on his behaviour? |
I'm confused, when have religion ever been a security against that ? On the contrary, religion has often said that that was the right thing to do when those you do that to don't have the same faith as you have.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And if you succeed, what then?
No nation has successfully reversed what they call the demographic transition. The birthrate drops below replacement levels, and remains that way.
|
You are both right and wrong. Several conties has experienced minus growth and the reaction has been opening for immigration. Trouble is that headcount has beeen stabilised, but that's all - the addon in populace doesn't pay off. You may argue that it's the wrong kind of people we get, but i think that braindrain of the third world is one of the worst thing to do, not only to the third world country, but also to the country that imports those (you only keeps status quo or worsens it)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not really the point at hand. I'm asking why someone, without religion, would choose to constrain his behaviour in such a manner, particularly where such constraints are contrary to his own best interests.
I'm not saying all Christians do succeed in constraining their behaviour. Paul is very clear, that if we were to be judged by the law, we would all fail. None of us manage to live as we ought, but in trying to live, we take upon more of the characteristics of Christ. |
I don't believe that any of those constraints are based on a religious ground. They are rules that any "common sense" people will agree to and regulations will be a natural part of legslation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Immigration isn't really the solution, because your appetite for people is insatiable.
Adding a couple hundred thousand a year, isn't going to revise the structural impediments in place towards larger families. |
Quite agree. The (new) danish government has been able to reduce immigration from 30.000 to 3.000 in the last tree years, You migth say that we have lost 27.000 new citizens but the problem is that they mainly would have ended up as unemployed, and then society at all would have lost.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sort of. I'm talking about, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet, those sorts of things.
Why would one apart from the law accept such constraints on his behaviour? |
At the moment I there arenīt any human tribes about ewhich I have further knowledge(although they exist),
but Mahathma Gandhi comes into my mind if it goes for "christian" behavior of a noch Christian.
But you could take nonhuman animals, such as monkeys.
As they are (just as humans) herd animals, for them it is just as for humans important to follow certain rules,
where the individual has no personal gains, but the tribe/groups as a whole probably benefits.
Look for example Chimpanzees and Bonobos. They have the ability to lie, for example by faking Alarm Calls, when they have found something to eat, thereby preventing that other apes of their tribe also detect the food. But nevertheless such a behavior seldom happens.
Animals which are caught lying will also be trusted less in the future.
You could also find other forms of altruism, in the animal kingdom, for example Whales helping wounded or young other whales. This is the reason why you often hear about Dolphins helping shipwrecked humans which otherwise would likely drown.
You could also find numerous examples of sharing food among animals.
All these herd animals havenīt formulated these principles into laws, but they obey them nevertheless.
(And at least in Apes and probably Dolphins you should take into account that they have a certain degree of sentience which also, as mentioned, to disobey these rules obf behavior)
What is the reason for conducting behavior which isnīt of use for yourself?
The survival and functioning of the group you are with.
The ten amendments (aside from the first one) are nothing other than guidelines to strenghten the tribe/group you are with, by lessening the friction among the members of the group. They donīt benefit the single person/animal, but the group as a whole, which is the reason why they are implemented.
And it is also the reason why these laws (like the ten amendments) often enough only were followed in face of a member of the own group, but wouldnīt prevent the tribe/group for example from waging wars against other groups/tribes (which they couldnīt if they would obey the rule "thou shalt not kill" against all other humans including the members of other tribes).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
At the moment I there arenīt any human tribes about ewhich I have further knowledge(although they exist),
but Mahathma Gandhi comes into my mind if it goes for "christian" behavior of a noch Christian.
|
Yes, he is a remarkable figure. I don't know where he'll end up.
quote:
But you could take nonhuman animals, such as monkeys.
As they are (just as humans) herd animals, for them it is just as for humans important to follow certain rules,
where the individual has no personal gains, but the tribe/groups as a whole probably benefits.
|
Okay, if you use Gandhi as your model, would you consider his behaviour to automatically follow from pack behaviour? It's my understanding that people are less likely to help others when they are in a group, and more likely to do so on their own.
quote:
Look for example Chimpanzees and Bonobos. They have the ability to lie, for example by faking Alarm Calls, when they have found something to eat, thereby preventing that other apes of their tribe also detect the food. But nevertheless such a behavior seldom happens.
Animals which are caught lying will also be trusted less in the future.
|
True, but such behaviour does not make the animals, or people stop lying, and could merely encourage their lies to be more difficult to detect. There's nothing natural about someone not only refraining from lies, but also, choosing to repent from lies told previously.
quote:
You could also find other forms of altruism, in the animal kingdom, for example Whales helping wounded or young other whales. This is the reason why you often hear about Dolphins helping shipwrecked humans which otherwise would likely drown.
|
I haven't heard of that myself.
What I'm trying to say, is that real altruistic behaviour in people is not something that we see as their natural impulse, but rather, goes beyond that impulse. Don't we say, when someone does this sort of thing, that he has chosen to act this way, rather than him merely acting on instinct?
quote:
All these herd animals havenīt formulated these principles into laws, but they obey them nevertheless.
(And at least in Apes and probably Dolphins you should take into account that they have a certain degree of sentience which also, as mentioned, to disobey these rules obf behavior)
|
Which is a very good point. Humans, with greater sentience, would be much less likely to naturally follow this behaviour, but rather, to act out against it.
quote:
The survival and functioning of the group you are with.
The ten amendments (aside from the first one) are nothing other than guidelines to strenghten the tribe/group you are with, by lessening the friction among the members of the group. They donīt benefit the single person/animal, but the group as a whole, which is the reason why they are implemented.
|
How can they be implemented, if they come about naturally? You have to give up one of your presuppositions. If this behaviour follows naturally from human interaction, then there will be no need to institute such a code. If there is a need to implement such a code, than such behaviour does not come naturally to people.
quote:
And it is also the reason why these laws (like the ten amendments) often enough only were followed in face of a member of the own group, but wouldnīt prevent the tribe/group for example from waging wars against other groups/tribes (which they couldnīt if they would obey the rule "thou shalt not kill" against all other humans including the members of other tribes).
|
Thou shalt not murder is different from 'thou shalt not kill.' It does not prevent those from killing others in self-defense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
religion is a tool to keep the masses in line.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pax
religion is a tool to keep the masses in line. |
This is not necessarily a bad thing. Masses can get pretty rambunctious.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-11-2004 18:45
)
|