Church before state.

Originally posted by queeq
Most Germanic and Celtic tribes had a load of separate kings, kind of ruling together over their own groups. If you're saying this was all peaceful and democratic, I think that's overstating that a bit. The larger the groups grew, the greater the competitions for power became. The larger the territory, the more violent conflicts got.
As for democracy and tolerance, mind you, this principles only existed WITHIN their own culture. Germanic tribes had no trouble wiping out Romans or whoever was competing in power with the greatest ease and justification. And when Germanic leaders of larger groups like Alaric or Althauf could be done away with, they would be. There's no democracy there. Maybe WITHIN the tribe, but not outside it's own culture.

And again, saying that Greek was such an equal democracy, is downright wrong. Plato himself argued strongly for maintaining the concept of oligarchy: a select groups of wise men to have a say/vote in the government's proceedings. We see the concept of larger chunks of people having a say in politics long before our Western democracy. But it's not like they had concepts of tolerance to other cultures, or even equality within their own. Someone mentioned India... now that's one cultures where the Caste system shows how there's NO equality at all. Even though there may be a form of democracy in the higher castes, but it is still a form of oligarchy: democracy among the most influencial. Don't make ancient democracy more than it was.

ok

but don't make it sound as if Christians got democracy right.

There may be the roots of some secular ideals in Christian European philosophical tradition, but by no means has a Christian state ever practiced such things. It was because of Christian ideas of free will and "give unto caesar" that certain values may have formed, but that is not to say that christian societies were themselves bastions of these values. Quite the opposite, in fact, as Christian rule opposed the birthing of Secularism and science at essentially every opportunity.

Originally posted by queeq
It's not my point, I just found the point of a French philosopher interesting that the tolerant democracy in which all people in society are considered equal, and where there's a clear distinction between church and state are derived from the philosophies of New testament gospels. Feredric Lenoir argues that all school should teach christian philosophy (not religion) to better understand what our Western democracy is founded on.

education should have much more focus on philosophy and history. To extend this only to Christianity is lunacy.

Originally posted by queeq
Some posters here believe there's nothing unique about christianity, that it's always been a dictatorial burden and that we've only recently been set free from its' shackles. I found it interesting to see that the things we hold so high seem to be instigated by the very religion some people here despise.

I don't see the need to bring this straw man up. Nobody, for many pages, has even insinuated as such.

Originally posted by queeq
Most Germanic and Celtic tribes had a load of separate kings, kind of ruling together over their own groups. If you're saying this was all peaceful and democratic, I think that's overstating that a bit. The larger the groups grew, the greater the competitions for power became. The larger the territory, the more violent conflicts got.
As for democracy and tolerance, mind you, this principles only existed WITHIN their own culture.

Originally posted by queeq
Germanic tribes had no trouble wiping out Romans or whoever was competing in power with the greatest ease and justification. And when Germanic leaders of larger groups like Alaric or Althauf could be done away with, they would be. There's no democracy there. Maybe WITHIN the tribe, but not outside it's own culture.

Originally posted by queeq
And again, saying that Greek was such an equal democracy, is downright wrong. Plato himself argued strongly for maintaining the concept of oligarchy: a select groups of wise men to have a say/vote in the government's proceedings.

Originally posted by queeq
We see the concept of larger chunks of people having a say in politics long before our Western democracy. But it's not like they had concepts of tolerance to other cultures, or even equality within their own. Someone mentioned India... now that's one cultures where the Caste system shows how there's NO equality at all. Even though there may be a form of democracy in the higher castes, but it is still a form of oligarchy: democracy among the most influencial. Don't make ancient democracy more than it was.

Originally posted by inimalist

I don't see the need to bring this straw man up. Nobody, for many pages, has even insinuated as such.

Exactly and im sure that most posters in this thread will admit that Christanity has contributed to society and also has had negative contributions as well. The same could be said for paganism. Considering that paganism came before Christanity I don't think its unreasonable to think that some Christain ideas came from there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
True, but it's still valid to ask, innit?

I cant see why, unless he is trying to accuse Queeq of being unfairly biased.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Exactly and im sure that most posters in this thread will admit that Christanity has contributed to society and also has had negative contributions as well. The same could be said for paganism. Considering that paganism came before Christanity I don't think its unreasonable to think that some Christain ideas came from there.

That could be said of pretty much anything, though. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

I'm really interested in new lines of psychology, where they are attempting to find origins for some of our beliefs in evolution. Chimps have shown primitive democratic practices in decision making 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
That could be said of pretty much anything, though. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

I agree 100%

Originally posted by inimalist

I'm really interested in new lines of psychology, where they are attempting to find origins for some of our beliefs in evolution. Chimps have shown primitive democratic practices in decision making 🙂

I've heard stuff similar to that...but thats another topic. Theres even evidence that proves that chimps to an extent are more intelligent than humans. Not getting into the defintion of intelligence but they showed the ability to calculate and memorise things much better than humans.....it just makes you wonder.

Originally posted by Bardock42
True, but it's still valid to ask, innit?

No, because it's an attempt to find a way to dismiss what he's saying without addressing the idea.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I've heard stuff similar to that...but thats another topic. Theres even evidence that proves that chimps to an extent are more intelligent than humans. Not getting into the defintion of intelligence but they showed the ability to calculate and memorise things much better than humans.....it just makes you wonder.

You're wonderment is like 40 years out of date. The idea of different types and expressions of intelligence has been around for a long time. Philosiphers, psychologists, neuroscientists have made it an issue. Or you could go watch Rain Man . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, because it's an attempt to find a way to dismiss what he's saying without addressing the idea.

That's an assumption you made, which might or might not be true. The question is valid, if for statistical purposes only, the reasoning you speak of is not.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, because it's an attempt to find a way to dismiss what he's saying without addressing the idea.

Actually I have already addressed what he was saying. first of all you tried to imply that I was trying deman Christanity which wasn't what I was trying to do and now you're accusing me of not addressing the issue when I have. If you boethered to read my post instead being such a smartass you would have seen that.

You're an annoying obonxious ****. I saw you bloody car wreck of a discussion which you were having with Digi. First of all you accused of him trying to say something, when he explained thats not what he was trying to say you carried on wasting his time instead of taking your head out of your ass and leaving him the hell alone.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

You're wonderment is like 40 years out of date. The idea of different types and expressions of intelligence has been around for a long time. Philosiphers, psychologists, neuroscientists have made it an issue. Or you could go watch Rain Man . . .

I don't even understand why this guy acts like such a dick. I probably have more qualifications than you do but I don't see the justification in acting like a know-it-all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's an assumption you made

EXACTLY!

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's an assumption you made, which might or might not be true. The question is valid, if for statistical purposes only, the reasoning you speak of is not.

Statistics on the number of Christians on KMC don't really apply to the discussion. If there's another reason for asking that doesn't involve trying to avoid the argument I really would love to hear it.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
You're an annoying obonxious ****. I saw you bloody car wreck of a discussion which you were having with Digi. First of all you accused of him trying to say something, when he explained thats not what he was trying to say you carried on wasting his time instead of taking your head out of your ass and leaving him the hell alone.

Resorting to ad hominem red herrings is childish and pointless. On the other hand you're quite welcome to use them if you have nothing else.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
If you boethered to read my post instead being such a smartass you would have seen that.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Well it seems to me that you agree with the French Philospher because in this part of your post you are implying that things that we hold in high esteem (democracy, equal-rights etc....or are you just refering to Chrisanity) was instigated by Christanity.

Basically: You agree with him because he says things we think are good come from Christianity.

This is followed by a question as to if he is or is not a Christian.

The question is automatically loaded because of the previous statement where you accuse him of liking the argument simply because it makes Christianity look good. If he says that he is Christian you're given an opportunity to dismiss everything he says as biased.

I hardly think I'm jumping to a conclusion about why you asked. If you can provide a good reason for asking I'm more than willing to apologize for the accusation.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I don't even understand why this guy acts like such a dick. I probably have more qualifications than you do but I don't see the justification in acting like a know-it-all.

I have no qualifications of any sort. Nonetheless, I am moderately intelligent and when people say things that I feel are stupid I'm quite happy to point it out. As for why I act like a dick . . . I am a dick.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Statistics on the number of Christians on KMC don't really apply to the discussion. If there's another reason for asking that doesn't involve trying to avoid the argument I really would love to hear it.

As you will undoubtedly see, it was not a question to avoid argument, just an additional question for general information. He had already made his argument and was wondering whether queeq, who argued for the Church was a Christian himself, not to disregard his opinion, just for reference. It's really not a bad or illogical question. I myself am wondering whether he is Christian, partly because I saw him make in my opinion flawed arguments for the Christian faith before, and it interests what he would describe himself as.

If his opinion is just disregarded on that basis it would of course be wrong. But it doesn't make the question bad.

First of all answer the question.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
......what point did you think I was trying to make by mentioning The Crusaders?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Resorting to ad hominem red herrings is childish and pointless. On the other hand you're quite welcome to use them if you have nothing else.

Please explain what I said was a red herring because I explained the reason why I posted what I said and you ignored it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Basically: You agree with him because he says things we think are good come from Christianity.

No I don't agree with him because he is demeaning pagan civilsations and saying that christanity was the instigator of tolerance and demoracy. The difference is I think Christanity was not just the insigator of tolerance but paganism as well. I also think paganism has given positive things to society.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

This is followed by a question as to if he is or is not a Christian.

The question is automatically loaded because of the previous statement where you accuse him of liking the argument simply because it makes Christianity look good. If he says that he is Christian you're given an opportunity to dismiss everything he says as biased.

I hardly think I'm jumping to a conclusion about why you asked. If you can provide a good reason for asking I'm more than willing to apologize for the accusation.

I am justified in asking wether he is a Christian or not because his arguments are biased and have already adressed what he is discussing by mentioning the positive aspects of pagan civilisations. To make the argument that Christanity was the instigator of democracy and tolerance is ludicrous.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

I have no qualifications of any sort. Nonetheless, I am moderately intelligent and when people say things that I feel are stupid I'm quite happy to point it out. As for why I act like a dick . . . I am a dick.

I haven't said anything stupid you assume people say stupid things.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As you will undoubtedly see, it was not a question to avoid argument, just an additional question for general information. He had already made his argument and was wondering whether queeq, who argued for the Church was a Christian himself, not to disregard his opinion, just for reference.

Just to add I probably would have disregarded his opinion regardless of wether he was Christian or not but I defintely was not trying to avoid addressing the issue because I had already done so. So no his argument would have not been disregarded soley on the basis of being Christian but if he had said he was Christian that would have confirmed why his arguments were so baised.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
First of all answer the question.

That Christianity is not a universal good.

But who cares? Bad things that have been done by Christians have no bearing on good things done by them. There's no good reason to bring up the Crusades.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Please explain what I said was a red herring because I explained the reason why I posted what I said and you ignored it.

My argument with Digi has nothing to do with this. It is a red herring in that you tried to control the conversation to one where you felt you would have an advantage but not one that moved the actual discussion at hand forward.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
No I don't agree with him because he is demeaning pagan civilsations and saying that christanity was the instigator of tolerance and demoracy.

I was summarizing what you said about what you think he thinks not summarizing what you say you think.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
The difference is I think Christanity was not just the insigator of tolerance but paganism as well. I also think paganism has given positive things to society.

Good for you. Pagan societies also sacrificed live humans to their gods.*

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I am justified in asking wether he is a Christian or not because his arguments are biased and have already adressed what he is discussing by mentioning the positive aspects of pagan civilisations. To make the argument that Christanity was the instigator of democracy and tolerance is ludicrous.

I don't believe it's been claimed in this thread that paganism has never done anything good. You also just said that Christianity played at least some part in create democracy and tolerance. I also don't see how it's ludicrous to make the argument that a religion founded on the idea of everyone being equal in the eyes of God could have had something to do with democracy and tolerance before it became institutionalized and dictatorial.

Besides, that confirms pretty much what I said before. You were just looking for an excuse to accuse him of bias.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I haven't said anything stupid you assume people say stupid things.

Or maybe people are just generally stupid and most of what they say seems stupid to me.

*Before you go apeshit, I'm being ironic. See how bringing up negatives doesn't have much to do with the positives?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That Christianity is not a universal good.

Did you think I was trying to negate the good that Christanity had done by brining up Slavery and The Crusades?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

But who cares? Bad things that have been done by Christians have no bearing on good things done by them. There's no good reason to bring up the Crusades.

Its worth bringing up if the person making the argument thinks that somehow Christanity had done more for tolerance in society than paganism had or thinks Chrisanity has doen more for society.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

My argument with Digi has nothing to do with this. It is a red herring in that you tried to control the conversation to one where you felt you would have an advantage but not one that moved the actual discussion at hand forward.

Yes it is because you accuse people of making stupid arguments and accusing them of making certain arguments when thats not what they are doing. Which you seem to be doing now.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

I was summarizing what you said about what you think he thinks not summarizing what you say you think.

Sorry don't really get your point here.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Good for you. Pagan societies also sacrificed live humans to their gods.*

Nahhhh really? I didn't know that why are you telling me this?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

I don't believe it's been claimed in this thread that paganism has never done anything good.

Nahh you don't say I didn't know that!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

You also just said that Christianity played at least some part in create democracy and tolerance. I also don't see how it's ludicrous to make the argument that a religion founded on the idea of everyone being equal in the eyes of God could have had something to do with democracy and tolerance before it became institutionalized and dictatorial.

Whats your point? So I think that Christanity having something to do with democracy is ludicrous?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Besides, that confirms pretty much what I said before. You were just looking for an excuse to accuse him of bias.

and why are you making a big deal of me accusing him of bias. Is it not because I was trying to avoid the argument.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Statistics on the number of Christians on KMC don't really apply to the discussion. If there's another reason for asking that doesn't involve trying to avoid the argument I really would love to hear it..

How can I do this when I have already made my bloody argument. If had not said anything before that you would have had a point but you don't

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Or maybe people are just generally stupid and most of what they say seems stupid to me.

*Before you go apeshit, I'm being ironic. See how bringing up negatives doesn't have much to do with the positives?

I don't even think you understand the point I was making in the first place. The fact that are you telling me this proves that you seem to be accusing me of making an argument that I was not making in the first place.

I see all the ranting is back. It's so easy to put some oil on the fire here. Guess my work here is done for a while.

Originally posted by queeq
I see all the ranting is back. It's so easy to put some oil on the fire here. Guess my work here is done for a while.

serve?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Very original cop out I'd have to say.

I can't see why he'd need to "cop out" nothing thats been said is really valid in anyway other than peoples opinions.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Very original cop out I'd have to say.

Hardly a cop out. It's just pain and simple. There are quite a number of people here that will stick to one principle, namely that nothing mentionably good or unique can come forth from religion and christianity in particular. They feel free to dismiss any arguments, proof or common sense and to start personal attacks.

So once in a while I find something interesting or have a POV on a matter, I post it here and always, no matter what the subject is, the same type of flaming starts. For me, THAT is the real cop out. So I try at least to add something new to the debate. Of course I know that chaos will rule after that, and then it's basically done. You can't have a normal debate when that starts, so then all you can do is sit back and enjoy the chaos.