Church before state.

Originally posted by inimalist
Its not a new idea, but in queeq's defense, it is one that gets only a little play in debate.

However, I think he is trying to say, because the origins of civil individual liberty is based on the idea of free will in christian theology, there is more civil liberty in those christian societies, which I do not agree with.

Is it me but doesn't that argument fail on many levels?

Originally posted by inimalist

I hope you speak french

Im not that good! Oh well thats the end of that.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Is it me but doesn't that argument fail on many levels?

which?

the origin of individual rights being from Christian theology or the idea that christian societies have more individual rights than those of other religions?

Originally posted by inimalist
which?

the origin of individual rights being from Christian theology

Well that argument fails.

Originally posted by inimalist

or the idea that christian societies have more individual rights than those of other religions?

Well depends on how you define 'christian'. If you're talking about Western society then..yes. If you're talking about christian society in the past then it needs to take into account christanity was influenced by paganism and other factors......and if the christians hadn't wiped out paganism they would have contributed more. (Obvously im not saying all Christians are bad I just thought that should be considered). Also pagans and christian societes at some points had better rights....anyway not telling you anything you don't know.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Well that argument fails.

I would generally disagree with you

While there are places on the planet where these ideas may have arisen independently, those cultures normally were overtaken by more militaristic and authoritarian societies, or have been almost totally shut off from modern society. I do concede that there may be Greek origins, however, there is a large gap between the Greeks and the Renaissance where individual liberty is not known. There is a very good chance that Greek philosophy imported to Renaissance Italy from the Arab world did bring these ideologies.

However, Christianity has as a core principle, even back to the early church if I'm not mistaken, the idea that people are free to choose to sin, and not preordained by God. I don't agree with the logic of that statement, but it is from this principle that the idea of individual freedom arose in the modern western world.

For a comparison, Islamic philosophy has no such distinction, and individual rights never developed there, even though science and other modern western values thrived.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Well depends on how you define 'christian'. If you're talking about Western society then..yes. If you're talking about christian society in the past then it needs to take into account christanity was influenced by paganism and other factors......and if the christians hadn't wiped out paganism they would have contributed more. (Obvously im not saying all Christians are bad I just thought that should be considered). Also pagans and christian societes at some points had better rights....anyway not telling you anything you don't know.

I was more talking about states that were essentially run by the church or someone posing as such.

Clearly there are ties between early paganism and christianity. I don't think there is any need to weigh the positives and negatives.

However, I would argue that most of the negative things attributed to christianity (or any religion) are more emblematic of human nature and not the philosophy. I feel the philosophy probably acts as a justification to natural emotions rather than the other way around.

Originally posted by queeq
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.

Originally posted by inimalist
Its not a new idea, but in queeq's defense, it is one that gets only a little play in debate.

However, I think he is trying to say, because the origins of civil individual liberty is based on the idea of free will in christian theology, there is more civil liberty in those christian societies, which I do not agree with.

I don't think that queeq ever mentioned the second part.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think that queeq ever mentioned the second part.

no, I may have confused queeq's opinion for the position of the philosopher he was presenting.

who, according to queeq, suggests specifically introducing Christian philosophy into education. Which is obviously a good idea, however the exclusive status of Christian philosophy, to me, insinuates that there is more to be learned from it than other, in this man's opinion.

Hence I called him Eurocentric, as he runs a humanist magazine. For instance, I don't assume he is speaking of the philosophy of Desmond Tutu, but since I can't read what I'm supposed to go study (ya, non sequitor) I shouldn't make that assumption.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Not a single person made that argument. Everyone was arguing with you saying democracy came Christianity, which I honestly think was thoroughly beaten.

That shows that no one reads what is being said. I never claimed that. Not a single moment.

The argument was that modern democratic elements like equal rights for everyone to vote and the separation between church and state are in fact derived from philosophies (not religion, not politics, and certainly not that the whole concept of democracy originated in the bible as some managed to completely misquote/misread/misinterpret what I said) in the New Testament. Philosophies that were until then, even compared to the the Old Testament, new. New in the way man was free to chose, to be equal despitie religious or cultural differences, and new in separating religion/church and politics. And that those elements formed (or help form to the least) modern democracy.
It's interesting since people can get very very excited about a pope saying something about politics, thinking for some insane reason he will suddenly brainwash the world with his old fashioned ideas and start dominating the world as he always wanted anyway. It's interesting because such elements as separation between church and state, equality between men and women, are in fact christian values. And very new at the time.

As for the 'Eurocentrist' remark, about 80% of all democratic history took place in Europe. Why not be 'Eurocentrist'? And if any nation has a longstanding reputation of being centristic or even isolationistic, it's the other 'great' democracy: USA. So an American to point the centrist finger to Europe shows a rather great amount of self-indulge and lack of introspection.

Originally posted by queeq
As for the 'Eurocentrist' remark, about 80% of all democratic history took place in Europe. Why not be 'Eurocentrist'?

well, for one, many of the values of democracy originated outside of Christianity. Also, some values not incorporated in democracy are important to know.

also, that 80% of democratic history was rooted in other places. The Eurocentrism, imho, is failing to continue to look back in history to find where europe found these ideas.

I find, essentially, no value in trying to pinpoint the origins of ideas in this way to isolate different philosophies from each other. Christianity had important ideas which nobody is questioning. Yet, they were not, by any means, formed without prior influences.

Originally posted by queeq
And if any nation has a longstanding reputation of being centristic or even isolationistic, it's the other 'great' democracy: USA. So an American to point the centrist finger to Europe shows a rather great amount of self-indulge and lack of introspection.

I'm not an American

and I would never align myself with Amerocentrist views

aside from being insulting, what could possibly be the purpose of this remark

Originally posted by inimalist

I'm not an American

and I would never align myself with Amerocentrist views

aside from being insulting, what could possibly be the meaning of this remark

American, Canadian who cares its all the same thing. You both have that accent and live 'over-there' to the west on that chunk of land....bah!

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
American, Canadian who cares its all the same thing. You both have that accent and live 'over-there' to the west on that chunk of land....bah!

🙄

because Canadian scholars have a notorious history of being pro-American

Originally posted by inimalist
🙄

because Canadian scholars have a notorious history of being pro-American

Geeeez ini its a joke..... 🙄

Originally posted by queeq
That shows that no one reads what is being said. I never claimed that. Not a single moment.

The argument was that modern democratic elements like equal rights for everyone to vote and the separation between church and state are in fact derived from philosophies (not religion, not politics, and certainly not that the whole concept of democracy originated in the bible as some managed to completely misquote/misread/misinterpret what I said) in the New Testament. Philosophies that were until then, even compared to the the Old Testament, new. New in the way man was free to chose, to be equal despitie religious or cultural differences, and new in separating religion/church and politics. And that those elements formed (or help form to the least) modern democracy.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Geeeez ini its a joke..... 🙄

so was mine...

lol 😛

I was trying to be sarcastic with you

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
And all of these ideas were introduced and taught well before Christianity came into existent,

Where then?

Originally posted by queeq
Where then?

Humans. We invented all of it on our own.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Humans. We invented all of it on our own.

That is totally irrelevant, we invented Christianity on our own by your thinking. So where is there an example of the points queeq made before Christianity.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
That is totally irrelevant, we invented Christianity on our own by your thinking. So where is there an example of the points queeq made before Christianity.

No matter what source you point too, it was invented by humans. What came first is interesting, but it has no meaning beyond an insight into how we humans think. There was a time when religion, philosophy and government were all the same.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No matter what source you point too, it was invented by humans. What came first is interesting, but it has no meaning beyond an insight into how we humans think. There was a time when religion, philosophy and government were all the same.

Thats wonderful, however the debate these guys are having is about what came when, and you called it interesting- thus its not a pointless debate, thus your points are meaningless/

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Thats wonderful, however the debate these guys are having is about what came when, and you called it interesting- thus its not a pointless debate, thus your points are meaningless/

There were two men standing in the forest watching a deer die, that one of them had shoot with an arrow. The two men were debating on what happens to the soul when something dies. Along comes Buddha walking through the forest. The two men having seen Buddha approaching, asked him what will become of the soul of the deer once it has died? Buddha ignored two men and reached down to the dear and pulled out the arrow, saving the deer's life.

I was simple putting things into a bigger perspective. 😄