Originally posted by Shakyamunison
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. 😄
oh, how nice of you to get off the horse you rode in on to teach us what is really important and relevant to us
take your hollow ambiguities elsewhere, we are talking like adults here
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Actually the fat Buddha is just like the beautiful long haired Jesus. The real Buddha was skinny, just like the real Jesus was ugly. But what does that have to do with the topic?
Actually there is that Fat Buddha who keeps a bag of treats...
How do you know Jesus was ugly?
Greek democracy: rights to vote was for a limited group of priviliged men. Plus you had to be GREEK all over to join.
Romans: You had to be Roman, rich landowner or high military to be part of the Senate and everything non-Roman was considered inferior. Women did not hold any official position in either Senate, military or government. Apart from tha occasional temporary regent-like position when a successor was too young, but a general/consul would be the effective ruler of the Empire.
Celts, Germans: all tribal people. We have no written sources from these people themselves, only Roman (i.e. secondary) sources and from those writing a picture arises of a tribal society with tribal kings/leaders. They competed for power among themselves and for their own culture. When tribes would get bigger or if a king managed to unite a lot of tribes, there was just monrachy with violent competitions for power (See Alaric, Althaulf, Geseric - all killed by competitors for the throne).
I'm sure that this 'democracy' works to a certain extent in smaller tribes. The power base is small and one depends heavily on the cooperation of others. But what history teaches us is that when groups grow larger, they usually end up in solitary rule.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
All men with citizenship given equal rights? Greeks.
Indeed: only men, and only GREEK men. Very very equal indeed. And rights as a citizen did not mean you had a say in government.
Who was nitpicking. And it's not negative. It's just the way it was. How can one praise the great democratic achievements from Celts and Germans if there are NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, written sources from these cultures. Where's the proof?
And I don't consider it negative. It's prolly as good as got in those days. All I'm pointing out is that there's never been any democracy in ancient times comparable to the one we have now. Anyone suggesting that it's all been done on a large scale as now, it just plain wrong. plsu it also shows that democracies are not installed and perfectly working overnight like they're trying in Iraq. It takes a very very long time.
So far all these vague contradictions have been along the lines of nitpickin. A lot of people just don't want to accept any positive influence from the Bible or want to see anything unique about Jesus in particular. Ghandi is fairly unique in his persistent non-violence protests, I wouldn't know anyone like that personally. We accept that. Buddha was failry unique is his approach, we accept that. But when it comes to New testament uniqueness, there's always some unfounded need to do away with it as trivial and unimportant. Despite the fact that christianity has formed our culture (for good and for bad) for the last 2000 years. You deny all you want, people can perfectly point out all the bad stuff that religious people did in the past. that's easy to discern for some reason, but when something positive is pointed out, it seems to be nonsense from the start. And that's basically the way such debates in held (not by all, mind you) in what is erroneously called a "Religion Forum". A lot of people don't come here to discuss religion, but to debunk it.
Originally posted by queeq
Who was nitpicking. And it's not negative. It's just the way it was. How can one praise the great democratic achievements from Celts and Germans if there are NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, written sources from these cultures. Where's the proof?
There is probably evidence in The Norse Sagas that the heathens who went there had a form of democracy. Gothis were people who formulated the laws but people would vote what Gothi would represent them and therefore have a say in what laws were made. 😬
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy
The Althing, the parliament of the Icelandic Commonwealth, was founded in 930. It consisted of the 39, later 55, goðar; each owner of a goðarð; and membership, which could in principle be lent or sold, was kept tight hold of by each hereditary goði. Thus, for example, when Burnt Njal's stepson wanted to enter it, Njal had to persuade the Althing to enlarge itself so a seat would be available. But as each independent farmer in the country could choose what goði represented him the system could be claimed as an early form of democracy. The Alþing has run nearly continuously to the present day. The Althing was preceded by less elaborate "things" (assemblies) all over Northern Europe.[37]
Source is the the Njals saga. Icelanders have a democracy that we have today but guess what....they were forced to become christian so if they were not converted they would be a pagan society with a modern democracy....however Icelanders are tryiing to return to their heathen roots.
Originally posted by queeq
Who was nitpicking. All I'm pointing out is that there's never been any democracy in ancient times comparable to the one we have now. Anyone suggesting that it's all been done on a alrge scale as now, it just plain wrong
That because paganism was made illegal! Are you serioulsy trying to tell me that if pagan people were allowed to follow their beliefs that somehow there socitey would not have been as free as it is today? Im not saying that Christanity is bad because of it and its also not the fault of The Bible but essentially bad people. Its a bit like saying humans are superior to dinosaurs because they got wiped out and we didn't when if they were not wiped out they may have developed just like us ( I don't want to get into argument about comparing human values to that of dinosaurs).
Originally posted by queeq
So far all these vagues contradictions have been along the lines of nitpicking, unless one just doesn't want to accept any positive influnce from the Bible, just doesn't want to see anything unique about Jesus in particular. Ghandi is fairly unique in his persistent non-violence protests, I wouldn't know anyone like that personally. We accept that. Buddha was failry unique is his approach, we accept that. But when it comes to New testament uniqueness, there's always some unfounded need to do away with it as trivial and unimportant.
For the love of God nobody is trying to deny positive infleunces from the Bible, what part of this can't you understand?
Originally posted by queeq
Despite the fact that christianity has formed our culture (for good and for bad) for the last 2000 years. You deny all you want, people can perfectly point out all the bad stuff that religious people did in the past. that's easy to discern for some reason, but when something positive is pointed out, it seems to be nonsense from the start.
Where did Christanity come from? Doesn't Christanity have pagan influences as well? Lets take the Anglo-Saxons as far as I know they have had an influence on the law till this very day. Are you serioulsy trying to tell me that when they converted to Christanity they forgot all there pagan ideas and laws and didn't take any of them with them. Some of the Christian monks used to be Druids and its been suggested that some of The Druids just saw Christanity as an new evolution of paganism....I think this is why you have Celtic Christanity.
Hell law is a Norse word, something tells me that may have had positive influences on the law as well as Christians.
What about Islam, wasn't there are time when islamic countries were more advanced didn't Christian societites learn from them?
Originally posted by queeq
And that's basically the way such debates in held (not by all, mind you) in what is erroneously called a "Religion Forum". A lot of people don't come here to discuss religion, but to debunk it.
Nobody is trying to debunk anything. You are saying that Christanity is superior all im saying is that its not worse or better its just as good or bad as everybody else. You're just getting pissed off because we don't agree with you, hell we even looked up that guy you were talking about....now what?
930... that's way later than Roman times. Muslim tradition didn't start until the 600s AD. It's easy to skip a few centuries. Christianity started in the 1st century AD.
Goths were BTW allowed their pagan beliefs in Roman times. They lived outside the Roman Empire. And those who did live withing the Empire were also allowed to believe as they did before. To transcend into positions of power, one had to be Christian. Within the Roman Empire though, christianised versions of the old pagan beliefs were common, although it didn't really alter anything politically. From being divine himself, the Emperor became the primary divine instrument. Christianity never significantly changed Roman politics. But interestingly enough a lot of peoples within the Roman Empire turned to christianity, simply because at that time it was the Roman thing to do.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
You are saying that Christanity is superior
I did? Please quote me on that. I don't like people totally misquoting and misinterpreting by not reading my posts properly. All I was arguing was that christianity seemd to bring something NEW to political philosophy. But I look forward to you quoting my superiority-statement. Good luck finding it.
I am a bit lost. What's the argument exactly? That modern enlightenment ideals developed in predominantly Christian European countries? Cause that's true. Is the argument that Christianity was the reason for that development? Cause I'd quite like some prove of that, it seems especially the Catholic church, was, on the contrary, pretty bad for humane developements in the Middle Ages and beyond.
Originally posted by queeq
930... that's way later than Roman times. Muslim tradition didn't start until the 600s AD. It's easy to skip a few centuries. Christianity started in the 1st century AD.
So what? Its a pagan democracy and you asked for proof. Why are you going off on a tangent?
Originally posted by queeq
Goths were BTW allowed their pagan beliefs in Roman times. They lived outside the Roman Empire. And those who did live withing the Empire were also allowed to believe as they did before. To transcend into positions of power, one had to be Christian. Within the Roman Empire though, christianised versions of the old pagan beliefs were common, although it didn't really alter anything politically. From being divine himself, the Emperor became the primary divine instrument. Christianity never significantly changed Roman politics. But interestingly enough a lot of peoples within the Roman Empire turned to christianity, simply because at that time it was the Roman thing to do.
So what? The Icelenders and heathens of Scandinvia were not. If they were they would have pagan modern democracy.
Originally posted by queeqI did? Please quote me on that. I don't like people totally misquoting and misinterpreting by not reading my posts properly.
You don't like people misquoting you? How many times have you accused posters of trying debunk Christanity when thats not what were trying to do? If I misunderstand you thats because I have a problem getting a straight answer from you.
Originally posted by queeq
All I was arguing was that christianity seemd to bring something NEW to political philosophy. But I look forward to you quoting my superiority-statement. Good luck finding it.
Well it seems to me that you do seem to think that Christanity is superior because it seems people have proved time and time again that this incorrect. Nobody is saying that Christanity didn't contribute to political philosphy but it contributed just as much as paganism and other religons did, you seem to have a hard time accepting it and thats why I come to the conclusion that you think that Christanity has somehow done more for society.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Well it seems to me that you do seem to think that Christanity is superior because it seems people have proved time and time again that this incorrect. Nobody is saying that Christanity didn't contribute to political philosphy but it contributed just as much as paganism and other religons did, you seem to have a hard time accepting it and thats why I come to the conclusion that you think that Christanity has somehow done more for society.
Please quote me on that and maybe I will take you seriously.
here, I got it:
Phantom Zone: Do you believe that, while it may have gotten some ideas from what came before, the new testament contains things that are novel ideas?
queeq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe
any of the articles on this site:
http://www.muslimheritage.com/
also, your argument against greek democracy was that it was not inclusive. The argument you are making then is that Christian Europe was where the idea of equality was born. No Christian state got either equality or democracy right, so by your own argument, Christian philosophy is irrelevant as well, and it is not until the secular age of reason and enlightenment where the true democratic values emerge.
Your insistence on Christianity here appears to show your bias. While Christianity did innovate, they were not the original for many things.