Church before state.

Originally posted by queeq
Amazing... are you guys blind? I NEVER SAID it was.

ok...

then why is Greek democracy being "not the same as modern democracy" even a possibly valid argument?

Originally posted by queeq
We're talking about philosophies derived from the New Testament... When you write something on how people should deal with each other, then we can derive a philosophy from your writings.

ok, but why did the new testament exist for almost 1000 years before the invention of such rights in the Renaissance?

Also, the "way people should deal with eachother", as proposed in the new testament, is not in line with the modern ideas you are talking about.

Originally posted by queeq
Then starting to say that you didn't do everything perfectly yourself and others had something similar but totally different, or you didn't invent [philosophy in the first place, that would demonstrate a complete lack of understanding the arguments posed.

so, because we dont agree we dont understand?

what point, specifically, would you like gone over?

Originally posted by queeq
So, the debate is down to whether modern democratic values like equality and speration between state and church orginated in secular philosophy or in New Testament philosophy

nobody is having this debate. We are saying that there are even earlier origins of these philosophies than the new testament. Also, it was greek rationalism, introduced through arab text and scholars, that allowed such interpretations of the New Testament. Pre-Renaissance christianity is not the philosophical monolith you make it seem, and by and large, the most important work in European philosophy was long after Arab influence

Originally posted by queeq
Well... some New Testament text can be brought forward as philosophical evidence for the latter... what is there of the first?

yes, some statements in the new testament stand as the reason why later, largely secular philosophers, weren't killed for their blasphemy.

Modern secular values were born in the enlightenment. They have roots in christianity, and the permissiveness of people having the right to sin on earth allowed them the freedom to think this way. The seperation of church and state was largely an American revolutionary idea, to protect religion from government, the idea being that people were free to worship as they please without state interference, based almost exclusively on the work of enlightenment thinkers.

LOL Just to add why has the fact that NT talks about seperation between chruch and state got to do with anything? Hell The Bible says thou shalt not kill and all sorts of shit doesn't stop people from doing what they do.

Hell it was ages before Engalnd had a democracy eventhough that was written in The Bible, people may have used that as an argument for secularism but:

1. The Icelanders did not seperate politics from religon didn't stop them having a democracy.

2. Democracy just seems like a natural evolution regardless of what you believe in. Somebody doesn't need to write it in a book. 😬

bands and tribes normally have very democratic leadership, often times with leaders only chosen based on need.

Formal politics are in many ways an extension of larger populations.

I agree that democracy has natural roots.

Christianity took the necessary step of not killing those who asked for change in the system, for that it should be applauded.

Yaaayyyy...

Originally posted by queeq
Yaaayyyy...

Originally posted by queeq
Yaaayyyy...

so you concede?

How can he concede?

Wheres the evidence for your guys claims. I would like to see documented evidence of these tribes with democratic systems.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
How can he concede?

Wheres the evidence for your guys claims. I would like to see documented evidence of these tribes with democratic systems.

Already given you proof in another thread. Your response was to simply say it wasn't a form of democracy...can't argue with that.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
How can he concede?

Wheres the evidence for your guys claims. I would like to see documented evidence of these tribes with democratic systems.

I'll look something up

mind, I'm not saying democratic systems. There are no formal institutions of democracy until secularism, this includes under Christian philosophical tradition.

I feel that queeq seems to be saying "well, it wasn't there before christianity so it must be christian", failing to realize that Christianity never developed these things either. I've said I believe there are uniquely Christian additions to modern western values, I think at this point I'm trying to emphasize that there are much older roots.

PZ's point about each child being unique, though having genes that go back ages, probably emphasizes my point the best, although I would be clear to point out, not wanting to drop the metaphor, that certain mutations can appear in a child, which are not found elsewhere, or their phenotype could be much more prominent than other versions.

article about voting in the macaque monkey:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060126_monkey_cops.html

"Pigtailed macaque monkeys, Macaca nemestrina, don't just pull into town like Wyatt Earp or Dirty Harry and take over. They have to be "appointed" to the position.

Instead of a paper ballot, inferior monkeys bare their teeth to a more dominant member of the group.

"It's like they're saying, ‘You don't have to beat me up to establish your dominance, I'm simply telling you that you are,'" Krakauer told LiveScience.

When an individual receives these voting signals from most of the group, it shows he is well respected—or feared—and he becomes the new sheriff in town."

I don't have a lot of this stuff on bookmark, but the book Guns, Germs & Steel talks at length about the origins of civilization, making essentially the same argument I made above about political organization coming out of population increases. The stuff on chimps might be harder to find...

The first line from the Wiki for Band society (I'm glad everyone else gets pissed off when nobody looks up their sources... Should I criticize people for not even wiki-ing the shit I talk about?)

"A band society is the simplest form of human society. A band generally consists of a small kin group, no larger than an extended family or clan. Bands are often egalitarian and have very informal leadership; the older members of the band generally are looked to for guidance and advice and decisions are often made on a consensus basis"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_society

God, this stuff is so easily available:

Early Scholasticism
The first significant renewal of learning in the West came with the Carolingian Renaissance of the Early Middle Ages. Charlemagne, advised by Peter of Pisa and Alcuin of York, attracted the scholars of England and Ireland, and by imperial decree in AD 787 established schools in every abbey in his empire. These schools, from which the name scholasticism is derived, became centres of medieval learning.
The period of early scholasticism coincided with the growth of early Islamic philosophy (in the works of Alkindus, Alfarabi, Avicenna, Algazel and Averroes) and Jewish philosophy (especially in the case of Maimonides). From the 8th Century, the Mutazilite school of Islam, compelled to defend their principles against the more orthodox Ash'ari school, looked for support in philosophy. They were among the first to pursue a rational theology, Ilm-al-Kalam, which can be seen as a form of scholasticism. Later, the philosophical schools of Avicennism and Averroism exerted great influence on Scholasticism (see Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe). NOTE: I've ALREADY LINKED TO THIS!
During this period, knowledge of the Greek language had vanished in the west except in Ireland, where it was widely dispersed in the monastic schools.[2] Irish scholars had a considerable presence in the Frankish court, where they were renowned for their learning.[3] Among them was Johannes Scotus Eriugena, one of the founders of scholasticism.[4] Eriugena was the most significant Irish intellectual of the early monastic period, and an outstanding philosopher in terms of originality.[3] He had considerable familiarity with the Greek language, and translated many works into Latin, affording access to the Cappadocian Fathers and the Greek theological tradition.[3]
The other three founders of scholasticism were the 11th century scholars Peter Abelard, Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury and Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury.[4] Anselm is sometimes misleadingly called the "Father of Scholasticism", owing to the prominence accorded to reason in his theology. Rather than establish a position by appeal to authority, he used argument to demonstrate why what he believed on authority must be so.
The period also saw the beginning of the 'discovery' of many Greek works which had been lost to the Latin West. As early as the 10th century, scholars in Spain had begun to gather translated texts, and in the latter half of that century began transmitting them to the rest of Europe.[5] After the Reconquista of the 12th century, however, Spain opened even further for Christian scholars, who were now able to work in 'friendly' religious territory.[6] As these Europeans encountered Islamic philosophy, they opened a wealth of Arab knowledge of mathematics and astronomy.[7][citation needed]
At the same time Anselm of Laon systematised the production of the gloss on Scripture, followed by the rise to prominence of dialectic (the middle subject of the medieval trivium) in the work of Abelard, and the production by Peter Lombard of a collection of Sentences or opinions of the Church Fathers and other authorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholastic_philosophy

god, its like i know what im talking about

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
How can he concede?

Wheres the evidence for your guys claims. I would like to see documented evidence of these tribes with democratic systems.

It's amazing how ignorant people are. Seriuosly.

You would be amazed then at the democratic systems in Africa. That stuff is not as well documented but it is what it is.

Edit: Come to think of it, I know I have mentioned the Iroquois League in the religion forum at least twice. No one ever says anything about it after the fact though 😂.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Already given you proof in another thread. Your response was to simply say it wasn't a form of democracy...can't argue with that.

I said it didn't fit the Athenian Model- which it didnt.

Ini, how did what you quoted provide evidence for Icelandic Tribes being democratic...

Originally posted by queeq
Landowners - people with money. I have to admit, some things haven't changed. 😉

Where are these sources then. At least, some pre-Roman era sources. Because I think every scholar of the Roman era will tell you there are no written sources from Germania during the Roman Empire. The only sources they use is what Roman historians write about the Germanic Empires. These peoples were illiterate, so we can only guess at how these coucnils were held and how 'democratic' they were.

Honestly, knowing that a full blown equal rights democracy as we know it today did not come into being until early 20th century, I have no illusions such systems existed before.

But please, feel free to name some pre BCE Germanic and Scandinavian sources.

Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I don't know about The Greeks 😬

http://celtlearn.com/pdfs/women.pdf

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I said it didn't fit the Athenian Model- which it didnt.

Ini, how did what you quoted provide evidence for Icelandic Tribes being democratic...

my argument has never been about Icelandic tribes

I'm more politically motivated to call medieval Iceland a functioning anarchy, but I've only seen that mentioned in passing.

In fact, my arguments have been more about the Arab world and the spread of rationalism. I know next to nothing about non-major civilizations in pre-medieval Europe, aside from various documentaries.

I thought you were looking for proof for the arguments I've been making?

EDIT: the proper anthropological use of the term "tribe" is loaded, when I mentioned them above I should have only mentioned bands. The point is not that tribes are not democratic, just that law and things of that nature in tribes are very fluid, and that type of generalization cannot be made. Chits point about the Iroquois League, to the best of my knowledge, shows a tribe with potentially democratic practices (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CULAMRCA/IRLEAGUE.HTM). By the time a population reaches "chiefdom", they likely have a much more authoritarian rule, as history has shown. However, my point from this is that democratic morality is biological, hence the monkey study.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll

First civilization to allow women to speak in public and own land.

Athenian woman certainly couldn't...

Originally posted by inimalist
my argument has never been about Icelandic tribes

I'm more politically motivated to call medieval Iceland a functioning anarchy, but I've only seen that mentioned in passing.

In fact, my arguments have been more about the Arab world and the spread of rationalism. I know next to nothing about non-major civilizations in pre-medieval Europe, aside from various documentaries.

I thought you were looking for proof for the arguments I've been making?

My bad, I didn't address my question properly. I was actually asking Phantom_Zone to prove his claims about womans rights in Celtic Tribes and the idea of Democractic Tribes in Iceland.

When I ask for evidence maybe a contemporary account or an early chronicle or narritive would be good.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Athenian woman certainly couldn't...

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Spartan women and other city-states allowed their women to do so.

I was not aware of that...evidence?

http://elysiumgates.com/~helena/Women.html

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
When I ask for evidence maybe a contemporary account or an early chronicle or narritive would be good.

I would agree

and when I do personal research, I normally only go for peer-reviewed journals, regardless of the topic.

but this is an internet debate, and I am largely echoing ideas that I've come across in said articles.

Seriously, come at this with academic level research and I'll gladly join in. I'm not, however, going to go out of my way to do that, as it is temporally and cognitively exhaustive. Studies show wiki to be on average as good as the standard for encyclopedias, and I'll gladly disregard anything it says as soon as better evidence comes to light.

In other words, show me where what I've posted is factually incorrect, and I'll argue it with you.

well, at least its been a few posts since we've been accused of just wanting to hate on christianity