The Debate on Religion the Logic of Submission

[ailamos]

Originally posted by Naxar Nugaaleed:

Let There Be No Compulsion in Religion ~ The

Koran

If only...

[N.O.R.F]

Originally posted by ailamos:

quote:Originally posted by Norfsky:

Ah, so before 'the enlightenment', Europeans, on an idividual level, were low down dirty mongrels?

I see where you're going with this... on a personal level Europeans, instead of being guided by their own reason, were guided exclusively by what the Church had laid down. This guidance included a distinct mentality that if one does not conform to the teaching of the Church then one is deemed a heretic and be put to death or tortured. A similar notion to what we see in the Islamic world today.

Is that so?

 

In conclusion, because of the Church, people were un-civil then 'enlightenment' occured and all that changed. Funnily enough I don't think people were savages before 'enlightenment'

 

ps silly comments won't be entertained. Unless you give us a basis (for the silly comments) of course

 

pps is 'civility' based on what govenments/establishments do? Correct yourself

[ailamos]

Originally posted by Norfsky:

Originally posted by Norfsky:

Ah, so before 'the enlightenment', Europeans, on an idividual level, were low down dirty mongrels?

I see where you're going with this... on a personal level Europeans, instead of being guided by their own reason, were guided exclusively by what the Church had laid down. This guidance included a distinct mentality that if one does not conform to the teaching of the Church then one is deemed a heretic and be put to death or tortured. A similar notion to what we see in the Islamic world today.

Is that so?

 

In conclusion, because of the Church, people were un-civil then 'enlightenment' occured and all that changed. Funnily enough I don't think people were savages before 'enlightenment'

Norfsky, I don't know why you are making gross generalizations of my comments, the matter is not as simplistic as you make of it. I don't know how you come up with "because of the Church, people were un-civil then 'enlightenment' occured and all that changed. Funnily enough I don't think people were savages before 'enlightenment'", from what I said which was was "on a personal level Europeans, instead of being guided by their own reason, were guided exclusively by what the Church had laid down." The question here is what the guiding force of people's actions was; the Church had it's own methods of introducing 'civility', which, in this case, is synonymous with conformity.

 

And since you asked is 'civility' based on what govenments/establishments do? I would advice you to look at the subject of this thread "The Debate on Religion & the Logic of Submission". What I had stated earlier was that religion has always been a means to make people conform. Now as to the matter of whether 'civility' is based on governments/establishments, then the answer to that is both a yes and a no. Yes, because establishments such as the Church have codified their views on 'civility' for example the 10 commandments and the witch trials; No, because I think it is ultimately the choice of the 'follower' whether to follow these doctrines or reject them.

 

But the sad part is that a deeply believing (and not reasoning) person would strictly conform to these codifications: they will not steal AND burn people accused of witchcraft. This where reason comes in.

[N.O.R.F]

Your comments deserved the ‘gross generalisations’ purely because of how you chose to present them.

 

Shall we go back to what you said earlier?

 

However, if a person believes in concepts of basic human civility then is there a need for religion?

Since I challenged your above assertion you have been quick to point the finger at the Church, champion enlightenment and, as per usual, have dig at Islam. All this without really addressing what I asked. Let me ask again:

 

The civility you're referring to has routes in religion does it not?

Remember we are talking about INDIVIDUAL civility which, in my opinion, was present before ‘the enlightenment’ and was the result of people taking up religion to be their way of life. ‘Treat thy neighbour well’ and all that as well as, funnily enough, the 10 commandments you’ve just acknowledged.

 

If you’re of a different opinion, feel free to present it to me without the red herrings and aggrieved apostate commentary.

[ailamos]

Originally posted by Norfsky:

The civility you're referring to has routes in religion does it not?Remember we are talking about INDIVIDUAL civility which, in my opinion, was present before ‘the enlightenment’ and was the result of people taking up religion to be their way of life. ‘Treat thy neighbour well’ and all that as well as, funnily enough, the 10 commandments you’ve just acknowledged.

 

If you’re of a different opinion, feel free to present it to me without the red herrings and aggrieved apostate commentary.

This INDIVIDUAL civility that, according to you, was present before enlightenment included among other things: witch trials, inquisitions (people 'reporting on their neighbors' alleged heresy), and severe gender inequality (e.g. "every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman." - St. Clement). Let's try this one more time: the enlightenment brought "reason" into the equation, people started to be free of religious dogma and had begun to think for themselves. A good example are the debating clubs started to emerge where people discussed a range of issues, something which would not have been possible under the Church where one could not question what God had supposedly stated, whether or not it made sense.

 

Try to think outside your religious box here. I am not arguing that religion brought good things but you have to realize that is also brought bad things to humanity. This is something you (and many other religionists) refuse to acknowledge while you poke your ears with your index fingers and yell "lalalala".

[ailamos]

I'll add the final paragraph of my previous post, so please try not to ignore it this time. Whether you want to admit it or not, it makes reasonable sense.

 

"... the sad part is that a deeply believing (and not reasoning) person would strictly conform to these codifications: they will not steal AND burn people accused of witchcraft. This where reason comes in."

[Cara.]

Originally posted by Norfsky:

quote:

---

However, if a person believes in concepts of basic human civility then is there a need for religion?

The civility you're refering to has routes in religion does it not? Or was Europe a shining example of 'civility' before Chritianity (mainly) and Islam (The Moores) reached it's shores?

Wait Norf, are you suggesting that Europeans didn't have any religions before converting to Christianity? I think that might be news to them!

[N.O.R.F]

Originally posted by ailamos:

quote:Originally posted by Norfsky:

The civility you're referring to has routes in religion does it not?Remember we are talking about INDIVIDUAL civility which, in my opinion, was present before ‘the enlightenment’ and was the result of people taking up religion to be their way of life. ‘Treat thy neighbour well’ and all that as well as, funnily enough, the 10 commandments you’ve just acknowledged.

 

If you’re of a different opinion, feel free to present it to me without the red herrings and aggrieved apostate commentary.

This INDIVIDUAL civility that, according to you, was present before enlightenment included among other things: witch trials, inquisitions (people 'reporting on their neighbors' alleged heresy), and severe gender inequality (e.g. "every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman." - St. Clement). Let's try this one more time: the enlightenment brought "reason" into the equation, people started to be free of religious dogma and had begun to think for themselves. A good example are the debating clubs started to emerge where people discussed a range of issues, something which would not have been possible under the Church where one could not question what God had supposedly stated, whether or not it made sense.

 

Try to think outside your religious box here. I am not arguing that religion brought good things but you have to realize that is also brought bad things to humanity. This is something you (and many other religionists) refuse to acknowledge while you poke your ears with your index fingers and yell "lalalala".

The civility of today’s ‘enlightened’ populace includes high cases of rape, alcoholism, murder and paedophilia. See how illogical you’re argument is? Swings and roun****uts as it were.

 

Again, you’re trying to attach the ‘enlightenment’ to civility as if European people were low down dirty brutes before secularism. Is that what you’re trying to say?

 

There were perfectly civil people before the ‘enlightenment’. This civility came about as a result of most people’s attachment to a religion. Being civil as a person has nothing to do with the ‘enlightenment’ and the separation of Church and state. It originated way before that period. Oh but wait, the world started in the 18th century according to you.

 

Any mention of religion having a good impact on people seems to boil your blood enough that you come out with ill thought out explanations/posts.

 

Try again.

 

Cara,

 

Regardless, whatever religions came before Christianity I’m sure they preached civility to it’s followers.

[N.O.R.F]

Originally posted by ailamos:

I'll add the final paragraph of my previous post, so please try not to ignore it this time. Whether you want to admit it or not, it makes reasonable sense.

 

"... the sad part is that a deeply believing (and not reasoning) person would strictly conform to these codifications: they will not steal AND burn people accused of witchcraft. This where reason comes in."

Please seperate individual civility from laws imposed on the populace. Quite a basic formality really.

[ailamos]

Originally posted by ailamos:

This INDIVIDUAL civility that, according to you, was present before enlightenment included among other things: witch trials, inquisitions (people 'reporting on their neighbors' alleged heresy), and severe gender inequality (e.g. "every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman." - St. Clement). Let's try this one more time: the enlightenment brought "reason" into the equation, people started to be free of religious dogma and had begun to think for themselves. A good example are the debating clubs started to emerge where people discussed a range of issues, something which would not have been possible under the Church where one could not question what God had supposedly stated, whether or not it made sense.

 

Try to think outside your religious box here. I am not arguing that religion brought good things but you have to realize that is also brought bad things to humanity. This is something you (and many other religionists) refuse to acknowledge while you poke your ears with your index fingers and yell "lalalala".

The civility of today’s ‘enlightened’ populace includes high cases of rape, alcoholism, murder and paedophilia. See how illogical you’re argument is? Swings and roun****uts as it were.

 

Nor, please stop these statements and generalizations. Needless to say they are both unintelligent and ridiculous. These matters (high cases of rape, alcoholism, murder and paedophilia) were also present at the time of religion, so I don't see what's your point.

 

Again, you’re trying to attach the ‘enlightenment’ to civility as if European people were low down dirty brutes before secularism. Is that what you’re trying to say?

 

I did not insinuate that, that is purely your simplistic generalization. All I said was that people's 'civility' (and I'm getting tired of this word' was guided by what the Church had ordained.

 

There were perfectly civil people before the ‘enlightenment’. This civility came about as a result of most people’s attachment to a religion. Being civil as a person has nothing to do with the ‘enlightenment’ and the separation of Church and state. It originated way before that period. Oh but wait, the world started in the 18th century according to you.

 

Oh boy. Nor, let me satisfy you by saying that people's civility was 'enhanced' be reason after th enlightenment. For the last time, I am not disputing that people were civil before the enlightenment, I am saying that after it they started to use reason and not unquestioning obedience. I am tired of having to keep telling you this so please stop it.

 

Any mention of religion having a good impact on people seems to boil your blood enough that you come out with ill thought out explanations/posts.

 

Like I said, I'm tired of repeating myself over and over so I will just paste what I had said in the previous post which was "I am not arguing that religion brought good things but you have to realize that is also brought bad things to humanity.

 

What you want me to say is that religion brought peace, stability, civility to humanity, which, although true, is simply an incomplete sentence.

[N.O.R.F]

Apologies for inconvenience caused

[ailamos]

^ No apologies needed saxiib. We're here to discuss and learn from one another

[Johnny B]

The enlightenment was a movement in Europe from about 1650 until 1800 that advocated the use of reason and individualism instead of tradition and established doctrine,the Enlightenment brought about many of todays humanitarian reforms.

 

Old traditions brought despairing animosity as each organized Religion poored other Religions and their followers into it's version of Hell.

 

Norf and his evolving positions are too frail for firm debating.

[N.O.R.F]

^says Johnny