Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

What religion are yall?

@jose1122 said in #39:

Then I don't get your point xxx
That religion is causing more problems than it solves. Unless you believe God loves all. xxx

@jose1122 said in #39: > Then I don't get your point xxx That religion is causing more problems than it solves. Unless you believe God loves all. xxx

@SOJB said in #41:

That religion is causing more problems than it solves. Unless you believe God loves all. xxx

Don't know what else to say, then ok I got it. xxx

@SOJB said in #41: > That religion is causing more problems than it solves. Unless you believe God loves all. xxx Don't know what else to say, then ok I got it. xxx

@lilyhollow said in #40:

www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

"One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did.""

This brings to mind a song about God:

https://youtu.be/5y2FuDY6Q4M

@lilyhollow said in #40: > www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa > > "One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."" This brings to mind a song about God: https://youtu.be/5y2FuDY6Q4M

@jose1122 said in #38:

There never were factions, terrorist groups, killers and stuff around the world massively killing infidels in the name of Christ or something like that

If insulting the intelligence of others was a sport, you would be a national champion.

@jose1122 said in #38: > There never were factions, terrorist groups, killers and stuff around the world massively killing infidels in the name of Christ or something like that If insulting the intelligence of others was a sport, you would be a national champion.

@ jose1122 said in #38:

Well, I agree with you that politics can bring great and horrible things, but in the case of religion, I can only agree if we talk about bad religions (and as bad religions I refer to anyone whose principles order something different than loving God and the neighbor as the main commandments. Well, I'm christian so this should be expected.)
Politics, nationalism, religion, basically: People do horrible stuff if they are told that they are special, superior to others. Although, as mentioned before, we have to argue: Is abuse of religion, politics, etc. a true sign of the ideology or just some members manipulation of others and themselves? Basically, we have to ask ourselves: How "good" can a religion be - or is it just a mere reflection of their members?
I basically disagree with your stance on "good" and bad religions, heck, even cults can have a positive intention and "make better versions" of people. Just because someone doesn't share your point of view, it doesn't make them any more wrong - basically, I don't think of bad religions, but actions of members of a religion I would condemn as "bad", e.g. religious terrorism (and even then, we have to ask ourselves if the goal justifies the actions taken - it seems to be all an individual case). Also, if I am not too off, I think that most religions encourage their members to love their worshipped god and help each other out - of course, some religions also expand this mindset over the religious border (e.g.: Sikhism).

I'll use the example of christianity. There never are and never were factions, terrorist groups, killers and stuff around the world massively killing infidels in the name of Christ or something like that, because the pillars of this faith are founded on love of neighbor, this is exactly the opposite: the christianity is the religion of the martyrs, the dead ones not the executioners, you won't find horrible things coming from a sane and conscious christian, it is contradictory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Name any religion, there are probably members who are just seeking to manipulate others - people, who are abusing the religion, twisting its narrative to accomplish their own goals. And christians are also just humans - but so are other people too. Besides, christianity seems to have been very violent in its past, e.g.: The crusades. Again, the question we must ask is, are the members their religion? And regardless of answer, we have to judge every religion on the same basis - I mentioned already that I believe in something, maybe a little distanced from its original religious purpose, however I am trying to not favor any religion - nor do I want ot favor the lack thereor - I am well aware that I am subjective in the matter, however I am rather to juddge them on the same basis than to declare one thing the best - without even looking at the shadows, without realizing others have also brought upon this world a great period and system.
The best the objectors can go is to talk about the historical distorcions about the holy inquisition, to assign burning witches to priests, what the heck. The inquisition was an advance in the legal field, creating among others the concept of inquiry, used still nowadays to investigate before condemning people, an attempt to save people not to kill, because the kings used to give themselves the right to condemn anyone anyhow and the church tried to use it's influence to stop abuses; all the "witches" burned were killed by soldiers of the local king not by priests, these ones were the ones the church could not save.
Apparently we have a very different view on the topic of inquisition. And I thought no one would expect he spanish inquisition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAxkcPoLYcQ

Man I agree with you, maybe you didn't realize but your speech reinforces my speech.
What? I don't get it - at first you more or less said that christianity = developement and now you agree with me, that christianity is absolutely not necessary for developement, as many other religious movements (as well as atheistical movements I suppose) result in even more "sustainable" developements? Well, I suppose it is nice that we agree on this.
Look, it is true that others nations and religions developed really amazing things, for example the numbers 0 to 9 were creation of the arabics, they also had possess of the greatest treasure from philosophy, the writings of Aristotle, where Europe would only know in the 13th century after Saint Tomas Aquinas, the greek alphabet has great influence on latin, astronomical advances, agrarian advances, a really huge amount of things; I personally make use of an ancient chinese marcial art called Tai Chi Chuan which is great for health.
A little off-topic, but do you practice Tai Chi? Because I used to do that, to calm me down.
But this is exactly the point, I mentioned the christianity because the maximum of development the human being could reach was when these great things reached the catholic europe, at least in most of the areas. Japan is an exemplum in contrarium, where I believe they managed to develop the most advanced system of ethics, but even them could only become a developed nation after interacting with europe.
I suppose you are talking about developed countries. I must admit, I didn't think about developed, emerging and developing countries yet - however, I wouldn't directly attribute it to catholicism, more to the age of enlightenment, the age which brought forth the secularization. But I can see that pillaging from other people, justified through religion, can greatly help you with accumulating wisdom - even so, I guess that there have been many times, where there was a peaceful exchange of thoughts from members of one religion to another - again, the golden islamic age comes to mind.

In the end, the biggest question is how we judge a religion - by its members? By the written (or spoken) word, that can be interpreted any way you seem fit? By its historical figures and morals? Questions over questions...

@ jose1122 said in #38: > Well, I agree with you that politics can bring great and horrible things, but in the case of religion, I can only agree if we talk about bad religions (and as bad religions I refer to anyone whose principles order something different than loving God and the neighbor as the main commandments. Well, I'm christian so this should be expected.) Politics, nationalism, religion, basically: People do horrible stuff if they are told that they are special, superior to others. Although, as mentioned before, we have to argue: Is abuse of religion, politics, etc. a true sign of the ideology or just some members manipulation of others and themselves? Basically, we have to ask ourselves: How "good" can a religion be - or is it just a mere reflection of their members? I basically disagree with your stance on "good" and bad religions, heck, even cults can have a positive intention and "make better versions" of people. Just because someone doesn't share your point of view, it doesn't make them any more wrong - basically, I don't think of bad religions, but actions of members of a religion I would condemn as "bad", e.g. religious terrorism (and even then, we have to ask ourselves if the goal justifies the actions taken - it seems to be all an individual case). Also, if I am not too off, I think that most religions encourage their members to love their worshipped god and help each other out - of course, some religions also expand this mindset over the religious border (e.g.: Sikhism). > > I'll use the example of christianity. There never are and never were factions, terrorist groups, killers and stuff around the world massively killing infidels in the name of Christ or something like that, because the pillars of this faith are founded on love of neighbor, this is exactly the opposite: the christianity is the religion of the martyrs, the dead ones not the executioners, you won't find horrible things coming from a sane and conscious christian, it is contradictory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism Name any religion, there are probably members who are just seeking to manipulate others - people, who are abusing the religion, twisting its narrative to accomplish their own goals. And christians are also just humans - but so are other people too. Besides, christianity seems to have been very violent in its past, e.g.: The crusades. Again, the question we must ask is, are the members their religion? And regardless of answer, we have to judge every religion on the same basis - I mentioned already that I believe in something, maybe a little distanced from its original religious purpose, however I am trying to not favor any religion - nor do I want ot favor the lack thereor - I am well aware that I am subjective in the matter, however I am rather to juddge them on the same basis than to declare one thing the best - without even looking at the shadows, without realizing others have also brought upon this world a great period and system. > The best the objectors can go is to talk about the historical distorcions about the holy inquisition, to assign burning witches to priests, what the heck. The inquisition was an advance in the legal field, creating among others the concept of inquiry, used still nowadays to investigate before condemning people, an attempt to save people not to kill, because the kings used to give themselves the right to condemn anyone anyhow and the church tried to use it's influence to stop abuses; all the "witches" burned were killed by soldiers of the local king not by priests, these ones were the ones the church could not save. Apparently we have a very different view on the topic of inquisition. And I thought no one would expect he spanish inquisition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAxkcPoLYcQ > > > Man I agree with you, maybe you didn't realize but your speech reinforces my speech. What? I don't get it - at first you more or less said that christianity = developement and now you agree with me, that christianity is absolutely not necessary for developement, as many other religious movements (as well as atheistical movements I suppose) result in even more "sustainable" developements? Well, I suppose it is nice that we agree on this. > Look, it is true that others nations and religions developed really amazing things, for example the numbers 0 to 9 were creation of the arabics, they also had possess of the greatest treasure from philosophy, the writings of Aristotle, where Europe would only know in the 13th century after Saint Tomas Aquinas, the greek alphabet has great influence on latin, astronomical advances, agrarian advances, a really huge amount of things; I personally make use of an ancient chinese marcial art called Tai Chi Chuan which is great for health. A little off-topic, but do you practice Tai Chi? Because I used to do that, to calm me down. > But this is exactly the point, I mentioned the christianity because the maximum of development the human being could reach was when these great things reached the catholic europe, at least in most of the areas. Japan is an exemplum in contrarium, where I believe they managed to develop the most advanced system of ethics, but even them could only become a developed nation after interacting with europe. I suppose you are talking about developed countries. I must admit, I didn't think about developed, emerging and developing countries yet - however, I wouldn't directly attribute it to catholicism, more to the age of enlightenment, the age which brought forth the secularization. But I can see that pillaging from other people, justified through religion, can greatly help you with accumulating wisdom - even so, I guess that there have been many times, where there was a peaceful exchange of thoughts from members of one religion to another - again, the golden islamic age comes to mind. In the end, the biggest question is how we judge a religion - by its members? By the written (or spoken) word, that can be interpreted any way you seem fit? By its historical figures and morals? Questions over questions...

@george_mcgeorge said in #45:

[...]
A little off-topic, but do you practice Tai Chi? Because I used to do that, to calm me down.
[...]

Thanks! You made my day with that one.

@george_mcgeorge said in #45: > [...] > A little off-topic, but do you practice Tai Chi? Because I used to do that, to calm me down. > [...] Thanks! You made my day with that one.

#45: While I agree with much of what you said in that post, I will say that Christianity has had a particularly noticeable impact on development, as it played an important role in the formation and development of such concepts as individualism, formalized education, equality, and liberty early on.

Not that these are necessarily exclusive to Christianity (and not that these are always supported by all Christian doctrines), but the development of many, many Western institutions were either direct or indirect results of Christianity. I'd also say that Christianity has not really kept up the pace as a catalyst for development-- ever since the Industrial Revolution, it's impact has waned.

(I read a lot of papers on this particular topic in grad school for a philosophy in economics class, but I can't remember who wrote them or what they were called.)

#45: While I agree with much of what you said in that post, I will say that Christianity has had a particularly noticeable impact on development, as it played an important role in the formation and development of such concepts as individualism, formalized education, equality, and liberty early on. Not that these are necessarily exclusive to Christianity (and not that these are always supported by all Christian doctrines), but the development of many, many Western institutions were either direct or indirect results of Christianity. I'd also say that Christianity has not really kept up the pace as a catalyst for development-- ever since the Industrial Revolution, it's impact has waned. (I read a lot of papers on this particular topic in grad school for a philosophy in economics class, but I can't remember who wrote them or what they were called.)

I sleep better at night knowing that there are Philosophy In Economics classes!

I sleep better at night knowing that there are Philosophy In Economics classes!

@george_mcgeorge said in #45:

Politics, nationalism, religion, basically: People do horrible stuff if they are told that they are special, superior to others. Although, as mentioned before, we have to argue: Is abuse of religion, politics, etc. a true sign of the ideology or just some members manipulation of others and themselves? Basically, we have to ask ourselves: How "good" can a religion be - or is it just a mere reflection of their members?
I basically disagree with your stance on "good" and bad religions, heck, even cults can have a positive intention and "make better versions" of people. Just because someone doesn't share your point of view, it doesn't make them any more wrong - basically, I don't think of bad religions, but actions of members of a religion I would condemn as "bad", e.g. religious terrorism (and even then, we have to ask ourselves if the goal justifies the actions taken - it seems to be all an individual case). Also, if I am not too off, I think that most religions encourage their members to love their worshipped god and help each other out - of course, some religions also expand this mindset over the religious border (e.g.: Sikhism).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Name any religion, there are probably members who are just seeking to manipulate others - people, who are abusing the religion, twisting its narrative to accomplish their own goals. And christians are also just humans - but so are other people too. Besides, christianity seems to have been very violent in its past, e.g.: The crusades. Again, the question we must ask is, are the members their religion? And regardless of answer, we have to judge every religion on the same basis - I mentioned already that I believe in something, maybe a little distanced from its original religious purpose, however I am trying to not favor any religion - nor do I want ot favor the lack thereor - I am well aware that I am subjective in the matter, however I am rather to juddge them on the same basis than to declare one thing the best - without even looking at the shadows, without realizing others have also brought upon this world a great period and system.

Apparently we have a very different view on the topic of inquisition. And I thought no one would expect he spanish inquisition:

What? I don't get it - at first you more or less said that christianity = developement and now you agree with me, that christianity is absolutely not necessary for developement, as many other religious movements (as well as atheistical movements I suppose) result in even more "sustainable" developements? Well, I suppose it is nice that we agree on this.

A little off-topic, but do you practice Tai Chi? Because I used to do that, to calm me down.

I suppose you are talking about developed countries. I must admit, I didn't think about developed, emerging and developing countries yet - however, I wouldn't directly attribute it to catholicism, more to the age of enlightenment, the age which brought forth the secularization. But I can see that pillaging from other people, justified through religion, can greatly help you with accumulating wisdom - even so, I guess that there have been many times, where there was a peaceful exchange of thoughts from members of one religion to another - again, the golden islamic age comes to mind.

In the end, the biggest question is how we judge a religion - by its members? By the written (or spoken) word, that can be interpreted any way you seem fit? By its historical figures and morals? Questions over questions...

I have nothing more to add for now so, thanks for the conversation.

@george_mcgeorge said in #45: > Politics, nationalism, religion, basically: People do horrible stuff if they are told that they are special, superior to others. Although, as mentioned before, we have to argue: Is abuse of religion, politics, etc. a true sign of the ideology or just some members manipulation of others and themselves? Basically, we have to ask ourselves: How "good" can a religion be - or is it just a mere reflection of their members? > I basically disagree with your stance on "good" and bad religions, heck, even cults can have a positive intention and "make better versions" of people. Just because someone doesn't share your point of view, it doesn't make them any more wrong - basically, I don't think of bad religions, but actions of members of a religion I would condemn as "bad", e.g. religious terrorism (and even then, we have to ask ourselves if the goal justifies the actions taken - it seems to be all an individual case). Also, if I am not too off, I think that most religions encourage their members to love their worshipped god and help each other out - of course, some religions also expand this mindset over the religious border (e.g.: Sikhism). > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism > Name any religion, there are probably members who are just seeking to manipulate others - people, who are abusing the religion, twisting its narrative to accomplish their own goals. And christians are also just humans - but so are other people too. Besides, christianity seems to have been very violent in its past, e.g.: The crusades. Again, the question we must ask is, are the members their religion? And regardless of answer, we have to judge every religion on the same basis - I mentioned already that I believe in something, maybe a little distanced from its original religious purpose, however I am trying to not favor any religion - nor do I want ot favor the lack thereor - I am well aware that I am subjective in the matter, however I am rather to juddge them on the same basis than to declare one thing the best - without even looking at the shadows, without realizing others have also brought upon this world a great period and system. > > Apparently we have a very different view on the topic of inquisition. And I thought no one would expect he spanish inquisition: > > > What? I don't get it - at first you more or less said that christianity = developement and now you agree with me, that christianity is absolutely not necessary for developement, as many other religious movements (as well as atheistical movements I suppose) result in even more "sustainable" developements? Well, I suppose it is nice that we agree on this. > > A little off-topic, but do you practice Tai Chi? Because I used to do that, to calm me down. > > I suppose you are talking about developed countries. I must admit, I didn't think about developed, emerging and developing countries yet - however, I wouldn't directly attribute it to catholicism, more to the age of enlightenment, the age which brought forth the secularization. But I can see that pillaging from other people, justified through religion, can greatly help you with accumulating wisdom - even so, I guess that there have been many times, where there was a peaceful exchange of thoughts from members of one religion to another - again, the golden islamic age comes to mind. > > In the end, the biggest question is how we judge a religion - by its members? By the written (or spoken) word, that can be interpreted any way you seem fit? By its historical figures and morals? Questions over questions... I have nothing more to add for now so, thanks for the conversation.

@ jose1122 said in #49:

I have nothing more to add for now so, thanks for the conversation.
While you didn't have to quote the whole post for this, I do thank you for the conversation. Oftentimes such conversations about religion turn into a war-zone, but this time we did have a friendly discussion, exchanging thoughts. I like this non-forcing way - a perfect example that people can discuss things without getting into a fight. Though I wonder if you practice Tai Chi... :)

@ jose1122 said in #49: > I have nothing more to add for now so, thanks for the conversation. While you didn't have to quote the whole post for this, I do thank you for the conversation. Oftentimes such conversations about religion turn into a war-zone, but this time we did have a friendly discussion, exchanging thoughts. I like this non-forcing way - a perfect example that people can discuss things without getting into a fight. Though I wonder if you practice Tai Chi... :)

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.