Say goodbye to freedom of speech

[noblok]

gee, you really are dumb.

Compassion is not a religious concept - why the hell are you blabbering on about it being christian ?

As you have stated in oh...your last 2 posts you dont know to much about some religions..its very stupid of you to come across as a tad arrogant, claming the mere concept of " compassion" is associated with jesus christ & badly attempting to flame bait everyone, when clearly you know fuck all about the subject.

Like Sparx, I would love to debate with you, but you walls have come crashing down already. Take a leaf out of Gorbos book - at least have something to back it up & the intelligence to actually debate it.

As far as I know the first time the concept of compassion appeared was with christianity. You haven't said anything to make me believe otherwise, except a vague reference to Buddhism. Once again: feel free to explain to me what compassion means in Buddhism, but as I understand it it's not entirely the same thing. I don't wish to come across as arrogant, which is why I've repeatedly said that I'm no expert in other religions. Christianity is the only one which I've studied somewhat in-depth at an academic level.

Only to other Christians though

That's not really true (although it may sometimes seem that way with all the misuse of the religion). The people who deserve our love the most are - according to both the Jewish and the Christian tradition - widow, orphan and alien/stranger.

 

[noblok]

Out of interest - what IS the embodiment of Christianity?

Well, considering that the roman catholic Church is only a part of Christianity as a whole, it can't be the pope. Even within the roman catholic tradition though, the Church is much more than just the Vatican. The Church is a community of people, which has a certain hierarchy, but that doesn't mean it's simply what the pope says goes.

One example would be pastoral ethics: while the Vatican sets out the ideal guidelines, it is up to individual priests to decide what is best in a given situation. This is for example why it's not unusual for a priest not to be too opposed to condoms. While ideally people would only have sex when they love eachother enough to be prepared to have children together,in concrete circumstances sometimes birth control may be 'the lesser evil'. (I'm just explaining the reasoning here, not necessarily agreeing with it.)

Another example would be Vatican II (although, sadly, as far as I know the current pope isn't a fan of that), which leaves quite a bit autonomy to concrete Christian communities and individuals to decide what's right to do on the basis of their personal conscience.

 

[Zede]

As far as I know the first time the concept of compassion appeared was with christianity. You haven't said anything to make me believe otherwise, except a vague reference to Buddhism. Once again: feel free to explain to me what compassion means in Buddhism, but as I understand it it's not entirely the same thing. I don't wish to come across as arrogant, which is why I've repeatedly said that I'm no expert in other religions. Christianity is the only one which I've studied somewhat in-depth at an academic level.



That's not really true (although it may sometimes seem that way with all the misuse of the religion). The people who deserve our love the most are - according to both the Jewish and the Christian tradition - widow, orphan and alien/stranger.

Then your wrong.

google it, what ever, its just semantics after all..as it is an emotion, and no religion has claim to any emotion. You will know then, a huge chunk of the life of Jesus is missing - roughly about 15-20 years. Its not to far out of the question that Jesus ventured across to India( India was experiencing is "golden age" during this time) & learnt the concept of compassion - were it had been a tenant of Buddhism for 1000 years ( thats along time !)

ps. nice sig, closest to mine ive seen

 

[noblok]

Either way its BS, compassion is an emotion, and has fuck all to do with any religion.

I don't think that you can say the emotion existed before the concept did. It's very likely there is an emotional base for it (hence similar things appearing in other philosophies and religions), but compassion as I know it is shaped by the concrete form it's taken in Christianity. There's no emotion which is then afterwards unproblematically conceptualized: the concept plays an active role in shaping the emotion. Obviously this concept can't do anything it wants with the emotional base from which it sprouts, but neither is it true that the emotion is entirely unaffected by the concept.

So I googled buddhist compassion:

Nirvana may be the final object of attainment, but at the moment it is difficult to reach. Thus the practical and realistic aim is compassion, a warm heart, serving other people, helping others, respecting others, being less selfish. By practising these, you can gain benefit and happiness that remain longer. If you investigate the purpose of life and, with the motivation that results from this inquiry, develop a good heart - compassion and love. Using your whole life this way, each day will become useful and meaningful.

It seems here as if compassion is a means to happiness, a substitute for an unattainable Nirvana. This is not what Christian compassion is about. Christian compassion isn't a substitute for personal happiness.

From what I've read Buddhist compassion is also to a certain extent a detached attitude (although it urges to help the other and free him from his suffering). Once again Christianity hasn't quite the same view: obviously Christian compassion also urges to help, but it does so by bearing the suffering of the other together with him. This is anything but a detached attitude.

(Off-topic: my signature comes from an inspiring lecture by Thomas Pogge. I can send you the document if you wish.)

 

[Jeremiah]

Then your wrong.

google it, what ever, its just semantics after all..as it is an emotion, and no religion has claim to any emotion. You will know then, a huge chunk of the life of Jesus is missing - roughly about 15-20 years. Its not to far out of the question that Jesus ventured across to India( India was experiencing is "golden age" during this time) & learnt the concept of compassion - were it had been a tenant of Buddhism for 1000 years ( thats along time !)

It's pretty far out to believe Jesus went to India =) He and his family were Jewish, and there were far too many festivals and traditions to let any Jew stray far from Israel =)

Can't help feel this thread has went way OT. It was meant to draw attention to laws being passed to make any religious topic immune from criticism, an erosion of our civil liberties. But, as usual, the second religion is mentioned on a public forum, it becomes an "all religion is evil" uproar.

(BTW, the fact we're exercising our right to free speech isn't lost on me )

 

[Golena]

ps. nice sig, closest to mine ive seen

The problem with the quote in your sig is that ofc fighting each other has generally been far and away the best way of actually moving technology forwards.

There's nothing that motivates people to invent something new like the threat of the enemy doing it before them. Take away all the "need" for the technology and you'd probably just find out how naturally lazy the human race is. Lest us not forget the fact we went to space in the first place was to essentially win a war.

 

[Zede]

I don't think that you can say the emotion existed before the concept did. It's very likely there is an emotional base for it (hence similar things appearing in other philosophies and religions), but compassion as I know it is shaped by the concrete form it's taken in Christianity. There's no emotion which is then afterwards unproblematically conceptualized: the concept plays an active role in shaping the emotion. Obviously this concept can't do anything it wants with the emotional base from which it sprouts, but neither is it true that the emotion is entirely unaffected by the concept.

So I googled buddhist compassion:


It seems here as if compassion is a means to happiness, a substitute for an unattainable Nirvana. This is not what Christian compassion is about. Christian compassion isn't a substitute for personal happiness.

From what I've read Buddhist compassion is also to a certain extent a detached attitude (although it urges to help the other and free him from his suffering). Once again Christianity hasn't quite the same view: obviously Christian compassion also urges to help, but it does so by bearing the suffering of the other together with him. This is anything but a detached attitude.

(Off-topic: my signature comes from an inspiring lecture by Thomas Pogge. I can send you the document if you wish.)

When ever the first sentient cro magnon was -I don't think he/she had to conceptualise compassion. You have to say that certain traits make us Human - compassion, love..these are innate to us all, and do not need a priest suddenly telling a load of plebs, "guys, all that helping out you been doin' for that last 50,000 years, thats compassion that is"

Obviously, if you look throughout history, and see how "compassionate" each religion has been...if this was the Premier League

1) Roman Catholicism
2) Islam (close 2nd !)
3) Hindus ( against themselves)
.
.
30) Buddhism ( Ashoka, but didnt last long)

If christianity is renowed for its view/understanding of compassion, its certainly not what its remembered for. Now what was the name of that elite unit within the church that Joseph Nazinger headed before he took the top job...oh yer ! queue Michael Palin "tadaaa"

 

[Ormorof]

the idea that compassion is a concept introduced by christianity seems a bit absurd, hell even chimps can show compassion and i dont think christianity is quite willing to branch out that far

 

[Zede]

The problem with the quote in your sig is that ofc fighting each other has generally been far and away the best way of actually moving technology forwards.

There's nothing that motivates people to invent something new like the threat of the enemy doing it before them. Take away all the "need" for the technology and you'd probably just find out how naturally lazy the human race is. Lest us not forget the fact we went to space in the first place was to essentially win a war.

Ironic init' You need to watch Babylon 5 Series 4 for the real answer

 

[Zede]

It's pretty far out to believe Jesus went to India =) He and his family were Jewish, and there were far too many festivals and traditions to let any Jew stray far from Israel =)

Can't help feel this thread has went way OT. It was meant to draw attention to laws being passed to make any religious topic immune from criticism, an erosion of our civil liberties. But, as usual, the second religion is mentioned on a public forum, it becomes an "all religion is evil" uproar.

(BTW, the fact we're exercising our right to free speech isn't lost on me )

You misunderstand, huge chunks of the life of jesus are a mystery - totally undocumented..besides it aint that far - he had heard it was groovy over there , and it was !

 

[Zenith]

(not quoting you in particular just easiest to grab at the time)
It's also retarded to think that religion is the anti-progression of the world
Almost EVERY aspect of the modern world has been influenced by religion, including all those things like Medicine, Chemistry, Biology, Theology, Law etc... which affect your life in one way or another
Religion was the centerpiece to the modern scientific method and collaboration of knowledge including the cornerstone on which modern maths and science is based (Complex Alegbra)

Or the fact that there are only a handful of wars who's sole/main motivation was religion, not to mention the wars we have fought over "demoracy", lets stop that too if you are going to use the same argument?

Ofc if you want to hate religion its convinient to forget that,

@corknose,
With freedom comes resonsibility, something you are clearly devoid of
It is people like you not the PC crowd that are eroding the freedoms which we have because if you were resonisble enough not to abuse your "freedoms" then there would be no need for control

I also find it hilarious the number of people here who say "i will say what i want, even if it offends and angers others" but were cheering when x cleric is deported for "inciting religious hatred", or the BNP for spouting their drivel in public

And no, the content is of no relevance as you are stopping them saying "whatever they want" regardless of what they have to say

It was the centerpiece of some of the scentific and collaboration. It also made sure scientists with a contrarybelief to their own either died or publicialy changed his mind all of a sudden.

The thing about religion is that its very pragmatic. It doesnt want to change nor explore and explain. Thats why people are saying its against progression, which is true in a sense.

 

[Zenith]

Historians say that a form of compassion can be shown even in the most primitive tribes and how they react to eachother, esp. in the Gatheringcommunities. They, together with survivalinstinct, show a compassion to the tribe and to the people in it.

Believing that religion invented a whole emotion is absurd and wrong. They may have spread the word of compassion, which is quite ironic when you think that compassion only spread as far as the Christianbeliefs do, but they did not invent it.

 

[kirennia]

I don't think that you can say the emotion existed before the concept did.

Sorry but by this, you're basically saying that an emotion doesn't actually exist until there is a word for it? Don't forget humans aren't the only animal in the world who exhibit signs of compassion.

As for christianity 'creating' compassion, even if they did, when their own 'leader' doesn't follow it, the whole concept falls apart.

 

[Access Denied]

I don't think that you can say the emotion existed before the concept did.

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this but that is the single most idiotic thing I've ever read on this forum. (And that really is saying something)

To say that the concept of compassion preceded the actual emotion is silly. The emotion had to be there in the first place to be conceptualised. A caveman tends to an injured companion, this is compassion. However a caveman wouldn't have the first idea what the word meant let alone the intellectual capacity to understand what a concept is. Compassion, indeed all emotions are instinctual and instincts are completely hardwired into every form of life, from Humans right down to lowly bacteria.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Only? hardly. The reason there was no progress was because certain people in certain places wanted to maintain totalitarian power.
Whether religion was the tool used to promote their ambitions is a mute point because as far as i am aware the bible doesn't forbid the progress of medicine , considering a priest/bishop/cardinal/pope is not the embodiement of "christianity" but only a guide for those who follow it (and subsequently being human equally as fallible as anyone else)

Religion is an excellent tool to do that. Thats the whole point.

And even without misuse most modern religions are dangereous. Christians believe that those who do not believe in god will suffer forever in hell. Naturally every decent person who believes that will try to convert the nonbelievers for their own sake --> crusades, narrow-mindedness and so on.

 

[noblok]

This is really going way off topic, but anyway...

I am not saying there's a concept first which then creates the emotion 'compassion' out of nothing. I literally said that there's an emotional base for it, but that compassion in all it's complexity as we know it is not merely the expression of a raw, hardwired emotion, but also shaped by the concept as it has been developed. It's not a one-way thing: emotion and concept influence one another mutually.

An example of something similar would be that after the publication of Goethes Die Leiden des jungen Werther many people thought "That's how I feel!" and consequently killed themselves. I think it's a bit naive to think that Werther is the perfect expression of how all those people felt. I think it's more likely that the example of Werther has in some way shaped how they experienced their own unanswered love. This is not to say those poeple are completely inauthentic: they are feeling what Werther is feeling and those emotions are their own. They just are in part given shape by a cultural context which has an existence independent of themselves.

A caveman tends to an injured companion, this is compassion.

Not as such. Compassion is more than that.

 

[Sparx]

I may have started this debate but i know fine well what kind of person Noblok is so i'm stepping well away from here

 

[old.Tohtori]

Religion is an excellent tool to do that. Thats the whole point.

And even without misuse most modern religions are dangereous. Christians believe that those who do not believe in god will suffer forever in hell. Naturally every decent person who believes that will try to convert the nonbelievers for their own sake --> crusades, narrow-mindedness and so on.

Actually they don't say that(except those who are wrong). It's the WILLING to believe in god.

So basically you don't have to accept god and believe his teachings, but you just have to acknowledge "Yeah, i guess it's possible".

If you outright say "No, god isn't real!", then you're going down to hell.

If i remember correctly.

 

[Zede]

This is really going way off topic, but anyway...

I am not saying there's a concept first which then creates the emotion 'compassion' out of nothing. I literally said that there's an emotional base for it, but that compassion in all it's complexity as we know it is not merely the expression of a raw, hardwired emotion, but also shaped by the concept as it has been developed. It's not a one-way thing: emotion and concept influence one another mutually.

An example of something similar would be that after the publication of Goethes Die Leiden des jungen Werther many people thought "That's how I feel!" and consequently killed themselves. I think it's a bit naive to think that Werther is the perfect expression of how all those people felt. I think it's more likely that the example of Werther has in some way shaped how they experienced their own unanswered love. This is not to say those poeple are completely inauthentic: they are feeling what Werther is feeling and those emotions are their own. They just are in part given shape by a cultural context which has an existence independent of themselves.


Not as such. Compassion is more than that.

As far as I am aware, things were not to "complex" in northern India, circa 500 bc. I would go as far as to say compassion, like love is not complex at all. Compassion & Love exsited wayyyy before anyone started philosophizing about the word. Theologians eons later sure can discuss the intricacies of these emotions, but from Easter Island to Timbuktu - across the entire globe, its the same -i'm pretty damn sure Buddhists a thousand years later didnt suddenly realise - " oh shit, those Jesus types have a new compassion, we got it wrong dudes !"

 

[Jeremiah]

Actually they don't say that(except those who are wrong). It's the WILLING to believe in god.

So basically you don't have to accept god and believe his teachings, but you just have to acknowledge "Yeah, i guess it's possible".

If you outright say "No, god isn't real!", then you're going down to hell.

If i remember correctly.

Its a simple message: Believe and be saved =) Part of belief is acceptance.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Its a simple message: Believe and be saved =) Part of belief is acceptance.

Yeah, this varies though, from what i've heard.

Some say it's never too late, some say it is, some say it's just the willingness to believe, not belief itself.

Very confusing bunch those jesus fellows(includes all bible people).

 

[Jeremiah]

We are a confusing bunch indeed =)

I do get what you mean tho, there do seem to be a number of opinions on it. I've found it is best to read the evidence yourself and form your own opinions.

 

[crispy]

Religion is an excellent tool to do that. Thats the whole point.

And even without misuse most modern religions are dangereous. Christians believe that those who do not believe in god will suffer forever in hell. Naturally every decent person who believes that will try to convert the nonbelievers for their own sake --> crusades, narrow-mindedness and so on.

Not to mention what it does to people who believe that armageddon is just around the corner and have the means and military to 'help the prophecy along'... You can even come on a tour and see the site of armageddon if you want to...

 

[Chronictank]

Religion is an excellent tool to do that. Thats the whole point.

And even without misuse most modern religions are dangereous. Christians believe that those who do not believe in god will suffer forever in hell. Naturally every decent person who believes that will try to convert the nonbelievers for their own sake --> crusades, narrow-mindedness and so on.

So is democracy, yet i don't see you condeming it
There have been countless lifes lost over it, and are still lost over it
Be it through sanctions, war or not so legitimate methods

I could create exactly the same argument you are creating about religion but use democracy or even capitalism as the tool instead, the same "narrow-mindedness and so on"
You only have to read this forum a small subset of the democratic world to see how short sighted people really are when it comes to accepting other peoples way of life if it differs by so much as a fraction to their own.

End of the day it is and will always be about power, wealth and influence if it isn't religion it will be something else used as a catalyst to unite enough people for a common cause. I have yet to see one argument here to change my mind, so either the anti-religion lobby is doing a poor job of putting their argument forth or it is not as clear cut as some like to pretend it to be

 

[crispy]

End of the day it is and will always be about power, wealth and influence if it isn't religion it will be something else used as a catalyst to unite enough people for a common cause. I have yet to see one argument here to change my mind, so either the anti-religion lobby is doing a poor job of putting their argument forth or it is not as clear cut as some like to pretend it to be

So your argument is basically 'something else will replace it, so I don't really see any point in trying'. Great!

At least could we not have a common cause that didnt hate gays, didnt fly planes into building or tried to teach religion as science? That would be nice tywm

 

[Chronictank]

So your argument is basically 'something else will replace it, so I don't really see any point in trying'. Great!

No, i am saying there is nothing wrong with it
The people that use it for less than palatable means are the same ones that will use something else instead if religion didnt exist.
So yes there is no point "trying" because you solve absolutely nothing if religion was to be removed completely, but you do on the other hand take away alot from the people who follow it

At least could we not have a common cause

And what have you based this on?, it most certainly isn't history nor the modern day

that didnt hate gays, didnt fly planes into building or tried to teach religion as science? That would be nice tywm

Instead nuking cities because they dont share your political or social structure is better?
Or maybe consistently eroding morals and ethics?
Perhaps a system whereby the crminals are neither reformed nor feel punished?
An enviroment where 1 in 10 (i think it was) people have a STI?

We could trade blanket statements all day, but the very fact you put those above points purely down to religion as a whole shows your narrowmindedness in itself

 

[crispy]

No, i am saying there is nothing wrong with it
The people that use it for less than palatable means are the same ones that will use something else instead if religion didnt exist.
So yes there is no point "trying" because you solve absolutely nothing if religion was to be removed completely, but you do on the other hand take away alot from the people who follow it

I know, but I meant how about something less easy to exploit then? Face it, religion is VERY fucking easy to exploit for your own cause...

And what have you based this on?, it most certainly isn't history nor the modern day

Way to take a quote out of context

Instead nuking cities because they dont share your political or social structure is better?
Or maybe consistently eroding morals and ethics?
Perhaps a system whereby the crminals are neither reformed nor feel punished?

What the hell are you talking about? Just because democracy is the least shitty way of governing we should keep religion as it is just as shitty?

We could trade blanket statements all day, but the very fact you put those above points purely down to religion as a whole shows your narrowmindedness in itself

You think the world would be more or less at peace without religion? Would gays be persecuted more or less?

 

[Chronictank]

Way to take a quote out of context What the hell are you talking about? Just because democracy is the least shitty way of governing we should keep religion as it is just as shitty?

No you are the one using war as a reason for religion to be removed, not me
I just showed up the folly in your argument by using democracy as an example, if you want to take that approach to one thing why not with everything else?
After all if you want to ignore the benefits of religion you should equally ignore the benefits of a democracy

You think the world would be more or less at peace without religion?

Neither, it would be the same as it is now

Would gays be persecuted more or less?

Probably less, but who's to say
Would there be less understanding, empathy and charity for those less fortunate? Absolutely (red cross, islamic relief etc etc...)

 

[Access Denied]

As far as I am aware, things were not to "complex" in northern India, circa 500 bc. I would go as far as to say compassion, like love is not complex at all. Compassion & Love exsited wayyyy before anyone started philosophizing about the word. Theologians eons later sure can discuss the intricacies of these emotions, but from Easter Island to Timbuktu - across the entire globe, its the same -i'm pretty damn sure Buddhists a thousand years later didnt suddenly realise - " oh shit, those Jesus types have a new compassion, we got it wrong dudes !"

 

[old.Tohtori]

So is democracy, yet i don't see you condeming it

Actually, Gorb is a known democracy opposer