Gayden

Members
  • Content count

    2096
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gayden

  • Rank
    G-Funk All-Star
  • Birthday February 16

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Israel
  • Interests
    Anything sciency!
  1. Word Association

    The association train won't stop! Wheat
  2. I am going to have to ask what benchant means x) Think he meant penchant . Ah, well I'm sorry if what I said was seen as disrespectful, Tyzack, I meant none. Although, may main claim would still hold matters not whether you are taling about the HRE or Central Europe both are not co-extensive with christianity. Indeed it can easily be argued that for most of the "Christian era" both were backwaters, politically and philosophically. One can argue that while Spain was as much a backwater philospohically at least its exploration and conquest of a large portion of the world made its presence relevant to the philosophical development of the enlightenment and the clashes between the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. Indeed because it exported its retrograde ideas to its colonies that soon gained independence it can be argued that the failure of Latin America to develop a modern western civilization (with its planepy of individual rights) derives from the inability of enlightenment ideals to take root in Spain until the late 19th century. Again, I definitely agree that the Enlightenment and Reformation are the source of Western values as we know them - I will restate my main point, and that is we moved away from religion as the source for morals because it failed constantly following the reformation. Moving away to a non-confessional level like France and eventually to nationalism was the new source of morals, like democracy and human rights are today. We changed our axioms, and I say that it is valid and not a problem. We can absolutely replace the foundations of morals when they proved dysfunctional.
  3. Point was not that it was "unifying" or chaotic. the point is that it was the christian (and Jewish) principles that were the bedrock of the enligtenment ideals that led to modern western civilization. Yes, I agree with that. That's absolutely correct. Christianity and its belief in "individual worth" led to the enlightenment which led to modern western society. You cannot divorce modern principles from their foundations without risking the longevity of those principles. Why? That's a very big claim. We divorced the principles of physics from their Greek origins completely and it turned out fine and even better. Foundations can be corrupt. We took democracy away from its roots of "Oligrachs should have a say in their matters" and that turned out to be a good system (until now, anyway). Islam never wnet through a Renisannce, a Reformation or an Enlightenment thus its hardly as surprise that its adherents have not assimulated the values which those movements gave rise to. Indeed, it can be argued that Islam as a religion and societal building block is at the same stage that Christianity was in the 13th century. Will Islam eventually evolves? Most certainly, Might it take much less time for it to evolve then it took christianity, possibly but it will still take decades if not centuries to accomplish. I think it's hard to took about Islam because while the religion itself certainly never went through an "Enlightenment", Western values were seeping in until the last 40 years without the values provided by religion. I don't want to debate the instability of the middle east because (ironically) I am not familiar enough with it. Also Christianity may have collapsed in Europe in the last 150 years. No such claim can be said to have occured in the United States where it is still viewed as the cornerstone of everything we hold dear. I would also suggest that Judism has not collapsed in Israel. Indeed, and I would argue that the US and Israel are singlehandedly the worst examples of democracies in the world. Israel is unstable, experiencing the worst brain drain of the western world and has very strong social tensions. Literally just today I've seen a few screaming matches over the recent soldier case. The US has an incredibly corrupt government that seems insistent on not fixing any economical problems as well as some of the highest homicide rates in the Western world. I'm not seeing how religion as a cornerstone helps either countries because one I am constantly experiencing to be in a very bad state and the other I keep hearing from immigrants that is a very bad place.
  4. I am going to have to ask what benchant means x)
  5. I'm not saying they do not exist, I'm sayin that the fear mongering around them is lies. I lived in Israel all my life, I know terror attacks, and statistically they are so rare that they are barely any danger Scary, yes. Harmful to politics, yes. Dangerous to a country? Only to the extent that people are scared of them. Of course like any issue of "people dying" it should be solved, but panicking over it and the reaction in the western world is unproportional to the actual risk. Pollution kills millions of people and people are not voting in masses for green parties. On the values and demographics I fully agree. THAT is a risk that must be dealt with, and can be dealt with democratically. Illegal immigrants should not be there; Refugees should not be let in by hundreds of thousands unless they are kept tracked of somehow and the country intends to take them back to their homes one day. It is not undemocratic to want your country to keep its values and culture, and importing so many people over - refugees, immigrants or illegal immigrants - shouldn't be done in the vast majority of cases. I think the vast majority of the Western World wants Europe to remain Europe. As for the history part - My main point about it was that even though Christianity was the cornerstone of Western values, the reason we started moving onto them was the beginning of Christianity starting to fail society. Referring to the Cardinal's point as rephrased by Tyzack - "those trans-national, inter-sect/ecumenical (not sure the right word), ideals/rights are hallow. If we do not derive our rights from God (which is who enlightenment thinkers were refering to when they said "Nature"), then what do we get them from? What is our core? It is this "hollow core" that allows for radicalization both from within - nationalist movements - and without, other religons, that threatens Europe. Therefore, in order to defend Europe, it needs to turn back to it's Christian roots." I think this is absolute nonsense, as the era of the Reformation is an absolutely perfect example of how Christian morals and the belief in God utterly failed to unite Europe and led to one of the most chaotic times in pre-modern Europe. The belief in God as the supreme authority did not lead to unity, it lead to an extreme arrogance and stubborness about one's beliefs and the utter refusal to accept any other system. Christianity, like any other system, only lead to stability and peace when everyone followed the same system. It collapsed as soon as that didn't happen. Look at Muslim countries, it's the same thing. The Muslim "morals" might be different, but the belief in God does not provide unity, stability or strength in the face of new ideologies. Christianity was the same thing. Even the belief in God could not provide unity, and thus we had to move away to new principles. It's not western values that are weak in the face of Islam, it's Europe's left wing that corrupted these values to an extreme.
  6. I didn't notice this so I will repeat what I said. Even in times when there was unity due to Christian belief, Europe often shattered in the face of turmoil. It was no stronger, or more stable, than current society, and if anything our world is much more stable than it used to be. The fear mongering due to islam is all lies; While it is a problem that needs to be solved, homicide rate is barely impacted by terror attacks, not to mention that most US state are much more dangerous to live in. Currently the only real danger is immigration rates and our economy.
  7. I'd like to point out some issues with the historical background here, because the end of the HRE did not even come with Napoleon at all. The destruction of the Holy Roman system started strictly due to religious disunity and the inefficiency of the Imperial Diet, the Court (the Reichskammergerich) and the taxation systems. What Napoleon ended was a dead husk of its former self. Christianity failed the Empire on a legal exactly due to what is being discussed here, which is the strength of religious beliefs. The Imperial justice and lawmaking systems both depended on majority of a 100%, due to the Emperor's strong lack of authority since the very origin of the Empire. It was a body meant to protect the freedom of individual states, not unite them, but rather protect their individuality. The so called Christian Unity could not even bring most Germans to pay taxes to fight the Ottomans during the Turkish Wars in the face of the most feared invader of Europe. But the main issue with Christianity and the Empire was the lack of Imperial Authority, not taxes or wars. Any display of authority was heavily disliked by Germans of all confessions; Thus the Emperor needed consent for each rule, decree and tax. No court made a ruling about justice, as states could just say "lol no" to court ruling and get away with it. This was all fine before the Reformation; Catholicism was the absolute law and word of God. But after the Reformation, the Imperial Diet could no longer agree on some thing. Due to the strength behind religious beliefs, there was no compromise. Christianity itself shattered the heart of of the German system. Within a matter of years, a unified and somewhat efficient system shattered in the face of different interpretations of the bibles. That went in all of Europe; The French Wars of Religion, the Dutch Rebellion, the War of the Protestant League and the Thirty Years War. The so called "unity" that religion provided to society only worked as long as there was on system of beliefs; when that disappeared all of Europe was shaken. The only solution every country found was either butchering people of the unofficial religion (Like in the Netherlands or Poland-Lithuania) or moving away from a religious system and starting the western values of freedom and (partial) secularism, like in France and the Holy Roman Empire. The move away to the beginning of the Western Values was not due to Christianity itself. The ideas were obviously brought up by Christians, and the Philosophers who brought them up did so from Christianity. But the move to multi-confessionalism and partial Religious Freedom and the Right of Free Thought was not due to Christianity, but rather how the unity Christianity brought was found to be fragile and nonexistent. States had to distance themselves from it between the Reformation and the beginning of Nationalism or face reoccurring religious violence. Idolizing the past does no one any good. Christianity on a state level only brought unity when everyone believed in the same thing. Study the history of any country and you will see that the unity shattered upon disagreement upon the basis of religion. Christianity did much good to the world, but stability and unity was not one of the things it brought following the 16th century.
  8. Unless you're Israeli :( Democratic America was the last hope of a sane country here.