Boris Johnson vows to protect Christians

[finley]

@tempogain

It’s not a question of describing it, it’s a clear difference with the Muslim world and very much an event in progress in the West.

True enough. But I was suggesting you take a broader historical view of what constitutes “freedom”. It’s a slippery concept. The modern European or American is in many ways less free than the average person would have been in, say, 50AD.

@tempogain

I have no idea what you’re talking about. There are many places in the Bible that make it clear that women are in a subordinate position.

Examples please?

As I said, Acts does contain some funny ideas. But Jesus in particular never suggested that women are somehow inferior beings.

@tempogain

This remained the case throughout the far greater part of the Christian era

If it’s in the Bible, then almost by definition it must have “remained the case”. I’m disputing the idea that Christianity takes the subordination of women as a core belief, or that it’s a core message in the Gospels.

Whenever oppression occurs, there’s always someone who does it on the basis that “God says so”. Few people are going to argue “hang on, God didn’t say so” if you’re going to be burned at the stake for “heresy”.

@tempogain

incompatible with the (non-religious) ideal of freedom for all.

I think we need a thread on “what is freedom?”. The whole idea of Free Will was implicit in many of Jesus’s teachings, even though (scientifically speaking) Free Will is a weak and fragile thing. It’s hard to tell exactly how “free” we are to act, but it’s a lot less than we believe. What you conceive of as your own Will, your Self, is mostly a bunch of ideas that other people have put into your head, or actions that have been programmed by others.

@finley

This is just muddying the waters.

I was trying to point out that what you describe as a “freedom” is really no such thing, 99% of the time.

@finley

The point is women have the freedom to do these things, where they previously did not during the majority of the Christian era and the Muslim world currently.

I won’t argue that capable women weren’t discriminated against (say) 100 years ago. Of course they were. However, most women today are railroaded into certain life actions in precisely the same way they were railroaded into different life actions in 1930. It’s only the path that’s different. The coercion is the same.

I suppose the thing here is that, with any religion, you can focus on this-and-that aspect to emphasize, and some other aspect to de-emphasize. So, as per @Dr_Milker’s post, the Iranian variant of Islam seems to be much more conducive to social success (at least in the absence of an oppressive Theocracy) than other variants. It’s possible to construct a version of Christianity that is either sexist/opporessive/dysfunctional, or another version which encourages personal responsibility and the personal freedom that that implies.

[finley]

@Super_Fire

All Christians were Catholics until the Reformation.

Fair point … and for most of recorded history since the Romans left, Europe was inferior to the Muslim world both militarily and commercially. Bear in mind also that the word “Catholic” simply means “inclusive”. Originally it appears to have been an attempt to prevent the religion splitting up into innumerable sects. Only later did it become a tool of political oppression.

I was really just pondering on what it is that make a religion “work” … or not, as the case may be. It seems to me that religions are very brittle things.

[crusher]

@finley

@Super_Fire

All Christians were Catholics until the Reformation.

Fair point … and for most of recorded history since the Romans left, Europe was inferior to the Muslim world both militarily and commercially. Bear in mind also that the word “Catholic” simply means “inclusive”. Originally it appears to have been an attempt to prevent the religion splitting up into innumerable sects. Only later did it become a tool of political oppression.

I was really just pondering on what it is that make a religion “work” … or not, as the case may be. It seems to me that religions are very brittle things.

I would say religions are extremely resilient. Christianity is around 2000 years old. No?

[finley]

@crusher

I would say religions are extremely resilient. Christianity is around 2000 years old. No?

Persistence is not the same thing. Communism is pretty persistent, even though it’s stupid on the face of it and has been shown not to work. I was more interested in pinpointing precisely what it is about any given religion that make it a socially-useful thing (as opposed to something that rips society apart).

[crusher]

@finley

@crusher

I would say religions are extremely resilient. Christianity is around 2000 years old. No?

Persistence is not the same thing. Communism is pretty persistent, even though it’s stupid on the face of it and has been shown not to work. I was more interested in pinpointing precisely what it is about any given religion that make it a socially-useful thing (as opposed to something that rips society apart).

Communism is but it’s also almost dead. Christianity and Islam is growing however. If you’re looking for ways in which Christianity unites society,well the ten commandments are a start and how and about “We forgive those who trespass against us”, “Worship no other God” , "Do not commit murder, adultery …They are unifying in nature.

[OysterOmelet]

@finley

while Muslims, on the whole, go nowhere in life, even when transplanted to successful countries.

What??? Muslim women are more educated than any other religious group in the US besides Jews.

[OysterOmelet]

@crusher

@finley

@crusher

I would say religions are extremely resilient. Christianity is around 2000 years old. No?

Persistence is not the same thing. Communism is pretty persistent, even though it’s stupid on the face of it and has been shown not to work. I was more interested in pinpointing precisely what it is about any given religion that make it a socially-useful thing (as opposed to something that rips society apart).

Communism is but it’s also almost dead. Christianity and Islam is growing however. If you’re looking for ways in which Christianity unites society,well the ten commandments are a start and how and about “We forgive those who trespass against us”, “Worship no other God” , "Do not commit murder, adultery …They are unifying in nature.

Religions unite people more than they divide. Before Christianity, only kinship bound people together.

[BiggusDickus]

@OysterOmelet

@crusher

@finley

@crusher

I would say religions are extremely resilient. Christianity is around 2000 years old. No?

Persistence is not the same thing. Communism is pretty persistent, even though it’s stupid on the face of it and has been shown not to work. I was more interested in pinpointing precisely what it is about any given religion that make it a socially-useful thing (as opposed to something that rips society apart).

Communism is but it’s also almost dead. Christianity and Islam is growing however. If you’re looking for ways in which Christianity unites society,well the ten commandments are a start and how and about “We forgive those who trespass against us”, “Worship no other God” , "Do not commit murder, adultery …They are unifying in nature.

Religions unite people more than they divide. Before Christianity, only kinship bound people together.

Nationalism unites people as well.

[MikeN1]

@finley

Something similar happened with Catholicism. Christians, whatever their sect, tend to do fairly well (although not as well as Jews). The Catholic world, in contrast, is an almost unmitigated failure (exception: Poland).

Somebody has been in Taiwan too long, speaking of ‘Catholics’ vs. ‘Christians’.
And Poland ranks 53rd in GDP per capita at US$ 13,000
Other Catholic countries:
Austria 44,00
Belgium 43,00
France 40,000
Italy 31,000
Spain 28,000
Maybe you mean the great spirit the Polish government shows in crapping on the gays?

[MikeN1]

@OysterOmelet

Before Christianity, only kinship bound people together.

So Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Confucianism (to name a few that have been around before Christianity) didn’t unite people? Good thing we taught a few things to those silly people.

[finley]

@MikeN1

Austria 44,00
Belgium 43,00
France 40,000
Italy 31,000
Spain 28,000
Maybe you mean the great spirit the Polish government shows in crapping on the gays?

As I’m sure you’re aware, GDP is not the greatest measure of national success. You can increase GDP by clearcutting a rainforest. Italy and Spain were, until quite recently, complete failures along the lines of Latin America, and were arguably given a leg-up (or a kick up the backside) by the existence of the EEC.

Belgium and France are irreligious/secular countries and have been for at least a century. Austria likewise, although possibly to a lesser degree.

As far as I’m aware Poland offers protections under the law to homosexuals comparable to the rest of Europe (how people act in day-to-day life is another matter, of course). In any case, I wasn’t suggesting Poland was a bastion of enlightenment and progress; my point was merely that they’d avoided most of the trouble that Catholicism has caused elsewhere, despite being very Catholic (as opposed to just Catholic on Sundays, or when someone makes them tick a box on a survey form).

[Andrew0409]

@Dr_Milker

There are plenty of successful Muslims in the U.S., especially the Iranians.

The Persians have been successful before Islam. If anything, you can argue Islam kind of held them back. Iran before the revolution vs after is night and day. The story of Islam seems to be radicals always take control over everyone else.

[finley]

Iran has had an illustrious history in engineering (particularly civil engineering) and science, and Persian culture still places a high value on education. I completely agree that it’s Islam that’s held them back. The mystery to me is why they allowed that to happen.

[endy]

bj says this yet wants to buddy buddy with china, which is one of the worst in the world in terms of persecuting christians (and basically every other organized religion). if this were truly an important line item for him, then trade with china would ground to a halt until china stops their anti-religion crusade. same w/ the US too - that american christians shrug while their chinese brethren get weeded out and forced to sing commie anthems and read from approved bibles (now with the book of xi!) shows how important religion actually is to these folks.

[BiggusDickus]

The only Iranians I know are Parsees, but they were forced out of Iran. They are bloody successful considering they had everything stolen from them after the Shah fell.

[Andrew0409]

@BiggusDickus

The only Iranians I know are Parsees, but they were forced out of Iran. They are bloody successful considering they had everything stolen from them after the Shah fell.

Same story with all the ones I’ve met. They dominate in STEM and also underrated in the arts. Persian culture has really great art. A lot of them are secular, one of my professors was also part of the opposition after the shah fell. I’ve been extremely impressed by these people.

I have no doubt Iran would have been a major player in politics and economics if things weren’t controlled by the radicals that took power.

[crusher]

@endy

bj says this yet wants to buddy buddy with china, which is one of the worst in the world in terms of persecuting christians (and basically every other organized religion). if this were truly an important line item for him, then trade with china would ground to a halt until china stops their anti-religion crusade. same w/ the US too - that american christians shrug while their chinese brethren get weeded out and forced to sing commie anthems and read from approved bibles (now with the book of xi!) shows how important religion actually is to these folks.

Too much of a generalization as some Christian’s care very much , but then people may accuse them of interference and I can assure you some are very active in China.

[BiggusDickus]

Those who weren’t fundamentalist Islam left after the Shah fell. Of course those who left succeeded.

[crusher]

@BiggusDickus

Those who weren’t fundamentalist Islam left after the Shah fell. Of course those who left succeeded.

I’ve met a few in England and they were all the top of their classes academically and none were practicing muslims.

[tempogain]

@finley

True enough. But I was suggesting you take a broader historical view of what constitutes “freedom”. It’s a slippery concept. The modern European or American is in many ways less free than the average person would have been in, say, 50AD.

I don’t need to here. I’m talking about something that is in fact prevalent in the West and which is not in Muslim countries, and speculating that it makes Muslims uncomfortable with us. Another time I might though

@finley

Examples please?

As I said, Acts does contain some funny ideas. But Jesus in particular never suggested that women are somehow inferior beings.

There’s lots, a quick Google will turn up many. I believe you’re right that Jesus never said so, but there’s the rest of the NT and OT which is also considered scripture. I’m sure they can be interpreted away, and that sounds fine to me if possible, but they can also be interpreted the other way–a problem.

@finley

If it’s in the Bible, then almost by definition it must have “remained the case”. I’m disputing the idea that Christianity takes the subordination of women as a core belief, or that it’s a core message in the Gospels.

It doesn’t have to be a core belief or core message if it’s part of scripture at all. Why is it included at all?

@finley

I think we need a thread on “what is freedom?”. The whole idea of Free Will was implicit in many of Jesus’s teachings, even though (scientifically speaking) Free Will is a weak and fragile thing. It’s hard to tell exactly how “free” we are to act, but it’s a lot less than we believe. What you conceive of as your own Will, your Self, is mostly a bunch of ideas that other people have put into your head, or actions that have been programmed by others.

It’s not that complicated really. It’s a simple ideal. Religion has restricted the freedom of people in many ways and continues to.

@finley

It’s possible to construct a version of Christianity that is either sexist/opporessive/dysfunctional, or another version which encourages personal responsibility and the personal freedom that that implies.

You could probably construct a version of anything to make it suit your predetermined aims. But it’s taken independent social processes in the West to drag Christianity into accepting the necessity for that.