Church finsd wonderful, terrible news

[English assassin]

According to a survey by the Church of England, young people (1) know nothing about God and (2) are perfectly happy with that: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2169809,00.html


The authors began their work believing that even if the young had little knowledge of Christianity they would still have religious or spiritual yearnings. They were shocked to find that they did not.


Nevertheless, young people do not feel disenchanted, lost or alienated in a meaningless world. “Instead, the data indicated that they found meaning and significance in the reality of everyday life, which the popular arts helped them to understand and imbibe.” Their creed could be defined as: “This world, and all life in it, is meaningful as it is,” translated as: “There is no need to posit ultimate significance elsewhere beyond the immediate experience of everyday life.” The goal in life of young people was happiness achieved primarily through the family.

The researchers were also shocked to discover little sense of sin or fear of death. Nor did they find any Freudian guilt as a result of private sensual desires.

So, happy, well adjusted, focused on the family, finding life meaningful...and this is BAD news?

Anyone who doubts that religion is indeed a drug and the clergy, of all kinds, are the pushers, here it all is, in the good old cuddly C of E no less.

[Kääpäkorven Konsuli]

According to a survey by the Church of England, young people (1) know nothing about God and (2) are perfectly happy with that:


This is great. They can enjoy their life and when the doomsday comes they can't be doomed, because they didn't know that there is such a thing as God.
:balloon2:

[rory_20_uk]

Allelyua!! :thumbsup:

Finally, the species grows up.

~:smoking:

[Sjakihata]

testing new sig,

+1

[Byzantine Mercenary]

yep, their happy now and good luck to them if they wish to live like that,
but they don't mean that the church is irrelavent if people don't wan't to be christians i don't mind, what i do mind is when an increasing amount of people use this to ridicule my way of life by saying that the church is unessisary.
I can a assure you ive got a lot out of being a christian and think that overall it has benifitted me greatly, if some people think they don't need belief without trying it then good luck to them but it doesn't mean its unnessisary.

[InsaneApache]

Here we go again. ~:rolleyes:

[Red Peasant]

yep, their happy now and good luck to them if they wish to live like that,
but they don't mean that the church is irrelavent if people don't wan't to be christians i don't mind, what i do mind is when an increasing amount of people use this to ridicule my way of life by saying that the church is unessisary.
I can a assure you ive got a lot out of being a christian and think that overall it has benifitted me greatly, if some people think they don't need belief without trying it then good luck to them but it doesn't mean its unnessisary.

:furious3: Calm down, lah! Who was having a go?

Maybe you need to relax, like the nice young people in this survey :laugh4:

[Enoch]

According to a survey by the Church of England, young people (1) know nothing about God and (2) are perfectly happy with that
Does anyone know anything about GOD?
There is much belief out there but not much knowing...

[doc_bean]

According to a survey by the Church of England, young people (1) know nothing about God and (2) are perfectly happy with that: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2169809,00.html

The article does seem to gloat a little about this. I'm not sure if such a lack of spiritual 'seeking' is a good thing. Religion, or spirituality can confront us with ourselve. It can make us question our motives and ambitions and can help us understand ourselves.
So young people these days prefer an mp3 player to a deeper understanding of the world ? Maybe it's more practical, but it reminds me of a pretty typical reality show saying "I had a difficult moment, I was thinking."

My views on religion are pretty much the same as my views on drugs, used responsibly it can be a good thing, but don't get addicted.


So, happy, well adjusted, focused on the family, finding life meaningful...and this is BAD news?

Well, it is for the church I guess. I think the church (both catholic and all others) have to adjust to the fact they have become a service and need to consider their costumers.


Anyone who doubts that religion is indeed a drug and the clergy, of all kinds, are the pushers, here it all is, in the good old cuddly C of E no less.

I was always taught that pushers shouldn't be users. :oops:

Anyway, what bothers me (a little) is that the cultural, traditional value of religion is being ignored. Christianity is part of the European culture and heritage, yet even so called intellectuals have fun bashing it. The same people who look down on the 'unwashed masses' because they lack an historical understanding.

It's rather appalling how bad most people's knowledge of 'our' religion is. Considering our ancestors have practised christianity for thousands of years, I think a little respect for tradition might be in order. Not that we should go to church every sunday, or actually start believing in the trinity (or even understand the damn thing, but go ahead if you like), but we should not forget.

If we completely forget religion I'm pretty sure that within a few generations it will be back with a vengance, no matter how well adjusted the modern youth is.

[Kääpäkorven Konsuli]

yep, their happy now and good luck to them if they wish to live like that,
but they don't mean that the church is irrelavent if people don't wan't to be christians i don't mind, what i do mind is when an increasing amount of people use this to ridicule my way of life by saying that the church is unessisary.
I can a assure you ive got a lot out of being a christian and think that overall it has benifitted me greatly, if some people think they don't need belief without trying it then good luck to them but it doesn't mean its unnessisary.

I have nothing against church, if it is a sunday club were peoples sing and braise their god. But the problem is, at least in Finland, that church wants influence in earthy things.

For example, church has right of taxation. Private person, who doesn't belong to
church doesn't need to pay the tax. But all corroborations must. Even if it owned by pagan.

Churches are okay, state religion is not.

[English assassin]

Wait up. My point was really summed up in the second passage I quoted. that doesn't describe shallow hedonists living empty lives and craving the next consumer gadget, it describes well rounded adult human beings.

I have nothing against an individual user of religion. But I really DO have an issue with an organisation that can find this


"There is no need to posit ultimate significance elsewhere beyond the immediate experience of everyday life.” The goal in life of young people was happiness achieved primarily through the family. The researchers were also shocked to discover little sense of sin or fear of death.

And see it as a PROBLEM ?!? Finding significance in everyday life, valuing happiness in the family, little fear of death, QUICK. They might decide they don't need us. Roll out the Auto da fe...

[doc_bean]

And see it as a PROBLEM ?!? Finding significance in everyday life, valuing happiness in the family, little fear of death, QUICK. They might decide they don't need us. Roll out the Auto da fe...

The article seems to be making fun of the Church, like I said, you can feel the gloating.

If there is a 'problem' for the church is that they are no longer needed (which isn't true, of course) which every organization, every business would see as a problem. They have costs and expenses too, and they'd like to support charity, so they need people giving them money. Another possible 'problem', at least to the very religious people in the Church would be that all these kids will go to hell (at least they would be 'sure' of this), and this could certainly be seen as a problem for someone who cares about people.

But yes, organised religion can be an ugly thing. :wall: I just don't see this as a particulary bad sign, when they call for a crusade, I'd start worrying...

[Sjakihata]

Is this the time where the object of The Enlightenment has been reached?

[English assassin]

Is this the time where the object of The Enlightenment has been reached?

My hope exactly.

[Red Peasant]

The Anyway, what bothers me (a little) is that the cultural, traditional value of religion is being ignored. Christianity is part of the European culture and heritage, yet even so called intellectuals have fun bashing it. The same people who look down on the 'unwashed masses' because they lack an historical understanding.

The Church did its best to eradicate most of our classical heritage, which was the the real underpinning of European culture, but kept some bits of it that it liked. The same should now be done to our Christian culture and heritage, for what they are worth in comparison. ~;)

[Reenk Roink]

Anyone who doubts that religion is indeed a drug and the clergy, of all kinds, are the pushers, here it all is, in the good old cuddly C of E no less.

Errm...

I still doubt that religion is a drug (you have more of a point with the clergy being pushers) and I really do not see how it relates to the article...

[Blodrast]

Wait up. My point was really summed up in the second passage I quoted. that doesn't describe shallow hedonists living empty lives and craving the next consumer gadget, it describes well rounded adult human beings.

I have nothing against an individual user of religion. But I really DO have an issue with an organisation that can find this

"There is no need to posit ultimate significance elsewhere beyond the immediate experience of everyday life.” The goal in life of young people was happiness achieved primarily through the family. The researchers were also shocked to discover little sense of sin or fear of death.

And see it as a PROBLEM ?!? Finding significance in everyday life, valuing happiness in the family, little fear of death, QUICK. They might decide they don't need us. Roll out the Auto da fe...

I see it as a problem too. A LOT of the so-called "common sense" moral values have been traditionally...well, enforced, or perpetuated, or whatever you might wanna call it, by the church. Let's not get into an argument of whether the church did overall more good than bad or viceversa.
I wholeheartedly agree with doc_bean's first post - spot on !

Yes, I believe that the church can/could/should instill some sense of moral virtues, and so on, in people. If not from the church, where are they going to get it from ? TV? Internet ?
Their "free-spirited" peers ?

As for the little sense of sin, I don't think that's right either. What's stopping me from killing someone (assuming I don't get caught by the police) ? Nothing, because I don't have a notion of sin. I can't understand how you can agree with that, but that is what not having a sense of sin is all about - not just dodging the law, and everything is fine if you could get away with it.

And no, I'm not a zealot, nor do I agree with everything that the church says - but it has its good parts, and, whether you like it or not, it did play a big part in the Christian societies' moral values and spirituality. Unless/until something else appears that can take its place, it should stay where it is and try to continue to fill that gap.

[rory_20_uk]

Apes as far t have religion. Yet somehow against the odds they manage to exist in groups without a sense of sin bieng instilled into them.

And although we are supposed to be evolved apes, it seems some think we have lost these innate qualities

The church might like to think that it is still so important in our lives, but that is only because it has taken over far more basic features of our species and perverted them to its own slant on things.

Some religions are OK, especially those that let us be ourselves. The highly regimented, strictly indoctrinated hirachical ones are as needed in the 21st century as the Inquisition.

~:smoking:

[PanzerJaeger]

The researchers were also shocked to discover little sense of sin

Amorality. Say what you like about Christianity, but the morals instilled by the church will be missed greatly when it disappears.

By all means celebrate the end of Christianity. In the absense of religion, wait and see what will rise. ~:)

[Sjakihata]

Say what you like about Christianity, but the morals instilled by the church will be missed greatly when it disappears.

By all means celebrate the end of Christianity. In the absense of religion, wait and see what will rise.

I should think Nietzsche has a perfect answer for that in Zur Genealogie der Moral

[Kralizec]

The Church did its best to eradicate most of our classical heritage, which was the the real underpinning of European culture, but kept some bits of it that it liked. The same should now be done to our Christian culture and heritage, for what they are worth in comparison. ~;)

Oh please. You're a smart person, tell me you know better than that :rolleyes:

[yesdachi]

I should think Nietzsche has a perfect answer for that in Zur Genealogie der Moral
Nietzsche proclaimed that “God is Dead” back in 1882 and organized religion still seems to be going pretty strong. Although an interesting fellow, I don’t think Nietzsche ever had a perfect answer to anything.

[Joker85]

By all means celebrate the end of Christianity.

I believe Christianity is the largest religion in the world, and the largest or 2nd largest growing religion in the world.

Combine that with the fact that 90+% of the world believes in some form of religion and I think people are a bit too giddy over a small study out of the UK.

The world does not revolve around 18-25 year old British subjects.:juggle2:

While old Europe (I mean that in the literal sense not as the buzz word it has become recently) is becoming more secular no doubt, they are also dealing with an influx of Muslims into their populations as well. Instead of going from Christianity to no religion, they may very well go from Christianity to Islam.

By the way my post was not at you Panzer, I just used your quote to touch on the theme that this thread seems to be taking.

[Kralizec]

As for the C of E, well what do you expect? Of course people who earnestly believe that atheists will spend eternety in hell (or at best, oblivion) will get worried if more and more people turn their backs on religion. How can you possibly be surprised by this?

I am no adherent of any religion, so :shrug:

[BDC]

I've always wondered how people survive soulless British estates. So it seems it's by not thinking about it and being happy with a shiny car.

Go them. I'm happy religion is dying down here then. Need some sanity in this world, what with people blowing themselves up and banning dildos and stuff in the name of a god.

[Papewaio]

If there is a 'problem' for the church is that they are no longer needed (which isn't true, of course) which every organization, every business would see as a problem. They have costs and expenses too, and they'd like to support charity, so they need people giving them money.

Well if you want to go down the charity beat, I would like to see every version of Christian churches auditied and see how much money actually does go to the needy. For a set of charity organisations some of them have a lot of valuables that have nothing to do with serving either God or their fellow man.

"So much bling that a Kings Cross Tranny would be ashamed to wear it"



Another possible 'problem', at least to the very religious people in the Church would be that all these kids will go to hell (at least they would be 'sure' of this), and this could certainly be seen as a problem for someone who cares about people.


Way I read it is that the way to Salvation is through a personal relationship with Christ not through monetary donations, works, lifestyle or the particular building you turn up to to pray in.

[Red Peasant]

Oh please. You're a smart person, tell me you know better than that :rolleyes:

Then enlighten me, oh enlightened one. You obviously disagree, probably swallowing the Church's propaganda that it saved (ha!) classical culture from the hairy barbarian masses.

[Sjakihata]

Nietzsche proclaimed that “God is Dead” back in 1882 and organized religion still seems to be going pretty strong. Although an interesting fellow, I don’t think Nietzsche ever had a perfect answer to anything.

Yes, it sounds just like you know how to read Nietzsche. All you know, apparently, is that he proclaimed God is dead. That's not really relevant to what I was getting at; namely the revaluation of morals. He sees the christian moral code as slave morality, undermining the true morals, which generelly can be defined as the opposite; the morals of the strong, yes-saying, active - the noble people.

Obviously, you only refer to Nietzsche as the 'demon' who opposed religion. I can recommend you actually read some of his works (why not start with The Genealogie?).

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes, I believe that the church can/could/should instill some sense of moral virtues, and so on, in people. If not from the church, where are they going to get it from ? TV? Internet ?
Their "free-spirited" peers ? The whole point of the article is that they managed indeed to get a sense of moral values outside of the church.



By all means celebrate the end of Christianity. In the absense of religion, wait and see what will rise.What appears to have risen according to the article, are people who are quite happy, well adjusted, focused on the family, and finding life meaningful.

[Reenk Roink]

What appears to have risen according to the article, are people who are quite happy, well adjusted, focused on the family, and finding life meaningful.

Well, there have also been studies that show that religious people are more happy, so everyone can get a warm, fuzzy feeling choosing whichever study...~:grouphug:

[Kralizec]

Then enlighten me, oh enlightened one. You obviously disagree, probably swallowing the Church's propaganda that it saved (ha!) classical culture from the hairy barbarian masses.

My view of the rise of the dark age is a lot more nuanced than that, or your own for that matter. The "medievalisation" of Europe had started when the empire was still going strong, when emperors encouraged the building of churches and monasteries and closed down temples, amphitheaters and bathing houses. Classicist culture never died out abruptly, or even died at all, but it evolved into something else.
Catholicism was not some external power that purposefully sought out the destruction of Roman society. The Romans tried to hijack christianity (if you can't beat them, join them!), and turned it into a state religion. This fusion of a judaist sect and Roman institutionalism became the Roman Catholic church, wich did many horrorible things, but it is one of the channels through wich our Roman heritage has survived. To deny it is folly.

Besides, and the person you responded to referred to christianity (in general) as part of our cultural heritage (in general). Wich is true in any case.

[Blodrast]

The whole point of the article is that they managed indeed to get a sense of moral values outside of the church.

What appears to have risen according to the article, are people who are quite happy, well adjusted, focused on the family, and finding life meaningful.

I guess that's rather open to interpretation. People being happy has nothing to do with morality. Heck, I might be happy in a lawless environment, where I could do as I please without a conscience, without remorse, and most likely without consequences ("afterlife", burn in hell, etc, etc).

The church and its learnings, like most other things, are neither purely good nor purely evil.
There is a lot of good in the principles - much less in the way they've been applied through history (see in particular Inquisition, crimes in the name of some god or other, etc, etc).
That is as valid of church as of any other institution, or perhaps even more so - I'll definitely grant you that. But that doesn't change the fact that the principles, the learning, and all the things it stands for (and NOT _how_ it propagates them), are, in essence, good.

(Analogy: US starts war in the name of "freedom", "democracy". People die (it's a war, duh). People dying is a bad thing. Does that mean that the ideals of freedom and democracy suck? No, it simply means that perhaps the means by which they were implemented sucked, or were simply not the best. Let's not start a discussion about whether I'm anti-US, pro-Bush, whether the war is right or wrong, or any of that crap. I gave this particular example because it's familiar to everybody, 'cause we're beating this old horse to afterlife :) ).

On a different note, I'm not saying that the church is the only place where people can turn to for moral values and such - far from it. But it's one of the main ones, and I ask you again (in absolutely shocking (to me, anyway) agreement with Panzer), if people don't take some of their moral values and principles from the church, where will they take them from ?
If the church goes, what will fill the gap ?
If you argue that the church doesn't actually fill any need, then I guess we probably disagree on the fact that I've explained above - that is, the ideas and moral values that the church pushes forward are good, regardless of the corruption inside the institution, the hypocrisy, and whatever mistakes are made from time to time.


(Damn, I must sound like a monk, or something :laugh4:
I assure you I'm not, and I have my own disagreements with the church and certain parts of religion.

[Sjakihata]

What will fill the gap? In a lofty mood, one could dream of idealised greek polis-societies, working both the intellect and the muscles while having dialoguges on morality and other ideas. That would be a good kettle for the origin of morals, but knowing the world, something like or similar to scientilogy will probably fill the gap.

Just keep in mind, the church havent always been there, morality was "invented" outside the church, the church doesnt equal morality. (see my previous post on Nietzsche).

[Louis VI the Fat]

Blodrast, I take an analogy for just that. Nor would I consider you a zealous monk, but a poster capable of producing a coherent and meaningful post. There's no need for all your if's and but's about religion and the church. If you bring forth the argument that the church is the guardian of our morality I'll stick to that, and won't sidetrack the discussion with pseudo-clever irrelevant remarks about the inquisition.

Now to cut right to the chase indeed:
"If the church goes, what will fill the gap?"
As an atheist, naturally I believe that God did not create man, but the reverse. Consequently, that society gave religion and the church it's morals, not the other way round. That hence, apart as an institute to enforce those morals, there is no need for a church. And lastly, that there are more efficient ways of passing on and enforcing this morality than through organised mass delusion.
Of which the article gave proof.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well, there have also been studies that show that religious people are more happyCorrelation does not equate causation.

Maybe they are both more religious and more happy because religious people live in more stable, traditional societies.

(To which your natural reply will probably be: but Louis, perhaps you are overlooking the fact that religion tends to keep societies more stable and traditional, hence happy?
As that would utterly pwn me, I might as well deny you the pleasure by posting it myself)

[Reenk Roink]

Correlation does not equate causation.

Maybe they are both more religious and more happy because religious people live in more stable, traditional societies.

(To which your natural reply will probably be: but Louis, perhaps you are overlooking the fact that religion tends to keep societies more stable and traditional, hence happy?
As that would utterly pwn me, I might as well deny you the pleasure by posting it myself)

Actually Louis VI the Fat, my response would be, very nice, you are well versed in a basic yet fundamental principle of statistics, that many either are unaware of or ignore when they use observational studies which promote their point. Then I would go and reiterate the second and most important clause in my statement of: "so everyone can get a warm, fuzzy feeling choosing whichever study...~:grouphug:"

[Louis VI the Fat]

Then I would go and reiterate the second and most important clause in my statement of: "so everyone can get a warm, fuzzy feeling choosing whichever study...~:grouphug:"I willingly overlooked it as it would leave us no ground for petty disagreement, getting us banned from the Backroom.

[Soulforged]

Anyway, what bothers me (a little) is that the cultural, traditional value of religion is being ignored. Christianity is part of the European culture and heritage, yet even so called intellectuals have fun bashing it. The same people who look down on the 'unwashed masses' because they lack an historical understanding.Evolution is in part the result of the new making fun of the old and, why not, decadent, rotting.

I still doubt that religion is a drug (you have more of a point with the clergy being pushers) and I really do not see how it relates to the article...As any other drug you need something external in wich your life starts to depend upon. As any drug, the idea of the supraempirical "being" starts to take dominance over the real life. And as any drug, abuse can lead to "fanatism".

Well, there have also been studies that show that religious people are more happy, so everyone can get a warm, fuzzy feeling choosing whichever study...The study was only conducted on the USA, it has as much relevance world wide, as this study.

[Reenk Roink]

As any other drug you need something external in wich your life starts to depend upon. As any drug, the idea of the supraempirical "being" starts to take dominance over the real life. And as any drug, abuse can lead to "fanatism".

Interesting way of looking at it. Sorry I don't agree...


The study was only conducted on the USA, it has as much relevance world wide, as this study.

Was the point of my statement really that vague, as to be so prone to misinterpretation? Very well, my apologies. Also, the types of observational studies concerning religion and happyness or religion and long life, etc...do have the benefit of replication. Thus, although we must remember that the correlation between religion and another variable cannot be interpreted as causation, we do concur that there is certainly a relationship between religion and the other factor, in some cases a very strong relationship. Whether there may be any confounding due to the study being carried out in a specific nation is up to debate.

*Yes, I do spell "happyness" with a 'y'. Don't ask why...*

[Soulforged]

Interesting way of looking at it. Sorry I don't agree...I was only discribing facts. The drug-addict and the religion-addict suffer of well...addiction to something. That's when both become comparable and measurable with the same scale.

Whether there may be any confounding due to the study being carried out in a specific nation is up to debate.That's my point. However given that I see religion just as I see drugs (and I know you're refering to the article that Seamus presented a while ago) replacing the one with the other is not a big deal to me. But interesting articles anyway.

*Yes, I do spell "happyness" with a 'y'. Don't ask why...*I know this one....because you're in Bartixland.:laugh4:

[Reenk Roink]

I was only discribing facts. The drug-addict and the religion-addict suffer of well...addiction to something. That's when both become comparable and measurable with the same scale.

Well, I certainly would not call it 'fact', however, it is certainly a logical approach. I still insist, however, that drugs and religion are intrinsically different and thus cannot be compared in such a manner. But let us agree to disagree. :shakehands:


That's my point. However given that I see religion just as I see drugs (and I know you're refering to the article that Seamus presented a while ago) replacing the one with the other is not a big deal to me. But interesting articles anyway.

Seamus Fermanagh's article is only one of them. I have also read studies about a correlation between religion and long life as well as 'spirituality' and mental health, etc...

Still, there are many ways to interpret them.


I know this one....because you're in Bartixland.:laugh4:

:sweatdrop:

It's very nice here. :2thumbsup: I will give you candies. They are so tasty. :2thumbsup:

[GoreBag]

The Church did its best to eradicate most of our classical heritage, which was the the real underpinning of European culture, but kept some bits of it that it liked. The same should now be done to our Christian culture and heritage, for what they are worth in comparison. ~;)

Huzz-friggin'-ah.

[Avicenna]

:2thumbsup:

Not seeing this from where I am though, seeing the last time we had a show of hands in my class.. 22/24 people were Christian. You can guess that I was part of the remaining 2.

[doc_bean]

Well if you want to go down the charity beat, I would like to see every version of Christian churches auditied and see how much money actually does go to the needy. For a set of charity organisations some of them have a lot of valuables that have nothing to do with serving either God or their fellow man.

"So much bling that a Kings Cross Tranny would be ashamed to wear it"

:juggle2:

They need money to pay the clergy,
they need money to maintain the churches and buildings,
they need money to keep/restore their 'art' objects,
they need money to fund their charity projects.

I never said they were a purely charitable organization. I said religion/church was also part of our culture and heritage, they need money to preserve cultural items too. The state often restores old buildings and gives money to museums doesn't it ?

Now, I'm not saying there are no freeloaders amongst the clergy, I personally know some (well, they're retired, might have done some good back in the day). But it isn't a money grabbing organization that provides great monetary gains for the top (anymore).




Way I read it is that the way to Salvation is through a personal relationship with Christ not through monetary donations, works, lifestyle or the particular building you turn up to to pray in.

Most religious people believe some sort of faith is needed to be saved, most young people don't believe and are even ignorant of what they 'should' believe in order to be saved, according to the study. How can they have a personal relationship with Christ if they don't know Him ? They'll burn (is what the most of the clergy will think), and I can certainly understand why the clergy would wan tot prevent that.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

:furious3: Calm down, lah! Who was having a go?

Maybe you need to relax, like the nice young people in this survey :laugh4:

i was not angry just responding to being told my that beliefs are immature (though that is not so much having a go as being arrogant)

Once again some supposedly unbiased atheists are using misconceptions and an alomst compleate missunderstanding of christianitys core belief to make religion out as a bad guy (ala richard dawkins) so the church has done bad, often they have compleately ignored the teaching of jesus, your right the church is currupt but that does not mean christianity is wrong i think the world could do with a few more people who loved their neighbours! :laugh4:

im not angry but i do find the situation ridiculous! :laugh4:

[Ja'chyra]

In my view religion as a concept is fine for those who want it, in practice it is so far corrupted from the concept as to be almost counterproductive.

I find it totally normal that more people are moving away from religion and getting on with their lives, and good for them if that's what they want. As for saying that the morals imposed by the church will be greatly missed, I think that is totally pants, I think the morals imposed by the church have stunted the growth of generations to the point where they thought that having a ham shank would send them stright to hell :no:

In the end though it is all down to individuals, if you want to be religious then go right ahead and I hope you have a great time, but it's not for me but at least I don't tell you that you'll burn in hell if you don't agree with me :skull:

[InsaneApache]

On the drugs thingy, didn't some German bloke, about 150 years ago, say something like religion is the opium of the masses (sic). :laugh4:

Onto the wider issue on morality and such, I have to agree wholeheartedly with Louis IV the Fat.

I'm no religionista but I don't not kill people because I might get caught. I don't do it because it's wrong. It has nothing at all to do with religion. Similarly I don't steal because it's wrong. Why are they intrinsically wrong as a pose to just morally wrong?

Empathy and a sense of right and wrong. Murder destroys not just the life taken but also those left behind who loved the victim. Theft destroys wealth, which affects us all.

Just a couple of examples.

EDIT:sorry Louis, I left the IV off your name. :)

[English assassin]

Louis IV the Fat and others are on the money. The assertions that we must get our morality from the church are PRECISELY why a post-religious society is better than a religious one.

Call me a hippy, but I think it is an important principle that things should develop their full potential, and also, that they should be what they are. And man is a moral animal capable of making his own moral choices. It is positively better that he does so, and develops his own moral code, rather than that he should slavishly obey what he is told are the dictates of a supernatural being (which is one of Nietzsches main points, but really only a rediscovery of a classical position). In this way he fulfils his full potential.

I find it hard to see how the religious can object to this, since religions are generally insistant that we DO have free will and that we MUST therefore make our own moral choices, furthermore, that God will not intervene in those choices (I think we can say the Holocaust is enought proof of that). The only thing religion adds to the post-religious position above is, having made your own moral choices, if they do not correspond to the supernatural beings you will be punished after you die.

And finally, to those whose view of human nature is so negative that they imagine we would all be raping and killing without the fear of god, although I ought to be able to come up with a clever riposte, your incredible pessimism is interferring with my logical faculties. I will content myself by saying, prove it. A correlation between higher participation in religion and lower crime rates (cough united states cough) would be sufficient...

[Byzantine Mercenary]

lets get a few things straight:

Firstly no christian should ever tell someone that they will burn in hell as no christian not even the pope (especially as im not catholic :laugh4: ) has the right to judge any other man.

Secondly many people say that they are religious but do not hold to the teachings of the religion, in which case it is not the teaching that is at fault but humans, as we all sin. This does not mean that the teaching is wrong or should be gotten rid of but that it should be understood more by those that profess to follow it (including me, i am not sayign that i am any better then anyone else in this respect).

people are not intrinsicly evil, i have never said that a society without religion would be anarchy, many of the atheists i have seen hold to the moral codes of christians these rules are not designed to control people but to protect them from the guilt and addiction that can be accocieted with sin, i am free, all christians are, christianity does not restrict my daily life or my scientific learning. I try and adhere to its rules because i know what the consequences would be, not in the next world but in this world.

[InsaneApache]

I'm sorry but I don't sin. It's just impossible for me to sin. :book:

[Sjakihata]

I'm sorry but I don't sin. It's just impossible for me to sin.

Even Jesus sinned! What are you, man? Some kind of fiery tongue dropping down from above? Come on, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin!

[Ja'chyra]

Even Jesus sinned! What are you, man? Some kind of fiery tongue dropping down from above? Come on, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin!

Is it a sin if you're not religious?

[InsaneApache]

Is it a sin if you're not religious?

*In a scouse accent*

Eggsaktly. :idea2:

[Red Peasant]

*In a scouse accent*

Eggsaktly. :idea2:

I hope you got the strong gutteral in the second syllable! As if you are going to cough up a wad of phlegm! :2thumbsup:

[Sjakihata]

Is it a sin if you're not religious?


Well, in Freudian terminology it is, the ultimate sin orginating from the patricide, a theme in the story about Oedipus

[Red Peasant]

The great Christian theologians/philosophers such as Aquinas were disturbed to find the core of much 'Christian' morality already present in the Greek philosophers who antedated 'Christ' by many centuries. Hence, explaining why they attempted to assimilate this philosophy (esp Aristotle) to Christianity in the medieval period. In Plato/Socrates we can find such concepts as turning the other cheek (it being morally wrong to return a bad deed for one received), and they explore the ethics of living in organised communities in great detail, more so than can be found in any Christian text. Christianity is child's play compared to these great thinkers, yet it has served a function, I will not deny that.

But, we have moved on brothers! Well, some of us have ~;)

Really, I don't care what people believe as long they respect other people and their beliefs/ways of life/attitudes to life etc.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

The great Christian theologians/philosophers such as Aquinas were disturbed to find the core of much 'Christian' morality already present in the Greek philosophers who antedated 'Christ' by many centuries. Hence, explaining why they attempted to assimilate this philosophy (esp Aristotle) to Christianity in the medieval period. In Plato/Socrates we can find such concepts as turning the other cheek (it being morally wrong to return a bad deed for one received), and they explore the ethics of living in organised communities in great detail, more so than can be found in any Christian text. Christianity is child's play compared to these great thinkers, yet it has served a function, I will not deny that.
im not surprised that the greeks had similar ideas, the morals of christianity are logical so why wouldn't others have come up with them!


But, we have moved on brothers! Well, some of us have ~;)

Really, I don't care what people believe as long they respect other people and their beliefs/ways of life/attitudes to life etc.
doesn't the first sentance cancel out the second? :laugh4:

[InsaneApache]

Oh dear. Someones going to argue semantics with RP. :laugh4:

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Oh dear. Someones going to argue semantics with RP. :laugh4:
meh! maybe im a glutton for punishment :laugh4:

[Sjakihata]

The great Christian theologians/philosophers such as Aquinas were disturbed to find the core of much 'Christian' morality already present in the Greek philosophers who antedated 'Christ' by many centuries. Hence, explaining why they attempted to assimilate this philosophy (esp Aristotle) to Christianity in the medieval period. In Plato/Socrates we can find such concepts as turning the other cheek (it being morally wrong to return a bad deed for one received), and they explore the ethics of living in organised communities in great detail, more so than can be found in any Christian text. Christianity is child's play compared to these great thinkers, yet it has served a function, I will not deny that.

But, we have moved on brothers! Well, some of us have ~;)

Really, I don't care what people believe as long they respect other people and their beliefs/ways of life/attitudes to life etc.

The fact that St Aquinas embraced aristotelian method is not surprising, but to say that he inferred from it christianity and it is founded on the thoughts of aristotle is plainly wrong. It is, to much greater extend, found on platonism and neoplatonism by such thinkers as Plotin and Augustine.
There was no christian morality in the texts of the greek thinkers, in the way that sin appears in christianity. Greek virtues are entirely different than those of christian. In greek thought much debate was founded on justice cf. chapter 5 iirc of the state.

[Red Peasant]

I'm a paradoxical kind of chap, I suppose :laugh4: As most people are.

And next Saturday I am attending my niece's First Holy Communion. She's only seven and it's important to her, and I admit that it's part of the cultural tradition in which I was brought up (Liverpool/Irish-Catholic background, yes, Christian). It may seem hypocritical to some for me to attend but my family want me there and the girl is my fave. I'd do almost anything for her. I've no problems with it, and I'll be very respectful. I might even sing if there's a decent hymn chosen! You can come along to boo and hiss (yes, my singing is that bad!!)

As for the morality angle, well, some believing/practising Christians of my acquaintance (and the opinion has been aired on here once or twice) have claimed a kind of Christian 'patent' on morality and ethics in general. They own 'being good'. Sometimes I wish that I really was an evil (or at least slightly nasty) person, to make them feel more sure about their moral superiority.

(Note: most Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Non-aligned/Pagans of my acquaintance are thoroughly decent people...damn, it would be nice to pigeon-hole them but I can't!)

[Red Peasant]

The fact that St Aquinas embraced aristotelian method is not surprising, but to say that he inferred from it christianity and it is founded on the thoughts of aristotle is plainly wrong. It is, to much greater extend, found on platonism and neoplatonism by such thinkers as Plotin and Augustine.
There was no christian morality in the texts of the greek thinkers, in the way that sin appears in christianity. Greek virtues are entirely different than those of christian. In greek thought much debate was founded on justice cf. chapter 5 iirc of the state.


We shall have to agree to disagree to some extent. I am a classicist, not a philosopher, but I was referring to 'concepts', and there is correlation at a conceptual level. From lectures that touched on the subject and readings by philosophers it was indeed asserted that the medieval thinkers were troubled by the classical philosophers and they did try to reach some accommodation with Christian thinking. In fact, they said that the effect was profound. The main thrust of the arguments in Plato, with Socrates as his mouth-piece, is to define and understand arete (damn, how do you use Greek characters!?), which can mean many things as well as virtue, more so than justice (dikaiosoune ?). The arguments lead to many things, hence Socrates' famous dictum about it being wrong to return bad for bad, evil for evil (kaka - bad/evil things). This is just one possible way of understanding virtue/morality/justice. Greek is an ancient language and it can be slippery business to pin down both the words and the concepts they describe.

As for Aquinas and his relationship with the neo-platonists such as Plotinus, I accept the criticism. As for Augustine of Hippo, I don't even want to go there! That damned concept of original sin, he's got a lot to answer for that bloke! :laugh4:

[Hurin_Rules]

The great Christian theologians/philosophers such as Aquinas were disturbed to find the core of much 'Christian' morality already present in the Greek philosophers who antedated 'Christ' by many centuries. Hence, explaining why they attempted to assimilate this philosophy (esp Aristotle) to Christianity in the medieval period. In Plato/Socrates we can find such concepts as turning the other cheek (it being morally wrong to return a bad deed for one received), and they explore the ethics of living in organised communities in great detail, more so than can be found in any Christian text. Christianity is child's play compared to these great thinkers, yet it has served a function, I will not deny that.



I think you're on shaky ground here my friend. I wouldn't say the great Christian theologians/philosopers were 'disturbed' to find core elements of Christianity in the ancient philosophers; I would say they were 'delighted'. Hence Dante puts Plato and Aristotle in the best place he can-- the best ring of hell, the earthly paradise. Most Christian philosophers of the Middle Ages looked very favourably on Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, etc., as forerunners of Christian thought. Hence the great medieval project of reconciling Faith with Reason (the latter equated almost wholly with classical philosophy, after 1200 AD especially Aristotelian logic).

However much they tried to find Christian beliefs in the philosophers who lived B.C., however, great differences remained: Aristotle suggested the world was eternal, which was of course a monumental problem for Christian creationists. Aquinas had to assert that Aristotle was wrong on this one, for example. To be sure, Christianity shared many concepts with classical thought; but to say the core beliefs of Christianity are present in Plato and Aristotle is, IMHO, going too far. Augustine added a lot to Christianity that is not at all compatibly with Plato (as Pelagius implicitly pointed out).

On one last note, most Christians did not actively destroy classical beliefs. In fact, it is to the monks of the early Middle Ages that we owe most of our knowledge of classical texts and culture. They preserved everything they could, although this meant they privileged Christian texts (or ones that seemed to accept 'Christian' ideas). When rescuing people of a sinking ship, you can hardly be blamed for taking the women and children first.

[yesdachi]

Yes, it sounds just like you know how to read Nietzsche. All you know, apparently, is that he proclaimed God is dead. That's not really relevant to what I was getting at; namely the revaluation of morals. He sees the christian moral code as slave morality, undermining the true morals, which generelly can be defined as the opposite; the morals of the strong, yes-saying, active - the noble people.

Obviously, you only refer to Nietzsche as the 'demon' who opposed religion. I can recommend you actually read some of his works (why not start with The Genealogie?).
I know a little more about Friedrich than you obviously think, he and I go way back (I have always found his differentiation between the church and religion more accurate than most would like to admit). I used his Bart Simpson like catch phrase “God is dead” for a little drama. You’ll even notice I said he was interesting, and I never even eluded that he was a demon. My point was that his opposition to established religion has not really affected its current status. Don’t get so defensive, I just don’t think he had a perfect answer to anything concerning morals (IMO his morals seem to have been riding a rollercoaster).

[Red Peasant]

Of course it's 'shaky ground' Hurin, that's the nature of the beast! And grossly over-simplified (by me, I admit). Although, I would contend that we are all operating on 'shaky ground' in these matters.

[Sjakihata]

Not really. If you subject the matters to textual analysis, you will discover a lot of things, a big part of mentioned texts have been preserved and reprinted in good editions. Have you ever read Aquinas? You will know that he only - because of the scholastic tradition - uses the formalities of Aristoteles philosophy and conjoin it with christian theology (mainly Augustine).

btw. im aware of the meaning of arete (and I dont know how to type in greek fonts), however, the english spelling will suffice.

ps. you are right, Augustine's De Civitate Dei is a beast.

[Sjakihata]

I know a little more about Friedrich than you obviously think, he and I go way back (I have always found his differentiation between the church and religion more accurate than most would like to admit). I used his Bart Simpson like catch phrase “God is dead” for a little drama. You’ll even notice I said he was interesting, and I never even eluded that he was a demon. My point was that his opposition to established religion has not really affected its current status. Don’t get so defensive, I just don’t think he had a perfect answer to anything concerning morals (IMO his morals seem to have been riding a rollercoaster).

Well, you made it seem like you knew Nietzsche only on a generel level and by popular reference. I do maintain, that his philological analysis of moral (noble / common --> bad / good) and its genealogy is sharp and offers a great answer to the decay of morals in european society.

[Blodrast]

Blodrast, I take an analogy for just that. Nor would I consider you a zealous monk, but a poster capable of producing a coherent and meaningful post. There's no need for all your if's and but's about religion and the church. If you bring forth the argument that the church is the guardian of our morality I'll stick to that, and won't sidetrack the discussion with pseudo-clever irrelevant remarks about the inquisition.

Now to cut right to the chase indeed:
"If the church goes, what will fill the gap?"
As an atheist, naturally I believe that God did not create man, but the reverse. Consequently, that society gave religion and the church it's morals, not the other way round. That hence, apart as an institute to enforce those morals, there is no need for a church. And lastly, that there are more efficient ways of passing on and enforcing this morality than through organised mass delusion.
Of which the article gave proof.

Sorry to get back to "older" posts (from previous page) for a bit, but I would like to make some clarifications.
Louis, my comments, if's and but's, were honestly not directed to you. Nor did I make my analogy especially for you - not at all. I added the if's and but's because I've seen a good many threads in which the discussion derailed to irrelevant side-issues. Never has it crossed my mind to insinuate that you would do that now - I just wanted to prevent it from happening, that's all.
I apologize if I gave you the impression that I was somehow accusing or suspecting you, or that I came across as defensive against you - it was certainly not my intention.



Louis IV the Fat and others are on the money. The assertions that we must get our morality from the church are PRECISELY why a post-religious society is better than a religious one.

EA, I never claimed that we must get our moral values from the church. Check out my post, I think I made that pretty clear:


On a different note, I'm not saying that the church is the only place where people can turn to for moral values and such - far from it. But it's one of the main ones, and I ask you again (in absolutely shocking (to me, anyway) agreement with Panzer), if people don't take some of their moral values and principles from the church, where will they take them from ?

See ? But let's look at how things are, not as to how they might be, or how we might like them to be: I hope you all agree with me that so far the church has acted, among other things, as a guideline for moral values and such. Are we in agreement over that, at least ?
If yes, then my question still stands: if the church goes, what will take its places as such a provider ?


And finally, to those whose view of human nature is so negative that they imagine we would all be raping and killing without the fear of god, although I ought to be able to come up with a clever riposte, your incredible pessimism is interferring with my logical faculties. I will content myself by saying, prove it. A correlation between higher participation in religion and lower crime rates (cough united states cough) would be sufficient...

Come on, I never claimed such an apocalyptic scenario. But, logically: an entity provides some guidelines; the entity disappears; the guidelines are no longer provided; nothing comes in to fill the gap, and to provide the guidelines that the entity used to.
What does your logic tell you will happen ? Nothing ?
My logic says that it is likely that the overall level of morality will decrease. And I'll grant you that I might even enjoy certain aspects of that :P
But, seriously speaking, I don't think overall it will have a positive effect on society.
I will give you though that I am a pessimistic dude. :2thumbsup:

Whew, sorry for the long post.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Sorry to get back to "older" posts
honestly
I apologize
it was certainly not my intention

Whew, sorry for the long postMate, you're right about a good many threads in which the discussion derails into irrelevant side-issues. You however post relevant posts of a polite tone, so just post 'm, don't apologize, and stuff all us pompous backroom twits. That was my point.~:)

[Quietus]

According to a survey by the Church of England, young people (1) know nothing about God and (2) are perfectly happy with that: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2169809,00.html





So, happy, well adjusted, focused on the family, finding life meaningful...and this is BAD news?

Anyone who doubts that religion is indeed a drug and the clergy, of all kinds, are the pushers, here it all is, in the good old cuddly C of E no less. The church is a tough sell. If they were a publisher and 'God' is a developer, then they are hyping the best game ever to be made. Ask for a demo or even a measly screenshot, all they can offer are ages-old concept art....

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'm sincerely hoping my faith isn't being compared to the Wii here.

[Pindar]

We shall have to agree to disagree to some extent. I am a classicist, not a philosopher..

How's your Classical Greek? If its up to snuff then give me your ideas on the following: Nekros is corpse. A corpse is a physical thing. In its adjectival form nekroo it is translated as dead. Given the adjective is derived from the noun the physicality implied from the base meaning of the noun cannot be removed. Agree?

[GoreBag]

How's your Classical Greek? If its up to snuff then give me your ideas on the following: Nekros is corpse. A corpse is a physical thing. In its adjectival form nekroo it is translated as dead. Given the adjective is derived from the noun the physicality implied from the base meaning of the noun cannot be removed. Agree?

Well, which came first, 'Nekros', or 'nekroo'?

[Sjakihata]

Normally, nouns are first, adjectives are derived from nouns.

[rory_20_uk]

Why not compare the Wii to religion? Both are currently ephemeral and require marketing.

OK, the tab "holy" is slapped on one. But, so what?

~:smoking:

[BHCWarman88]

I think there really no Need for Chuchers.. If you want to know more About God, Read the Bible every once in awhile,like I do. I usally get mlittle Bible Key Chain and say a prayer ever night while I'm in bed before I go to sleep,and I usally,hence the word,Usally, have a good day or at leasr a half Decent Day when I wake up, Compare to when I never said prayers, I only had so-so or good days every once in awhile.

[GoreBag]

Normally, nouns are first, adjectives are derived from nouns.

So we say, with root words and all that, but really, how do we know which term came first?

[Sjakihata]

So we say, with root words and all that, but really, how do we know which term came first?

That is the subject for philologists to find out, which I am not.

[Pindar]

So we say, with root words and all that, but really, how do we know which term came first?

Hello,

If one has a common noun X used as an adjective, the adjective serves as a modifier of any attending noun, but the meaning of that modifier refers back to the common noun. For example: if one says: "Bob has an elephant nose" the adjectival force and meaning of 'elephant' is derived from the common noun. It tells just what kind of nose we are dealing with only because of the priority of the common noun. If the common noun is not the base I'm uncertain how one would ground the adjective's meaning at all. If this is correct it would indicate the noun would necessarily be prior.

[Reenk Roink]

Why not compare the Wii to religion? Both are currently ephemeral and require marketing.

Well...

1) They are very different things...and those similarities you pointed out are quite shallow.

2) Religion (the Church) is oh-so much more important that the Wii, that it is demeaning to the former.

What you are doing is sorta like comparing humans to rats...

Both smell bad...
Both get into large groups and cause annoyance...
Both lick the dirt off the feet of the bigger ones...
Both scurry when something bigger comes...
Both fight each other to get ahead...
Both kill their young to be well fed...
Both poop where they're not supposed to...
Both take what's not theirs...

Whoops, my analogy was much superior in comparison the the Church-Wii one...:juggle2:

[GoreBag]

Hello,

If one has a common noun X used as an adjective, the adjective serves as a modifier of any attending noun, but the meaning of that modifier refers back to the common noun. For example: if one says: "Bob has an elephant nose" the adjectival force and meaning of 'elephant' is derived from the common noun. It tells just what kind of nose we are dealing with only because of the priority of the common noun. If the common noun is not the base I'm uncertain how one would ground the adjective's meaning at all. If this is correct it would indicate the noun would necessarily be prior.

This is an arguable point, since 'elephant' is the nominal form of the word and is simply being used in place of a proper adjective, grammatically incorrectly. Making a metaphor of the sentence ("Bob has an elephant's nose") removes the adjective-noun argument completely.

Also, take for example the word 'raunchy'. I had the discussion with some friends of mine at one point, whether or not 'raunch' was a word, since 'raunch-y' is simply a noun with an adjective suffix. None of us had ever seen the word in print before, and it didn't appear in our dictionaries. Is 'raunch' a word?

[A.Saturnus]

How's your Classical Greek? If its up to snuff then give me your ideas on the following: Nekros is corpse. A corpse is a physical thing. In its adjectival form nekroo it is translated as dead. Given the adjective is derived from the noun the physicality implied from the base meaning of the noun cannot be removed. Agree?

I'm not a classicist and I don't speak any Greek, but I know something of linguistics and thus I think I can comment on that. Words that are derived from another have to be semantically related, but the nature of that relation can be diverse. They do not have to share all or even most qualities. Take the adjective "elephant" from your example. If a man has an elephant nose it is not meant that he actually has the nose of an elephant. The semantic relation is that it is big, just like that of an elephant. Another, closer, example is the phrase "tree-like". Trees are also physical objects, but a "tree-like structure" may resemble a tree in another quality than physicality. Therefore that "nekroo" is derived from "nekros" doesn't not necessarily mean that it shares physicality with it, only that it is semantically related by means of being connected to death. Note: as I say, I don't speak Greek and know very little about Classical Greek. It may very well be that the semantical use of "nekroo" did actually imply physicality, I just argue that that cannot be followed simply by its relation to "nekros".

[BHCWarman88]

thought thisawas about Church,not Greek Prexifes and Phrases.. lol

[Louis VI the Fat]

The church is a suffix to Greek philosophy.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

BHCWarman88 you are right christians don't have to go to church but we should realy meet up regularly to discuss religion etc...

[rory_20_uk]

Why? Surely belief is from within, not without.

I would imagine that Christians used to regularly attend groups in case and evidence of heretical thought emerged.

~:smoking:

[Byzantine Mercenary]

yes belief is primaryly from within, but it is infinately useful to disscuss this with other people (even more so when you don't agree) so that you can end up with a more informed opinion

[Pindar]

This is an arguable point, since 'elephant' is the nominal form of the word and is simply being used in place of a proper adjective, grammatically incorrectly.

I don't think saying: 'Bob has an elephant nose' is grammatically incorrect. Common nouns are turned into adjectives all the time.



Also, take for example the word 'raunchy'. I had the discussion with some friends of mine at one point, whether or not 'raunch' was a word, since 'raunch-y' is simply a noun with an adjective suffix. None of us had ever seen the word in print before, and it didn't appear in our dictionaries. Is 'raunch' a word?

I don't think raunch is a word any more than happ is a word. The removal of the 'y' at the end of 'raunchy' or 'happy' doesn't mean it creates a noun.

[Pindar]

Words that are derived from another have to be semantically related, but the nature of that relation can be diverse. They do not have to share all or even most qualities. Take the adjective "elephant" from your example. If a man has an elephant nose it is not meant that he actually has the nose of an elephant. The semantic relation is that it is big, just like that of an elephant.

It seems to me if one says Bob has an elephant nose the statement is ambiguous. It could mean Bob actually has an elephant nose even if this is not the common understanding. Don't you agree?

Following the semantic relation idea where we have a word nekros which means corpse and nekroo which is dead, then the semantic relation is non-living, but what does non-living mean? A corpse is not active, not breathing etc. Aside from the disembodied element what would quality as non-living for the adjective nekroo? My sense is that nekroo can have the non-living tie only as it relates back to the corpse itself. What do you think?

[L'Impresario]

I should note that "nekros" is actually a nominalised adjective, as the adjective is "nekros, nekra, nekron". The adjective means "dead", but its nominalised masculine form refers to the corpse, derived from the earlier word "nekis - νέκυς" meaning "corpse" and "dead" as well). "Nekis" is additionally a synonym of "nekiia - νέκυια", the ritual that involves the summoning of the souls from Hades.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

back on topic, i think that even when most people were churchgoers many still didn't follow the bible, now that christians are more of a minority, those of us that are left are christians for a reason and so take the faith perhaps a little more seriosly then others did in the past

[Pindar]

I should note that "nekros" is actually a nominalised adjective, as the adjective is "nekros, nekra, nekron". The adjective means "dead", but its nominalised masculine form refers to the corpse, derived from the earlier word "nekis - νέκυς" meaning "corpse" and "dead" as well). "Nekis" is additionally a synonym of "nekiia - νέκυια", the ritual that involves the summoning of the souls from Hades.

Hello,

This is really interesting. If you are saying nekros is a nominalized adjective why do these examples list the primary meaning as corpse which is a noun?

"-This is the Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon: nekros , ho (of a woman, Diph.129),A. corpse, Hom., etc.: as Subst., in early writers always of mankind, nekrous sulêsete tethnêôtas Il. 6.71 ; n. eruon katatethnêôtas

-This is from the William J. Slater Lexicon to Pindar: nekros 1. corpse hepta d' epeita puran nekrôn telesthentôn Talaïonidas eipen

-This is from the Georg Autenrieth, A Homeric Dictionary: nekros : dead body, corpse; with tethnêôta, Od. 12.10; also nekrôn katatethnêôtôn"

Also, could you comment on this post: "How's your Classical Greek? If its up to snuff then give me your ideas on the following: Nekros is corpse. A corpse is a physical thing. In its adjectival form nekroo it is translated as dead. Given the adjective is derived from the noun the physicality implied from the base meaning of the noun cannot be removed. Agree?"

[GoreBag]

I don't think raunch is a word any more than happ is a word. The removal of the 'y' at the end of 'raunchy' or 'happy' doesn't mean it creates a noun.

Indeed. If there was no root noun, then, from whence does the term 'raunchy' come?

[Pindar]

Indeed. If there was no root noun, then, from whence does the term 'raunchy' come?


Hehe, From the same land that the term happy comes from. Not all adjectives need or require a common noun root.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hehe, From the same land that the term happy comes from. Not all adjectives need or require a common noun root.It so happens that happy does have a noun root: 'hap' - something that occurs by chance. The accompanying verb is 'to happen'.

If one does not have a lot of mishaps one is happy.:jumping:

[Pindar]

It so happens that happy does have a noun root: 'hap' - something that occurs by chance. The accompanying verb is 'to happen'.

If one does not have a lot of mishaps one is happy.:jumping:

I stand corrected. Do you want to challenge the larger point: Not all adjectives need or require a common noun root?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I stand corrected. Do you want to challenge the larger point: Not all adjectives need or require a common noun root?No. If only because it could be disproven by minting an adjective right here and now. I.e. 'won't you take a look at this chiddy smiley::inquisitive: '

I agree with Sjakihata that 'normally, nouns are first, adjectives are derived from nouns'. Also, I think that historolinguistically nouns preceded adjectives.

But neither challenge the point.

[BHCWarman88]

Who Cares..Can we get back on Topics??

[L'Impresario]

Hello,

This is really interesting. If you are saying nekros is a nominalized adjective why do these examples list the primary meaning as corpse which is a noun?

"-This is the Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon: nekros , ho (of a woman, Diph.129),A. corpse, Hom., etc.: as Subst., in early writers always of mankind, nekrous sulêsete tethnêôtas Il. 6.71 ; n. eruon katatethnêôtas

-This is from the William J. Slater Lexicon to Pindar: nekros 1. corpse hepta d' epeita puran nekrôn telesthentôn Talaïonidas eipen

-This is from the Georg Autenrieth, A Homeric Dictionary: nekros : dead body, corpse; with tethnêôta, Od. 12.10; also nekrôn katatethnêôtôn"

First of all, if you 're referring to homeric (or even prior to the 5th cent. BC) meanings, then it's extremely common to see it used mainly as "corpse". For example, the Liddel-Scott entry also contains the adjective, which can be found in the works of Sophocles among others, and, later on, one can also find it in the New Testament (see the passages on resurrection; "rising from the dead" doesn't imply the existance of a corpse).

Even today the word has both meanings (dead and corpse), and when referring to dead people, one will be hard pressed to hear or read "nekros andras" ("aner nekros" in ancient Greek). Just like with the majority of such adjectives that reveal similar qualities. So we don't actually have a noun and an adjective here, but rather a single word with two uses, both based on their precursor "nekis", used mainly for "corpse", still an extension of the original word "nekiia" which doesn't have close ties with the physical form of a dead man.

Even in English, "dead" can be used as a noun, without acting as an attributive adjective. I think that most dictionaries classify it as both a noun and an adjective. And this ofcourse applies to hundreds of other words.



Also, could you comment on this post: "How's your Classical Greek? If its up to snuff then give me your ideas on the following: Nekros is corpse. A corpse is a physical thing. In its adjectival form nekroo it is translated as dead. Given the adjective is derived from the noun the physicality implied from the base meaning of the noun cannot be removed. Agree?"

Well, I could say that the example is flawed due to reasons delined above. "Nekroo" sounds more like the neuter form of the adjective in modern Greek, not an adjectival one.

But, as one can imagine, the meaning of words doesn't always go hand-in-hand with their etymology. Also, the creation of a word doesn't necessarily follow a cognitive process.

This is made evident in multiple levels by examining the chinese hànzì, the japanese kanji or any similar writing system based on logograms. When not acting phonetically or when their basic meaning (which makes them akin to ideograms) hasn't been overly corrupted, then they can clearly reveal a part of the word creation process (this is somehow generalised, you can't directly connect verbal manifestations of a language with its written counterparts, but such examples can offer useful insights). In such systems, over the centuries, a rigidly defined material concept can be mutated in ways that will allow it to encorporate more abstract meanings.

So we have, at a basic level, the kanji 明　（MEI, MYOU/めい・みょう）, a kanji composed from 日(sun) and　月 (moon), and conveying the idea of objects that emit light, that are, therefore, bright. The same kanji is used in the adjective 明らかな　（akirakana), that by extension means apparent, unquestionable etc., which employs a more abstract meaning of bright and clear. By combining it with other morphemes, the possibilities are endless and one can't possibly fathom what extra qualities will be integrated into the core meaning of this unit in the future.