Church finsd wonderful, terrible news

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!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

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).

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blodrast

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English Assassin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

Sorry to get back to "older" posts

---

Quote:

---

honestly

---

Quote:

---

I apologize

---

Quote:

---

it was certainly not my intention

---

Quote:

---

Whew, sorry for the long post

---

Mate, 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.~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...169809,00.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....

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Peasant

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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'?

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

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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".

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

The church is a suffix to Greek philosophy.

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

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

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?

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.