Thread:CommanderOz/@comment-30924651-20170310213236/@comment-30924651-20170809174506

CommanderOz wrote: For love and happiness! wrote: CommanderOz wrote: What a way to ruin the storyline, and you happen to spend more effort than I did, unless you recycled it from your other responses.

Anyway...

I don't know how you or any organization is going to remove globalism in real life. And thanks to the internet (that made this very wiki possible), it's near-impossible to bring down in practice. Might as well start exposing the more shady businesses.

The various indigenous peoples who are practicing their harmony with the natural world would like to differ in regards to Christianity's effects (typified by the Spanish conquests). In addition, the witch-hunts, and the infamous trial against Galileo also highlighted the religion's dark side. What I personally took offence at is the church's other trial against Giordano Bruno, the first notable man who came up with the idea of exoplanets (given I like astronomy), but his case is just one of many.

Science, as important as it is, must not be used for propaganda. If an invention or discovery contradicts with commonly-held beliefs, and is verified by repeated experiments, then possibly 90% of people are wrong, even fractally wrong. Which makes the combined goals of Science and (fundamentalist) Christianity questionable at best.

Traditional values? That's vague-ish and possibly misleading. If its the traditional values of an enlightened, modern, logic-focused, progressive society then I'm fine. If it's of a barbarian state in the Middle Ages then we have a problem.

...but even then I don't know how progressive you are, given you're not American (and this wiki is diverse). > I don't know how you or any organization is going to remove globalism in real life. Ba'ath, Eurasism, Alt-Right.

> And thanks to the internet (that made this very wiki possible), it's near-impossible to bring down in practice.

Well, there is a difference between destroying any thing that is keeping world together and fighting globalism.

> The various indigenous peoples who are practicing their harmony with the natural world

"harmony with nature"

> In addition, the witch-hunts, and the infamous trial against Galileo also highlighted the religion's dark side. What I personally took offence at is the church's other trial against Giordano Bruno, the first notable man who came up with the idea of exoplanets (given I like astronomy), but his case is just one of many.

At first no man or woman was ever executed by Church. It was the State that executed them. Only thing that Church did was telling that someone is heretic and why. And the State could decide thet they dislike heretics and want to kill them. Not Church. The State. At second many of executed by kings and dukes poeple were really dangerous people and they had a lot of dangerous belifes. That was a time of occultists and alchemics who simply could just start sacraficing babies or paing women. And is someone uses some strange instruments to have "a knowledge about things that are OUTSIDE..." and starts yelling "There is no God!" and "There are giant stone balls in the air" after it of course they will think he is occultist. What was such an age. At third those were concrete cases in concrete places and you cannot condem whole Christianity for exacution of one man. At fourth I'm Orthodox and Byzantium was a center of science and culture, so that's not related to me.

> Science, as important as it is, must not be used for propaganda. If an invention or discovery contradicts with commonly-held beliefs, and is verified by repeated experiments, then possibly 90% of people are wrong, even fractally wrong. Which makes the combined goals of Science and (fundamentalist) Christianity questionable at best.

Only thing that I understood from that is that you want to say that Christianity is wring because many people in the world are wrong. Right? I'm just bad in English, maybe you meant something other.

> Traditional values? That's vague-ish and possibly misleading.

Okay. Lets say Christian values and these traditional values that are not against basic human morality and Christian values.

> If its the traditional values of an enlightened, modern, logic-focused, progressive society then I'm fine.

Give definitons of those terms. From some viewpoint ISIS is  an enlightened, modern, logic-focused, progressive society too.

> If it's of a barbarian state in the Middle Ages then we have a problem.

Well, Byzantium wasn't barbarian.

> ...but even then I don't know how progressive you are, given you're not American (and this wiki is diverse).

Once again, give me a definition of "progressiviness". "Progress" means changing. In which way should my values be changing to be "progressive"? > "harmony with nature" If you were trying to refer the Aztec human sacrifices then I realize that some indigenous cutures practiced something we would prefer not to do.

> At first no man or woman was ever executed by Church. It was the State that executed them. Only thing that Church did was telling that someone is heretic and why. And the State could decide thet they dislike heretics and want to kill them. Not Church. The State.

While the state killed them, the Church bears some responsibility for enabling that to happen willingly.

> At second many of executed by kings and dukes poeple were really dangerous people and they had a lot of dangerous belifes. That was a time of occultists and alchemics who simply could just start sacraficing babies or paing women.

Zero visible evidence for child sacrifice in medieval Europe by any side, at least, but at the time when not everyone had access to secular education, people often feared this. As with other dangerous beliefs, that's hard to prove unless its a major religion.

> Only thing that I understood from that is that you want to say that Christianity is wring because many people in the world are wrong. Right? I'm just bad in English, maybe you meant something other.

Christianity's primary source is the bible, which came in many forms, and it does have (dare I say) contradictions and commandments that would violate the UDHR. So yes, billions of people and religions can be wrong, though the bible isn't the only holy book around full of errors.

> Give definitons of those terms. From some viewpoint ISIS is  an enlightened, modern, logic-focused, progressive society too.

Only if those words' definitions were warped. ISIS relied on medieval-era teachings and they reject reconciliation with local peoples such as Yazidis.

> Well, Byzantium wasn't barbarian.

Got me there. I realized they kept the scientific achievements of the ancient Greeks and ancient Romans, though didn't contribute much.

> Once again, give me a definition of "progressiviness". "Progress" means changing. In which way should my values be changing to be "progressive"?

In politics, it means favoring changes in society, though it's often seen as related to libertarianism. This is why I sometimes hate the manipulation of languages by politicians. BTW I now identify as an atheist libertarian capitalist who dislikes monopolies and religious interference.

The rest of your arguments are OK. Your english is good but could improve a tiny bit. > If you were trying to refer the Aztec human sacrifices then I realize that some indigenous cutures practiced something we would prefer not to do.

I'm saying that whole idea of harmony with nature is stupid because of food chain. Maybe some monk can manage it, but not whole humanity. It would only harm nature itself.

> While the state killed them, the Church bears some responsibility for enabling that to happen willingly.

One of Church's main duties is to tell who belives according to its teachings and who does not. Because if it will not do so, someone can starting beliving something other without even understanding it. And, as I said, it was an age of occultists.

> Zero visible evidence for child sacrifice in medieval Europe

Are you sure?

> at least, but at the time when not everyone had access to secular education, people often feared this. As with other dangerous beliefs, that's hard to prove unless its a major religion.

Saying secularism and Middle Ages in one sentence. In Middle Ages if some ruler turned from Christianity he would just order everyone else to follow him and if they would not do that they would be executed.

> Christianity's primary source is the bible

Who told you so?

> Got me there. I realized they kept the scientific achievements of the ancient Greeks and ancient Romans, though didn't contribute much.

I can say same thing about Atheists who use Christian achievements. Just because someone's forefathers were pagans doesn't mean that they are not part of that civilization. Plus there are opinions that Byzantium achieved even more that Old Rome, but you just don't hear so much about it, because 1. Turks destroyed a lot 2. because Byzantium wasn't destroyed by Germanic kingdoms it didn't become a part of Western civilization and viewed them as barbarians, and non-Western cultures aren't so popular in popular culture 3. telling much about strong Christian Orthodox Indoeuropean authoritarian theocratic empire that was world's cener of culture and science isn't so good for "progressive" elites. Science cannot be simply taken, it must be used on practice such as builiding canalizations and other systems. Old Romans for example were famous for the fact they didn't invite much themselves but were very good in using other's. So your argument is invalid. Also Byzantiums's enlightetness wasn't based on pre-Christian institutions but on new ones. Old Hellas and Old Rome meant almost nothing in Byzantium. Greece were seen as poor province and Old Rome was ruled by Pope who remade it as a city. Byzantium's main cultural, adminitrative and scientific centers were locaded in Constantinopole and Anatolia and were founded by Christians, plus probably Alexandria, Antioch, Damascus and others as minors. Athenes, who were a capital and center of old classical civilization were almost a village. Those who said they worship Jupiter/Zeus were seen as clowns. You spoke like Christian state cannot be enlighted, I gave you an example of opposite. Or to be rightfully a Christian civilization did they need to destroy absolute everything that was before and buid it again? But then you would start cry that "Christians are such barbarians". Rome and Hellas were reborn in Christianity and they were who they were. Also I must note that Renessanse started when Byzantine engineers and artists escaped to the West from Muslims and Westerners were so amazed by classical civilization. So without them there would not be any enlightement and stuff. Technological and cultural progress would be much slower and you would be some poor farmer in 18-century's technology and medieval culture. So they managed as least that.

> In politics, it means favoring changes in society, though it's often seen as related to libertarianism. This is why I sometimes hate the manipulation of languages by politicians. BTW I now identify as an atheist libertarian capitalist who dislikes monopolies and religious interference.

Well, ISIS want changes in society too.

> The rest of your arguments are OK. Your english is good but could improve a tiny bit.

Thanks.