Thread

I’ve been on a real kick this year trying to understand the historical power between church and state. They’re just different systems of organisation, both prone to the same corruption and stagnation. I now have more appreciation for practiced religion and the good it can do for individuals and group cohesion beyond Dunbar’s number, whilst my skepticism of organised religion which led me to atheism in younger years has been reinforced heavily the more I read about the institutions.

You are right but where the people ready to absorb those ideas without an external coordination? We are the first generations to understand freedom. Before it was monarchy. People were doing what told. Except the very fine people on the top.

I completely agree with you. I also differentiate between religions that contribute and those that contribute nothing. For example, Islam contributes nothing; it is a religion of war and conquest. The Old Testament doesn't contribute much beyond the tablets of Moses either; it is a vengeful god. On the other hand, the New Testament, as I say, is a condensation of Greek humanism and stoicism, based above all on mercy and forgiveness, and I think that is very useful and necessary in the society in which we live.

Well, we have to assume that most people are backward, even if it sounds harsh, but it's not the same to be governed by Marcus Aurelius as it is to be governed by Joe Biden. By this I mean that we must try to promote ideas that lead us to excellence and not to decline. The more widespread these ideas are, the more likely they are to be applied, regardless of the form of social organization that exists at the time.

"Islam contributes nothing; it is a religion of war and conquest" Two absolutely wrong takes. I respect you a lot, I respect how you seek truth and fairness. I implore you to read about Islam properly, and I promise you'll be surprised by how much it can give, and how peaceful it is. This take is typical of Western media and Western politicians whom you clearly oppose in many things. Why not give it a learning chance. I'm here to debate or discuss if you wish.

yo, real quick: painting a quarter of humanity’s long-running spiritual framework as “contributes nothing” is exactly the kind of shallow stick-it-on-a-poster hot take we all roast politicians for. judge by the institution if you must (they're easy punch-lines), but the core ideas? greek logos meets islamic faylasuf didn’t pick up where aristotle left off by accident. algebra, optics, cheques, universities—all spread while clerics were arguing contracts and sipping coffee, not swinging swords. read maybe ibn rushd or ghazali, then drop reductive memes if you still feel like it. till then: don’t @ an entire religion like it’s a monolith. it’s lazy signal, not actual critique.

Ufff you have condensed tens of nonsense in one short post.

Disagree re Islam. It contributes to its adherents. Whether you like its practices or not, it is a socially cohesive glue for the people in Muslim countries. I would completely agree that it has no place being practiced in non-Muslim countries; it is a religion without tolerance, poorly adapted to deal with outsiders, and like Christianity relentlessly seeks to convert others even when it doesn’t suit those people (Christianity just does it very differently). I have no problem with Muslims practicing their religion in Muslim countries. But I don’t want them being subsidised to come into Christian countries, live off welfare, and then effect their politics and demographics towards their own religious ends. That however is specifically a problem with the Christian countries enabling it in the name of tolerance because its leaders haven’t read the New Testament.

They sold self harm on purpose. The slogan were clear. Not everybody has the same goal of mutual cooperation and growth. Some want a population with no hope and no goals. The good thing is that not all are equal.

We can't ignore the Old Testament, either. It's setting the stage for shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ who saves the Jews from their works burden and saves the Gentiles (ethnos) from their being a whole corrupted people.

I have read the Koran, and I recommend that you do the same. We Spaniards fought against them for 800 years, we know very well what we are talking about, and now we are being invaded again.

Why?

Interesting point of view

The New Testament is about the salvation of our souls and the sacrifice that God made for us. Look how the apostles were transformed, for example. The apostles walked with Jesus, lived with Jesus, were taught by Jesus and were witnesses of lots of miracles; however, when the time came they ran to hide. They were absolutely scared to be tortured and killed like Him. After Jesus resurrected and appeared to them and after the Holy Spirit descended upon them, they didn't fear anything anymore. They knew they were going to be tortured and killed. They knew about the others being crucified, impaled, beheaded, thrown from roofs and stoned, flayed alive and so on and even thou they continued spreading the Word of God. Greek bullshit is not about salvation and it ignores God completely. God is all there is.

Primero de todo el Nuevo Testamento se escribió originalmente en griego y creo que te has excedido en la primera respuesta porque no es una tontería sin sentido lo que he dicho y no es nada malo tampoco. Te añado para ahorrar tiempo una respuesta de IA. La relación entre el Nuevo Testamento y la filosofía griega es estrecha pero compleja. No es que los autores “copien” a los filósofos, sino que escriben dentro de un mundo empapado de cultura helenística, donde ideas de Platón, los estoicos, etc., ya estaban en el aire. Te lo resumo por partes. ⸻ 1. El contexto: el Nuevo Testamento nace en un mundo helenístico • Desde Alejandro Magno, todo el Mediterráneo oriental se “heleniza”: griego koiné, educación griega, filosofía griega. • Los primeros cristianos viven en ciudades griegas o fuertemente helenizadas: Antioquía, Éfeso, Corinto, Filipos, Tesalónica, Atenas…  • Eso significa que cuando hablan de Dios, alma, mundo, virtud, etc., lo hacen con palabras y categorías que ya tenían un eco filosófico para sus oyentes. ⸻ 2. Textos del NT donde se ve el contacto con la filosofía griega a) Pablo en Atenas (Hechos 17) • Hechos 17 narra el discurso de Pablo en el Areópago de Atenas, dialogando con epicúreos y estoicos (mencionados explícitamente en Hch 17,18).  • Pablo cita a poetas griegos (“porque en él vivimos, nos movemos y existimos”) que proceden del entorno estoico. Usa un lenguaje que un filósofo griego puede entender (Dios creador, providencia, juicio).  Aquí se ve: el cristianismo se explica a sí mismo utilizando puentes con el pensamiento griego, pero acaba confrontando la idolatría y la ignorancia (Hch 17,29–31). b) Colosenses 2,8: crítica a la “filosofía” • Pablo advierte: “que nadie os engañe con filosofías y vanas sutilezas…” (Col 2,8). • Los estudiosos señalan que no es un ataque a toda filosofía, sino a sistemas especulativos que ponían en peligro la fe cristiana (mezcla de elementos helenísticos y judaicos).  Es decir, hay diálogo y a la vez desconfianza hacia una filosofía que pueda vaciar el Evangelio. c) El Prólogo de Juan y el “Logos” (Jn 1,1) • “En el principio era el Logos… y el Logos era Dios.” • Logos en el mundo griego no es solo “palabra”, sino razón, principio racional del cosmos, usado por Heráclito y sobre todo por los estoicos, y reelaborado por pensadores como Filón de Alejandría.  • El autor de Juan toma ese término cargado de filosofía y afirma algo radical: ese Logos eterno se hizo carne en Jesús de Nazaret. Aquí se ve una relación clarísima: usa un concepto filosófico conocido, pero le da un contenido cristológico nuevo. ⸻ 3. Principales influencias filosóficas en el entorno del NT No es que el NT cite a Platón o Aristóteles, pero sí comparte el mismo ecosistema intelectual: a) Platonismo (y medio-platonismo) • Dualismo “cuerpo/alma”, énfasis en el mundo invisible, idea de una realidad superior más verdadera que lo sensible. • En el NT hay resonancias de lenguaje dual (carne/espíritu, mundo presente / mundo futuro), aunque con raíz bíblica judía.  • Más claro aún es cómo los padres de la Iglesia posteriores (Justino, Orígenes, Agustín) leerán la Biblia con categorías platónicas, pero eso ya es siglo II en adelante.  b) Estoicismo • Los estoicos hablaban de Logos, de ley natural, de vivir “conforme a la naturaleza” y de virtudes como dominio de sí, fortaleza, etc.  • En Pablo aparecen términos y esquemas que recuerdan al estoicismo: listas de virtudes y vicios, lenguaje sobre la conciencia, la ley escrita en el corazón (Rom 2,14–15), la idea de un cosmos ordenado por Dios. • Muchos estudiosos hablan de “adaptación estratégica”: Pablo y otros autores usan categorías estoicas para hacer comprensible el mensaje cristiano en el mundo helenístico.  c) Otras corrientes • Epicureísmo (crítica a la superstición religiosa, énfasis en el placer moderado). • Escepticismo y cinismo, que influyen en el tono crítico hacia las instituciones.  El NT no “adopta” estas filosofías, pero se mueve en un escenario donde estas ideas son conocidas, y a veces las confronta directamente (como en 1 Cor 1–2, donde Pablo contrasta “sabiduría del mundo” y “sabiduría de la cruz”). ⸻ 4. El papel de Filón de Alejandría como puente Aunque no es autor del NT, Filón de Alejandría (judío helenista del siglo I) es clave para entender la conexión: • Intenta unir la fe judía con la filosofía griega, especialmente platonismo y estoicismo. • Desarrolla la idea del Logos como mediador entre el Dios trascendente y el mundo, y como instrumento de la creación.  • Muchos ven en este marco conceptual un antecedente del Prólogo de Juan (aunque el contenido cristiano es distinto: en Juan el Logos es una Persona concreta, Jesús). Filón muestra cómo, ya antes del cristianismo, la Biblia podía leerse con lentes filosóficas griegas, preparando el terreno para la teología cristiana posterior. ⸻ 5. ¿Influencia o simplemente “lenguaje común”? Aquí hay matices importantes: 1. El núcleo del mensaje cristiano (Jesús crucificado y resucitado) viene del judaísmo, no de la filosofía griega. 2. Sin embargo, las categorías para explicarlo a un mundo greco-romano se apoyan en ideas y vocabulario filosófico ya existentes.  3. El Nuevo Testamento, en general: • Dialoga con la filosofía (ej. Pablo en Atenas). • Reutiliza conceptos (Logos, ley natural, virtud…). • Critica las filosofías cuando oscurecen el Evangelio (Col 2,8; 1 Cor 1–2). Una buena frase-resumen sería: El Nuevo Testamento nació en un mundo formado por la filosofía griega, habló su idioma, tomó algunos de sus conceptos, pero reinterpretándolos radicalmente desde la experiencia de Cristo. ⸻ 6. Si quieres profundizar… Si te interesa seguir tirando del hilo, podrías buscar temas como: • “Logos en el Evangelio de Juan y la filosofía estoica/platónica”.  • “Pablo y la filosofía estoica” (especialmente en Romanos, 1 Corintios, Hechos 17).  • “Influencia del platonismo en los Padres de la Iglesia” (Justino, Clemente, Orígenes, Agustín, etc.). 

First of all, the New Testament was originally written in Greek. ⸻ The relationship between the New Testament and Greek philosophy is close but complex. It’s not that the authors “copy” the philosophers, but that they write within a world soaked in Hellenistic culture, where ideas from Plato, the Stoics, etc., were already in the air. I’ll break it down. ⸻ 1. The context: the New Testament is born in a Hellenistic world • Since Alexander the Great, the whole eastern Mediterranean becomes “Hellenized”: koine Greek, Greek education, Greek philosophy. • The first Christians live in Greek or strongly Hellenized cities: Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens… • This means that when they talk about God, soul, world, virtue, etc., they do so with words and categories that already had a philosophical echo for their listeners. ⸻ 2. NT texts where you can see contact with Greek philosophy a) Paul in Athens (Acts 17) • Acts 17 narrates Paul’s speech at the Areopagus in Athens, dialoguing with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (explicitly mentioned in Acts 17:18). • Paul quotes Greek poets (“for in him we live and move and have our being”), who come from the Stoic environment. He uses language that a Greek philosopher can understand (Creator God, providence, judgment). Here we see: Christianity explains itself using bridges to Greek thought, but ends up confronting idolatry and ignorance (Acts 17:29–31). b) Colossians 2:8: criticism of “philosophy” • Paul warns: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit…” (Col 2:8). • Scholars point out that this is not an attack on all philosophy, but on speculative systems that endangered the Christian faith (a mix of Hellenistic and Jewish elements). That is, there is dialogue and at the same time distrust toward a kind of philosophy that could empty the Gospel. c) The Prologue of John and the “Logos” (John 1:1) • “In the beginning was the Logos… and the Logos was God.” • Logos in the Greek world is not just “word,” but reason, the rational principle of the cosmos, used by Heraclitus and especially by the Stoics, and reworked by thinkers like Philo of Alexandria. • The author of John takes that philosophically loaded term and makes a radical claim: that eternal Logos became flesh in Jesus of Nazareth. Here you see a very clear relationship: he uses a well-known philosophical concept, but gives it a new Christological content. ⸻ 3. Main philosophical influences in the NT environment It’s not that the NT quotes Plato or Aristotle, but it does share the same intellectual ecosystem: a) Platonism (and Middle Platonism) • “Body/soul” dualism, emphasis on the invisible world, the idea of a higher reality more true than what is perceived by the senses. • In the NT there are echoes of dual language (flesh/spirit, present world / future world), although with a Jewish biblical root. • Even clearer is how the later Church Fathers (Justin, Origen, Augustine) will read the Bible with Platonic categories, but that’s already second century onward. b) Stoicism • The Stoics talked about Logos, natural law, living “according to nature,” and virtues like self-control, courage, etc. • In Paul we find terms and frameworks that recall Stoicism: lists of virtues and vices, language about conscience, the law written on the heart (Rom 2:14–15), the idea of a cosmos ordered by God. • Many scholars speak of “strategic adaptation”: Paul and other authors use Stoic categories to make the Christian message understandable in the Hellenistic world. c) Other schools • Epicureanism (critique of religious superstition, emphasis on moderate pleasure). • Skepticism and Cynicism, which influence the critical tone toward institutions. The NT does not “adopt” these philosophies, but it moves in a setting where these ideas are known, and sometimes it confronts them directly (as in 1 Cor 1–2, where Paul contrasts “the wisdom of the world” and “the wisdom of the cross”). ⸻ 4. The role of Philo of Alexandria as a bridge Although he is not an NT author, Philo of Alexandria (a Hellenistic Jew of the first century) is key to understanding the connection: • He tries to unite Jewish faith with Greek philosophy, especially Platonism and Stoicism. • He develops the idea of the Logos as mediator between the transcendent God and the world, and as the instrument of creation. • Many see in this conceptual framework a precedent of the Prologue of John (although the Christian content is different: in John the Logos is a concrete Person, Jesus). Philo shows how, even before Christianity, the Bible could be read through Greek philosophical lenses, preparing the ground for later Christian theology. ⸻ 5. Influence or simply “common language”? Here there are some important nuances: 1. The core of the Christian message (Jesus crucified and risen) comes from Judaism, not from Greek philosophy. 2. However, the categories used to explain this to a Greco-Roman world rely on philosophical ideas and vocabulary that already existed. 3. The New Testament, in general: • Dialogues with philosophy (e.g., Paul in Athens). • Reuses concepts (Logos, natural law, virtue…). • Criticizes philosophies when they obscure the Gospel (Col 2:8; 1 Cor 1–2). A good summary phrase would be: The New Testament was born in a world shaped by Greek philosophy, spoke its language, and took some of its concepts, but radically reinterpreted them from the experience of Christ. ⸻ 6. If you want to go deeper… If you’re interested in digging further, you could look up topics like: • “Logos in the Gospel of John and Stoic/Platonic philosophy.” • “Paul and Stoic philosophy” (especially in Romans, 1 Corinthians, Acts 17). • “Influence of Platonism on the Church Fathers” (Justin, Clement, Origen, Augustine, etc.). nostr:nevent1qqs0ep375ehv2j3wmy4gx8su6fvvldap9ktswg5r3kzevwenlpe79ncpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgvvmg4c

The Islamic conquest of the Iberian peninsula was before Spain and Portugal and you know it. The population there were not called Spaniards back then; they were vandals, hence Andalusia. So it's not the same lineage albeit being the same land. Correct me if I am wrong. But that's beside the point. Now, why did they pass Gibraltar in the first place? It's a mixture of imperial hopes of the polity that ruled (Umayyads) and the obligation to free people from earthly shackles. Now, we can debate the polity ad nauseum, but every empire before and after expanded for different reasons. So, it can't be just Islam as a religion. If that is your case, we're discussing the wrong topic. For the second point, freeing people from earthly shackles, we can debate. But first let me clarify a few things. Islam's first and foremost idea is monotheistic. Allah is the only God, the same God Jews and Christians worship (the, so called, Father, to be particular). It follows the lineage of the Bible, whether it be books or prophets. It confirms many ideas in the Bible and believe in the prophets in it. As Muslims, we believe that the Torah and the New Testament are the words of God (although corrupted through centuries of translation and people changing/ adding to/removing from it). Jesus is a highly revered prophet, born to a virgin Mary. All these facts about Islam can't be meaningless to you. So what shackles am I talking about? All these earthly insidious problems are considered shackles; murder, usury, adultery, alcohol and drugs, lies, robbery... Etc. If a society does any of these, as a Muslim I am supposed to warn them and invite them to do better by being Muslim, or at least not do better and remain following their faith. There is no compulsion in religion (Quran 2:256); you're the master of your belief. Other shackles include taxes, in the first Islamic governments, there were no taxes on Muslims. Taxes are considered compulsory theft and a major injustice, and are prohibited. The only tax mandated is on non-Muslims (2.5%) for protection, because they're not required to join the army, and they're left to manage their own lives. The original form of governance in early Islamic society is that the government is responsible for defense, execution of rule of law as mandated by judges and scholars, collecting Zakat and distributing it to rightful deserving people, and, finally, ensuring Waqfs are respected and sustained. Everything else is left for the people to manage. I think that's a form of governance you would like, isn't it? "Islam was spread by the sword" is also not true. Egypt, for example, who's 90% Muslims today, remained majority Christians for 6-7 centuries after being included in the Islamicate. Another anecdote. Early Muslims handed Damascus back along with the protection tax they took, because they couldn't keep the byzantines from taking the city back. They didn't pillage nor did they rape. They took the land, in the first place, because the byzantines were taking too much tax, and they wanted to free the people from that. Sorry, for the very long post. I will order the Korean tonight, but I do hope you keep an open mind. @Viktor recommended books, but I will recommend Karen Armstrong's Muhammed A Prophet For Our Times.

I apologize. Didn't see your correction. I read the Koran daily. 😊

It is clear that if you are Muslim and I am Christian, we will never agree on that issue because our religions clash. That does not prevent us from living together as long as I do not attack you and you do not attack me. 🫂

May not enough

I like to discuss something

新约可以从多个层面剖析他的意义，如果每人都觉悟到一些，那便是它的意义所在

This guy is too simple

I'd rather live next to anyone who believes in something than someone who does not believe in anything

新约可以有人文意义，但是他的神学意义是其基底

这就是旧约新约不可分的缘由

No, absolutely not. The New Testament is about God and salvation. There is nothing in Greek humanism and stoicism about that. And I don't want to discuss with an AI, if you don't have arguments to defend your nonsense then just say so and do not past blocks of AI generated stuff.

maybe not

The Muslim is required by his religion to kill non Muslims. Once all the Jews, Christians, and other infidels are dead, they will kill those not Muslim enought.

Yes the apostles didn't fear anything because they knew they were divine beings themselves who could not die. God was (is) in them. That is the essence of Jesus' teachings. Unfortunately much of its clarity was wiped out of the Bible. nostr:nevent1qqsrq0s6er7xqxga06qc63q43dcpe6l3ha5j7ka6hudq4e0jdwqajuspzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsygxlcs5t9csm9v4quzn0nu8y649g9m4y9065zhw6w5ekkywggfadgvpsgqqqqqqscteet6

Well, this time I'm going to forgive your jerk behavior because I really respect your privacy work, but I'm not one to put up with this kind of treatment from others.

I disagree with this framing, would not say organized religions create social cohesion rather they take advantage of naturally occurring cooperative groups. Then second order effect, supply the optimal frameworks elevating the worst of us. Organized religions, governments, these are emergent collectivist mine viruses that abuse use and encourage the vulnerable. Possibly an evolutionary left over from hunter gatherer small tribe days. Which naturally gets hijacked post agricultural era.

False. Bring me proof.

Agreed. Still implore you to read Karen Armstrong's book. You'll have better appreciation for this brotherhood. After all, monotheists should unite intellectually against atheists.

I never said organised religion creates social cohesion. I only mentioned practiced religion in my OP and followed up with how Islam in practice, like other religions, does so. Read this book if you want to know more: nostr:note1y8vcj9ct77l3wjj6lgh30qn6jupfg6akjcn66clj2qyy8wy8xh7qwctuat

No. Stay in your Muslim country and deal with your own. We don’t need proof, we don’t need to negotiate, and we don’t need to tolerate. We’ve got history books and we see how Muslims govern themselves today - we don’t want it. Keep it to yourself.

Happy to do so, get your Europeans out of our lands while you're at it. We've seen it in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan in our lifetimes. The rest of the Muslim world before that from Morocco all the way to Indonesia. Youe governments and empires are no better than ours. Your governments terorrizes globally way more than a few individuals who claim grandeur from caves. Like it or not, we're here to stay in this world. Better live with it. Because, at the end, we have lived with Christians in our lands all our 14 centuries. Mixed results for sure, but history proves it way more good than bad.

I don’t disagree with any of the empire stuff, nor Palestine and the Zionists. I want them out too. You stay in your lands and deal with your own. Youve NOT done that plenty throughtout history, so I accept the Spanish telling you to fuck off because it’s not just Christians you’ve tried to convert - Muslims succeeded in parts of Asia and had to be slaughtered in others to get them to fuck off. Islam needs a reformation but that can happen in already Muslim countries - we don’t need to see it or be part of it.

There is none to bring

yes some

Testament not only for understanding also avtive guide

I would even say that many, instead of teaching the things they say to live better, but seek to make one live in a state of constant guilt where they want you to always remember the bad and never be at peace.

I'm in my very Arab country enjoying my time. No point telling me to fuck off. 😂 No one can force anyone to convert, true conversion comes from free will. So, I don't know what you're on about. The Spaniard knows about the the inquisition, I don't need to remind him, but maybe I need to remind you. Everything you point a finger at, your people did too. So stop calling the pot black while your kettle is whistling. If you are mad at me because someone I never met, I'm within my rights to be mad at you because of dubya Bush and Netanyahu. If you're willing to sit down like the civilized person you are and discuss with respect. By all means. My premise is: Islam itself doesn't need reformation, your understanding of it needs depth and open mindedness. Muslims on the other hand, oh well... Won't discuss, it would take a book or two.

En esta tenés razón. Por favor acepta mis disculpas.

Silly and pointless banter aside.. We can get along if you want.. https://youtu.be/sNbtEdcTH8w

Aceptadas 🫂, siento si he podido herir tus sentimientos con este tema, sé que son cosas delicadas y no es ni mucho menos lo que pretendo.

"Religion is poorly taught in school precisely because it teaches what the church wants." What schools are you talking about? Religion is poorly taught in government schools because governments want to share is away from God. Religion is purely taught in some "Christian" schools based on their denominational flavor. Most schools teach based on the intellectual level and academic interest of their students. These are both found to be severely lacking in western countries in my experience. To put it bluntly, most people aren't smart enough and don't care enough to want the deeper meanings.

Tu eres Pedro y sobre esta piedra edificaré mi iglesia (Mt 16, 18)

Wow. I misspelled few words... "...Governments want to draw us away from God. Religion is poorly taught..."

I will bring you nothing.

You have nothing to bring.

Aufwiedersehen Muselmann. I have much but I have nothing for you.

سلام. You claimed something without backing it with any evidence. If you don't want engage, then don't in the first place. 😂 Be at peace. Smile for the rest of the day. 😊

"كما قلت من قبل. لا أملك شيئًا لك."

Saudara Jadi lapar saya tengok video ni 😂

I firmly agree. Each country and each nation should be allowed to govern themselves as they see fit. That said, each nation has a tendency to live beyond its means and so try to conquer others to pay for it. Religion is shaped by man rather than faith which is shaped by God.

Be at peace.

It is not Christians bombing, flying planes into buildings, driving pedestrians over with motor vehicles, stabbing children, parents, and raping both men and women in the name of their religion. Germany, France, Spain, the whole of Europe is being destroyed before our eyes. The mass immigration from Muslim lands is an invasion. Modern air travel has made it easy for them. Time for the Crusades once more. Each nation their own country.