Islam doesn’t belong here, say two-thirds of Germans - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;50310394]I really don't think it is. It's not a coincidence that humanism developed in Christian Europe as opposed to Asia, Africa, or the Middle East. The majority, if not all, of those don't hold the tenets of total human equality and dignity before God. Christianity also popularized the entire philosophical tradition started by the Greeks by reanalyzing their ideas, improving them, and moving the entire movement forward. Another example would be the primacy of human free will being a good in itself as a gift of God. These ideas are not a given when looking at human history. Most societies didn't see people as having inherent equal value, they didn't see freedom as an inherent good, etc.[/quote] It is a coincidence that humanism developed in christian europe. Humanism has been a reaction to the centralist entity that christianity became in europe, it may aswell have spawned in the middle east or africa or asia had not imperialistic europeans come to their lands. The thing is, christianity did not overcome the inequalities that existed in europe when it arrived and grew big, it was only used to increase the differences between the higher and the lower classes. The improvements in science that came in Europe was halted by the christian church over and over again until it eventually began to bring secularism to Europe that ideas began to spread and develop and then we eventually reach modern day. Indeed, most societies didn't see people as having inherent equal value, and christian societies definitely did not. It doesn't matter in either case because it is democracy, welfare and freedom of religion that give these "rightous values" to the world.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50310535]It is a coincidence that humanism developed in christian europe. Humanism has been a reaction to the centralist entity that christianity became in europe, it may aswell have spawned in the middle east or africa or asia had not imperialistic europeans come to their lands. The thing is, christianity did not overcome the inequalities that existed in europe when it arrived and grew big, it was only used to increase the differences between the higher and the lower classes. The improvements in science that came in Europe was halted by the christian church over and over again until it eventually began to bring secularism to Europe that ideas began to spread and develop and then we eventually reach modern day. Indeed, most societies didn't see people as having inherent equal value, and christian societies definitely did not. It doesn't matter in either case because it is democracy, welfare and freedom of religion that give these "rightous values" to the world.[/QUOTE] Here's where I think you're going wrong: you're attributing things that are common to all societies to Christianity instead of looking at what was different about Christianity. Inequality existed everywhere, in every society. Racism existed basically everywhere, in every society. Etc. It doesn't make sense to look at the things that existed everywhere and put the blame for them on Christianity. Instead, look at what was different about Christianity. Did Christian people treat some groups unfairly? Of course they did, but that doesn't change the fact that an undeniable theological tenet of Christianity is that all people are created in the image of God and have inherent dignity and value. The tenet still exists within the religion, even if the political power at the time didn't show it very well. The Christian influence is clear when you look at the documents of the time. The Declaration of Independence, for example, using the idea of all people being given rights by their common creator. It's a secular document, yet it draws on Christian ideology for it's basis. It's a directly effect of previous Christian humanism. [editline]12th May 2016[/editline] Also, your claim that it would have developed anywhere else seems baseless to me. Those societies had totally different paths of development and there's no reason to think they would have come to the same conclusions.

I am not attributing the inequalities to Christianity, nor am I attributing the modern days equalities to christianity. You say it is baseless to say that those humanitarian values would have developed elsewhere based on societies that had different parts of developements, yet I say that the humanitarian values that we today enjoy are a reaction to the inequalities that may not have been spawned by christianity but certainly have been upholded by christianity. Yes, inequalities existed everywhere, and they do today, and the way to fight them is with education, welfare and security. Islam or christianity, this applies to everybody so I don't see how we will make the world a better place if we're going to discriminate against people based on their religion.

[QUOTE=phygon;50308099]Islam is fundamentally more violent than essentially all major religions because of how their one and only holy book claims that it itself is the direct, un-interpereted literal word(s) of god. You can't fudge it or change it with the times, which leads to more radicalism.[/QUOTE] remember that part of the bible where it says you dont have to actually listen to anything it says and youre golden

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50310675]I am not attributing the inequalities to Christianity, nor am I attributing the modern days equalities to christianity. You say it is baseless to say that those humanitarian values would have developed elsewhere based on societies that had different parts of developements, yet I say that the humanitarian values that we today enjoy are a reaction to the inequalities that may not have been spawned by christianity but certainly have been upholded by christianity. Yes, inequalities existed everywhere, and they do today, and the way to fight them is with education, welfare and security. Islam or christianity, this applies to everybody so I don't see how we will make the world a better place if we're going to discriminate against people based on their religion.[/QUOTE] I'm not quite sure I understand your response. You say that humanitarian values spawned out of a reaction to inequality, yet inequality exists everywhere. So why don't we see humanist values equally formed in all societies? What made Europe special? It's something you need to account for.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50310739]I'm not quite sure I understand your response. You say that humanitarian values spawned out of a reaction to inequality, yet inequality exists everywhere. So why don't we see humanist values equally formed in all societies? What made Europe special? It's something you need to account for.[/QUOTE] Because it's a very complicated issue; humanism spawned in many different places in what you would consider "western society", but as far as Europe is concerned really it is WW1 and WW2 that let on these equalistic movements to find ground and make europe a better place.

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;50310685]remember that part of the bible where it says you dont have to actually listen to anything it says and youre golden[/QUOTE] Quality post. I challenge you to find a part of the bible that says "This book is the direct, un-adultered word of god and is thus perfect" as clearly as these passages [quote]'This day I have completed your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you and have selected for your Way of Life, Al-Islam." [Holy Quran, 5:3][/quote] [quote] "...And We have sent down to you the Qur'an explaining all things..." [Holy Quran, 16:89] [quote]Haven't the unbelievers considered if this was from other than Allah, they would find within it many contradictions? [Noble Quran 4:82][/quote] [quote] If you are in doubt about it, bring a chapter like it. [Noble Quran 2:23][/quote] Spoiler alert, you can't, because if you could then islam would have never been a thing that happened. The whole point of Islam was the concept that Christianity and Judaism were unfavorable to god, so a mouth of god himself (in the form of an angel) came down and directly recited word-for-word scripture that was then immediately written down. The writing in the book is actually extremely eloquent, which is actually used as "proof" in the book that it was written by god himself (for how else would a poor illiterate merchant be able to write so beautifully?) if you look at the above quotes. The Quran's purpose is to clearly and unquestionably lay out an archaic lifestyle, and because it's so direct and non-negotiably straightforward it lends itself to an INCREDIBLY archaic religion that natively breeds radicalism.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50310838]Because it's a very complicated issue; humanism spawned in many different places in what you would consider "western society", but as far as Europe is concerned really it is WW1 and WW2 that let on these equalistic movements to find ground and make europe a better place.[/QUOTE] The movements we're talking about started far before the world wars. I'm actually not even sure what you're talking about.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50310853]The movements we're talking about started far before the world wars. I'm actually not even sure what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] So is that your argument? I'm just saying, movements can spawn way before whatever we are talking about, but right now we are talking about the present situation and as far as I'm concerned, islam or christianity has nothing to do with the success of nations with good welfare and economic success.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50309792]I think this is a pretty small distinction and my point still stands. Another thing to point out: even the fact that the bible can be translated and have the words changed over the years is something taboo in Islam.[/QUOTE] Last I checked people translating the bible caused several historical shitstorms with the church.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;50310871]So is that your argument? I'm just saying, movements can spawn way before whatever we are talking about, but right now we are talking about the present situation and as far as I'm concerned, islam or christianity has nothing to do with the success of nations with good welfare and economic success.[/QUOTE] I honestly don't even know what point you're trying to make. You said that the humanism movement came as an answer to inequality. I asked you to account for why the humanism movement spawned in Europe as opposed to the rest of the world, even though the entire world is full of inequality. You then said that it's very complicated (so basically that you have no answer) and that it happened after WWI and WWII. I have no idea what you're trying to say. The humanist movement began way before WWI. I have no idea where that even came from. I get that you don't attribute any of it to Christianity. So what do you attribute it to? What made Europe different from the rest of the world as the source of humanism, human equality, human dignity, human freedom as an inherent good, basically everything that we consider the peak of human moral civilization, etc.

Islamaphobes are fucking dumb. "The golden age of Islam is a PC myth", "The Quran was written by a bad dude, the Bible was written by a hippie", "Christians aren't beheading or blowing themselves up to get to those virgins". How can you just completely ignore all other factors behind Islamic terrorism and say "yeah, it really is that simple, Islam is just an inherently violent religion. Oh look, there are a whole bunch of destabilised regions in the Middle East, I'm going to ignore why and how they got like that (a lot of Western intervention and fucking around for money, oil and ideologies), and blame the religious extremism that these countries turned to as the sole reason for any conflict. Western Muslims not supporting my view of Islam as a religion of evil? Well they're not the true Muslims though are they. Huge Islamic organisations denouncing extremism and terror attacks? Why must we accept this too little too late, low bar half measure?! No individual Muslim has ever been the biggest advocate against ISIS and Islamic terrorism, nope, that just doesn't happen." All religions have violence in their past. Stop fucking glorifying Christianity over Islam when both have been the excuses of violent individuals throughout history. "How do all these people end up radicalised against the west?!" Maybe it's because of dumbfucks like you who eat up all the fearmongering western media propagates, painting Islam as a 'religion of evil', while categorically ignoring all evidence to the contrary as 'PC myth', all so you can oversimplify conflict in the Middle East and terror attacks as being purely about religion. Keep on acting and saying that Islam has no place in the modern world, or is "beneath humanity", and then bloody scratching your heads when people end up feeling marginilised and as if the Western world is against them. You are on the wrong side of history. The people who agree with you are the same people who say that Sadiq Khan is a 'religious leader' and threat to British society simply because he is a Muslim elected to the office of mayor of London. That is the level of intellectualism that the 'Islam is just bad okay' bandwagon operates.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50311070]Islamaphobes are fucking dumb. "The golden age of Islam is a PC myth", "The Quran was written by a bad dude, the Bible was written by a hippie", "Christians aren't beheading or blowing themselves up to get to those virgins". How can you just completely ignore all other factors behind Islamic terrorism and say "yeah, it really is that simple, Islam is just an inherently violent religion. Oh look, there are a whole bunch of destabilised regions in the Middle East, I'm going to ignore why and how they got like that (a lot of Western intervention and fucking around for money, oil and ideologies), and blame the religious extremism that these countries turned to as the sole reason for any conflict. Western Muslims not supporting my view of Islam as a religion of evil? Well they're not the true Muslims though are they. Huge Islamic organisations denouncing extremism and terror attacks? Why must we accept this too little too late, low bar half measure?! No individual Muslim has ever been the biggest advocate against ISIS and Islamic terrorism, nope, that just doesn't happen." All religions have violence in their past. Stop fucking glorifying Christianity over Islam when both have been the excuses of violent individuals throughout history. "How do all these people end up radicalised against the west?!" Maybe it's because of dumbfucks like you who eat up all the fearmongering western media propagates, painting Islam as a 'religion of evil', while categorically ignoring all evidence to the contrary as 'PC myth', all so you can oversimplify conflict in the Middle East and terror attacks as being purely about religion. Keep on acting and saying that Islam has no place in the modern world, or is "beneath humanity", and then bloody scratching your heads when people end up feeling marginilised and as if the Western world is against them. You are on the wrong side of history. The people who agree with you are the same people who say that Sadiq Khan is a 'religious leader' and threat to British society simply because he is a Muslim elected to the office of mayor of London. That is the level of intellectualism that the 'Islam is just bad okay' bandwagon operates.[/QUOTE] Talk about oversimplifying.

[QUOTE=Cold;50309435]I am not sure if i can consider a request for a some more privacy in a public swimming pool a significant conflict of values.[/QUOTE] It's basically stigmatizing women. You can't have any man or boy look at you, even though you're twelve. I don't think that's right. Also I don't think you can simply decouple homophobia from Islam, because it also correlates with other religious groups here in Denmark. That doesn't mean that Muslims can't be as accepting or more accepting than any other group, but I think it's unfair to just decouple religion from the whole thing.

I don't even see why people always bring up the modern state of Christianity and compare it to Islam. It's not like the transition to it's current state was some sort of peaceful process with no victims or atrocities committed, or even something that happened willingly.

[QUOTE=Anderan;50311089]I don't even see why people always bring up the modern state of Christianity and compare it to Islam. It's not like the transition to it's current state was some sort of peaceful process with no victims or atrocities committed, or even something that happened willingly.[/QUOTE] It's not a comparison of modern Christianity to Modern Islam. It's a comparison of the tenets of Christianity to the tenets of Islam and how they lead to different conclusions.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50311075]Talk about oversimplifying.[/QUOTE] Didn't you just say, like, a couple posts earlier, that humility was a strictly Christian value? That strikes me as a far greater oversimplification of a value that is thoroughly common throughout the world. All major religions prioritize and see the virtue of humbleness. Judaism. Hinduism. Buddhism. Islam. Sikhism. Taoism. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism even came before the creation of Christianity, and they put immense value, or, perhaps even moreso than Christianity. Buddhism sees humbleness as one of the chiefest and most valuable parts of reaching Nirvana, for chrissakes.

[QUOTE=N.A.N.B;50311177]Didn't you just say, like, a couple posts earlier, that humility was a strictly Christian value? That strikes me as a far greater oversimplification of a value that is thoroughly common throughout the world. All major religions prioritize and see the virtue of humbleness. Judaism. Hinduism. Buddhism. Islam. Sikhism. Taoism. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism even came before the creation of Christianity, and they put immense value, or, perhaps even moreso than Christianity. Buddhism sees humbleness as one of the chiefest and most valuable parts of reaching Nirvana, for chrissakes.[/QUOTE] I said that the idea of humility in the context of European enlightenment and western society came from Christianity. The European societies before the rise of Christianity, like Greece and Rome, actually thought of a strong and powerful person displaying humility as shameful. They would have looked on the suffering Jesus in a negative light. To deface himself like that would be the ultimate shame. You were supposed to show pride and prop yourself up within society. This was broken down by the idea of Jesus being a suffering savior as opposed to a conquering or political hero.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50311213]Greece and Rome, actually thought of a strong and powerful person displaying humility as shameful.[/QUOTE] Humility was very much an ancient Greek virtue. The Iliad even ends with Achilles being humbled and it is in no way considered shameful.

[QUOTE=Anderan;50311225]Humility was very much an ancient Greek virtue. The Iliad even ends with Achilles being humbled and it is in no way considered shameful.[/QUOTE] I've not studied the Iliad. So I won't comment on it specifically, but I would disagree strongly with your assertion about their society. Greco Roman society expected honor for achievement as opposed to the Christian ethic of being a servant to all and never living for honor from others. Here's an article on it: [URL]http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/10/27/3349673.htm[/URL] Read any scholarly writing on the subject and it will come to a similar conclusion to that article.

[QUOTE=Anderan;50311089]I don't even see why people always bring up the modern state of Christianity and compare it to Islam. It's not like the transition to it's current state was some sort of peaceful process with no victims or atrocities committed, or even something that happened willingly.[/QUOTE] Religion is esoteric in nature. Not exoteric.

[QUOTE=Anderan;50311225]Humility was very much an ancient Greek virtue. The Iliad even ends with Achilles being humbled and it is in no way considered shameful.[/QUOTE] You really can't say humility was a "virtue" in Greek society based solely on the resolution of the Iliad. Being humbled [I]from[/I] vanity and arrogance? Sure. Being humble [I]at one's own expense?[/I] No chance would that be virtuous. Aristotelian virtue ethics are almost antithetical to Christian ideas of humility. Christian conception of humility is hugely self-sacrificial. The Greek view of humility is not at all similar. "Such, then, is the proud man; [I]the man who falls short of him is unduly humble[/I], and the man who goes beyond him is vain. Now even these are not thought to be bad (for they are not malicious), but only mistaken. [B]For the unduly humble man[/B], being worthy of good things, [B]robs himself of what he deserves[/B], and to have something bad about him from the fact that he does not think himself worthy of good things, and seems also not to know himself; else he would have desired the things he was worthy of, since these were good." - Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle explicitly found [i]pride[/i] to be the temperate mean between humility and vanity (as two extremes). Aristotelian ethics are all about determining a balanced, temperate middle point between two extreme traits through practical application of learned wisdom (phronesis). Those middle points are where virtuosity is found. Aristotle writes that pride is the middle ground of humility and vanity, and is therefore virtuous. Christianity is very explicitly against displays of pride - only absolute humility is truly virtuous. According to Aristotle, absolute humility is self-defeating and not virtuous in the same way that absolute vanity is - pride in self is the virtuous middle ground. So, at least based on my elementary understanding of Aristotle's views on Greek virtues... no, humility absolutely isn't an ancient Greek virtue.

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50311070]You are on the wrong side of history. The people who agree with you are the same people who say that Sadiq Khan is a 'religious leader' and threat to British society simply because he is a Muslim elected to the office of mayor of London. That is the level of intellectualism that the 'Islam is just bad okay' bandwagon operates.[/QUOTE] this kind of infantile argument is worryingly common you can find assholes, idiots, bigots, shitheads, and losers that support any given idea or belief And what the fuck do you know about how history will view you? For all you know, the alt right will sweep the globe and we'll all be seen as mudslime loving cucks. It doesn't matter what people in the future may or may not think.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50311347]You really can't say humility was a "virtue" in Greek society based solely on the resolution of the Iliad. Being humbled [I]from[/I] vanity and arrogance? Sure. Being humble [I]at one's own expense?[/I] No chance would that be virtuous. Aristotelian virtue ethics are almost antithetical to Christian ideas of humility. Christian conception of humility is hugely self-sacrificial. The Greek view of humility is not at all similar. "Such, then, is the proud man; [I]the man who falls short of him is unduly humble[/I], and the man who goes beyond him is vain. Now even these are not thought to be bad (for they are not malicious), but only mistaken. [B]For the unduly humble man[/B], being worthy of good things, [B]robs himself of what he deserves[/B], and to have something bad about him from the fact that he does not think himself worthy of good things, and seems also not to know himself; else he would have desired the things he was worthy of, since these were good." - Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle explicitly found [i]pride[/i] to be the temperate mean between humility and vanity (as two extremes). Aristotelian ethics are all about determining a balanced, temperate middle point between two extreme traits through practical application of learned wisdom (phronesis). Those middle points are where virtuosity is found. Aristotle writes that pride is the middle ground of humility and vanity, and is therefore virtuous. Christianity is very explicitly against displays of pride - only absolute humility is truly virtuous. According to Aristotle, absolute humility is self-defeating and not virtuous in the same way that absolute vanity is - pride in self is the virtuous middle ground. So, at least based on my elementary understanding of Aristotle's views on Greek virtues... no, humility absolutely isn't an ancient Greek virtue.[/QUOTE] You say you can't base ancient Greek values off of the Iliad alone and then act as if Aristotle alone represents all of ancient Greek culture despite being literally only one school of thought among a variety of schools. What of stoicism where virtue alone was considered sufficient for happiness in life? What of Socrates refusing the Oracle's description of himself as the wisest man in the land? Why were there temples to Aidos, the Godess of Humility, in Athens and Sparta if Greeks held no value in humility? Perhaps it's not an absolute humility that Christianity espouses but humility was very much a Greek virtue. Even in your own post you cite "The unduly humble man" not just "The humble man", it seems very much he's encouraging moderation, not saying you should not be humble. There are also a myriad of stories where someone is undone by an excess display of hubris, hell Odysseus only took so long to get home because of a display of hubris. To say humility is not at all an ancient Greek virtue is just outright false. It's more about the extent to which one should be humble.

[QUOTE=Radical_ed;50309334]Such a sensationalist article. Of course a lot of people are going to be against ANY religion "being a part" of their country. You'd get similar results with christianity in America.[/QUOTE] I think the issue is how fast it's changed. That so many people who two years ago answered "yes" have changed their minds and are now answering "no". Not that I don't agree. It should be 100%.

[QUOTE=Anderan;50311454]You say you can't base ancient Greek values off of the Iliad alone and then act as if Aristotle alone represents all of ancient Greek culture despite being literally only one school of thought among a variety of schools. What of stoicism where virtue alone was considered sufficient for happiness in life? What of Socrates refusing the Oracle's description of himself as the wisest man in the land? Why were there temples to Aidos, the Godess of Humility, in Athens and Sparta if Greeks held no value in humility? Perhaps it's not an absolute humility that Christianity espouses but humility was very much a Greek virtue. Even in your own post you cite "The unduly humble man" not just "The humble man", it seems very much he's encouraging moderation, not saying you should not be humble. There are also a myriad of stories where someone is undone by an excess display of hubris, hell Odysseus only took so long to get home because of a display of hubris. To say humility is not at all an ancient Greek virtue is just outright false. It's more about the extent to which one should be humble.[/QUOTE] I completely disagree and I'll go on an etymological tangent to try and prove why. Why do humility and humiliation have the same root? One is a virtue and one is a synonym for embarrassment. Well, because they come from the Latin word [URL="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/humilis#Latin"][I]humilis[/I][/URL], which has multiple definitions all related to lowliness and shallowness. The one that draws my attention is "submissive, abject (of mind or character)." The root of humility in Latin is [I]humus[/I], which literally means dirt or earth or soil. Go back to the Greek origin of [I]humus[/I] and you reach [I]khthamalós[/I], which again refers to lowliness and earth. Why, then, would humility be a virtuous Greek trait when for centuries it referred to submissiveness, outcasts, the impoverished, and all sorts of lowly things? Everything I can read in [I]Nicomachean Ethics[/I], which is honestly the ultimate source on Greek views on virtues considering it's an entire book written entirely about what virtues are, explicitly states that the excess of pride is vanity and the lack of pride is humility. Contextually, humility [i]cannot[/i] be virtuous in and of itself in [I]Ethics[/I]. Vanity and humility are extremes of pride, which is virtuous when the mean (middle point) is determined through wisdom (phronesis). Humility in the Aristotelian sense was absolutely not a positive trait in ancient Greece any more than vanity is a positive trait today - they are two extremes on a spectrum with a virtue lying in between. The etymology of humility lends some credence to this - throughout ancient Greece and the existence of spoken Latin, the roots all demonstrated lowliness. Humility was not at all the same conception as it is now - humility was the absence of pride, with pride being a sort of silent self-confidence focused towards honor. Humility is meekness and passivity under this definition. The humble do not drive forward to achieve honor and glory in their society, which was a hugely admired personality trait in ancient Greece. Or, in the words of Aristotle, the humble "stand back even from noble actions and undertakings, deeming themselves unworthy." Humility in ancient Greece is not the same as humility today. Humility and meekness was seen as a lack of self-confidence, submissiveness, and a lack of self-worth. This makes perfect sense on the Aristotelian virtue scale - vanity is excessive self-worth and excessive self-confidence, and pride is a middle ground between the two with healthy levels of both. The Iliad and the Odyssey are fine examples. Odysseus was not humble, he was humble[i]d[/i]. He didn't magically discover the virtuosity of humility through being humbled - that's not how virtues work in any school of Greek philosophy (and I'm familiar with the major ones). Rather, his excessive pride (vanity) was moderated with humility, leading to the virtue of pride. I mean, fuck, Aristotle literally calls [I]honor[/I] the "prize of virtue." There's an enormous social aspect to this - honor and glory are the goals of living virtuously. Being recognized by others as a virtuous person is virtuosity. Now, back to Christianity, and why you're confused on this shit. They changed the definition of humility over centuries. Jesus was talking about how the meek will inherit the Earth and whatnot - he was referring to the same conception that we see with the Greeks. The passive, submissive, and pride-less people are the strongest. Christianity transformed humility from a negative absence of self-worth (pride) into a virtuous trait. It vilified the moderate middle ground (pride) and made absolute humility a virtuous trait. The entire reason you think humility [i]must have been[/i] a virtue in ancient Greece is because Christianity made humility a virtue in the modern Western world. It wasn't a virtue back then. Pride was. You can see this in the culture of ancient Greece with hero worship and all sorts of shit. The etymology of the word "humility" shows this. Humility was not a virtue any more than vanity was a virtue - they were the absence and excess of pride. None of this shit is globally applicable, it exclusively refers to western society - the concepts of humility in Buddhism and Hinduism yet again differ than the concepts seen in Greek philosophy and Christianity. Christianity's humility is about submissiveness and acceptance. Buddhism's absolutely isn't about submissiveness, and is tied to cultural models of ego and pride that are totally different than those in the west. In this geographical example, though, you're wrong.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50309555]The "Islamic Golden Age" is largely a PC myth. It is true to say that the Arab/Persian world was more advanced in the areas of science, mathematics, and astronomy than Europe was at the time. [/QUOTE] You've got to be shitting me. PC? It's a myth but hee a the facts why it isn't? [editline]13th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;50311213]I said that the idea of humility in the context of European enlightenment and western society came from Christianity. The European societies before the rise of Christianity, like Greece and Rome, actually thought of a strong and powerful person displaying humility as shameful. They would have looked on the suffering Jesus in a negative light. To deface himself like that would be the ultimate shame. You were supposed to show pride and prop yourself up within society. This was broken down by the idea of Jesus being a suffering savior as opposed to a conquering or political hero.[/QUOTE] I don't think the history of European culture is that easy and humility as a basic idea coming from Christianity is ...frankly laughable. Look at the popes, look at the French Kings,[B] look at a single goddamn Catholic church and tell me that " humility in the context of European enlightenment and western society came from Christianity"[/B] Of course separated streams of Christianity also incorporated humility(Mthodist, Baptists and so on) but the oversimplificated picture you are trying o paint is simply not true. The idea of humility in Christianity is far more rooted in the reformation process when people started to realize that they need no upper organization between them and god

:snip:

[QUOTE=Anderan;50311767]I feel like you're getting hung up on the word as opposed to the concept of a rejection of egotism and self-centeredness, the value of which is espoused repeatedly in Greek stories and philosophy. All Christianity really did was take it from "be moderate in your sense of self worth and do not practice pride in excess" to "don't practice pride at all". Or maybe I just hold a different concept of "humility".[/QUOTE] Humility--------------------Pride----------------------Vanity The word is more important than you think. Going in to the etymology wasn't really necessary, but I'll give some modern day examples. A person from humble backgrounds comes from a low social class. If you're humbled by an opponent, you're admitting your defeat and lowering your status. Humility involves lowliness - the word has just become so exalted and valued as a virtue that its relation to humiliation and humbleness is muddled. The Greek concept of Pride and the Christian concept of Humility overlap, but they are not identical. Aristotle's characterization of the proud man demonstrates a number of traits that would apply to a humble person. You're exactly right in saying that he was saying "do not practice pride in excess." He calls that vanity - and that word means the same thing today. It's excessive self-centeredness and excessive self-worth. We seem to both be on the same page at this point. The quote I used about the "unduly humble" is referring to what Aristotle describes below: "The man who thinks himself worthy of worthy of less than he is really worthy of is [B]unduly humble[/B]" Wordy worthy shit, but basically, if you believe that you are worth less than you are actually worth, you're unduly humble. Nowadays this would be called self-deprecation or excessive self-criticism. It's obviously not virtuous, because it's an extreme. But Aristotle doesn't stop there - he characterizes another type: "For he who is worthy of little and thinks himself worthy of little is [B]temperate, but not proud[/B]; for pride implies greatness." This is where it diverges. Christian humility has [I]absolutely nothing to do with greatness[/I]. It is all about temperance, sometimes boiling over into self-deprecation. It is extreme humility. It is pure submissiveness and no assertiveness - if you're hit on the cheek, you don't even hit back, you just prepare for another strike - that is Christian humility. Turn the other cheek humility. It is creating a virtue out of what the Greeks would have considered a vice. There is no assertiveness here at all - and that is what makes pride differ from humility and why the Greeks did not view humility by itself as a virtue. If someone who is too vain and excessively prideful is humbled, as seen in the Iliad and numerous other Greek legends, that can be virtuous - because they've recognized their vanity and have come closer to being a proud and virtuous man rather than a vain one. If it goes too far, though, they're temperate. That's not [I]bad[/I], in fact they're usually good people, but they lack the magnanimity and greatness to be a proud, virtuous man. Those are requirements to be a virtuous person. The likes of Odysseus are already magnanimous and great, but vain. Odysseus boasts his name after besting the Cyclops with his trick, demonstrating vanity that later causes Poseidon to fuck his shit right up the ass. It's metaphorical - Odysseus demonstrating vanity results in bad shit, and by the end of the story he is finally humbled. He does not lose his pride - in fact, he demonstrates his pride by being assertive and slaughtering all the suitors at Ithaca. That's the difference. Yes, humility is valued in Greek culture, but not as a [i]virtue in and of itself[/i]. It is valued in relation to pride and vanity - because genuinely humbling a vain person [i]lowers them[/i] to a point where pride through greatness is possible. Pride requires greatness and self-confidence and assertiveness and humility does not. [B]tl;dr both the Greeks and Christians had the same overall conception of humility, but the Christians viewed humility (lowliness) as virtuous in and of itself while the Greeks saw humility as a balancing factor in the actual virtue of pride[/B] (and yes this is an oversimplification and only looks at Aristotelian philosophy but I really really should be writing an essay instead of going into all the other schools of philosophy)

:snip: