|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
 Poll
|
| Question: |
Who do you like most?
| Akhenaten |
|
   0 (0%) |
| Zoroaster |
|
0 (0%) |
| Confucius |
|
0 (0%) |
| Gautama Buddha |
|
0 (0%) |
| Socrates |
|
1 (100%) |
| Jesus |
|
0 (0%) |
|
|
| Total Voters: 1 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Religious quotes (Read 2101 times)
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
 Offline
Posts: 941
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
I like Confucius and Gautama Buddha best, maybe because I found much more quotes by them, than by for example Akhenaten. Zoroaster I definately like the least, mostly becuase of some warmongering quotes I didn't include here.
I really like what Confucius is saying about that we learn more from losing than from winning and that we shouldn't be afraid of losing, but I still have difficulties deciding if I like him more than Buddha. They also focus upon a bit different things, so maybe a unification of them would be best.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 04:02:00 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
I am thinking maybe I can merge the wisdom from all of them:
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1115
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
You're misplacing the "turn the other cheek"....
The context of images is very important.
If someone slaps you on your right cheek, while using his right hand (remember, at that time the left hand was "unclean" and not used for interactions with others), he had to use his backhand to hit you, and by doing so, he marked you as being a lower person than himself.
so Jesus teached to turn the other, the left cheek, If that person hit you there too, he (inadvertently) marked you as equal to himself.
It had nothing to do with fighting, or forgiving others for their misdeeds.
It is about all men being equal to each other.
Also, the comparisons are misleading through your selection of quotes, I will therefore not participate in your vote.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
You're misplacing the "turn the other cheek"....
The context of images is very important.
If someone slaps you on your right cheek, while using his right hand (remember, at that time the left hand was "unclean" and not used for interactions with others), he had to use his backhand to hit you, and by doing so, he marked you as being a lower person than himself.
How do you know this? I mean, this just seems like a wild speculation... and if he really intended you to interpet it like that, he seems to have been terribly bad at explaining it.
an eye for an eye (and a tooth for a tooth) saying
said to show that you believe if someone does something wrong, that person should be punished by having the same thing done to them
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/an-eye-for-an-eye-and-a-tooth-for-a-tooth
As far as I can tell, Jesus is addressing that saying.
Also, the comparisons are misleading through your selection of quotes, I will therefore not participate in your vote.
Fair enough. I have added another quote by Jesus that I like:
You see the mote in your brother's eye, but you do not see the beam in your own eye. When you cast the beam out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to cast the mote from your brother's eye.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 11:58:37 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
What I've heard about the cheek is that Roman soldiers were allowed to slap someone one time as punishment for whatever reason they felt like (past that, they were expected to have really solid reasons). So, turning the other cheek was supposed to be passive-aggressively saying you could take their arbitrary punishment; and saying to do that was specifically saying 'Do not fight the Romans'.
That explanation seems to have some holes to me, but that's what I heard.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1115
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
There are more interpretatons possible.
I searched for sites which can be cited, and actually found a wikipedia article on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek#Nonviolent_resistance_interpretation
Apparently a scholar named "Wink" spread the interpretation I heard.
But modern message and interpretation is non-violence, and not seeking revenge, which I can fully stand behind.
Note: only Matthew talks about "the right cheek".
Luke talks about "a cheek". Wink's interpretation won't work with Luke's telling.
But then, Luke's testimony (Gospel) is younger, and written quite a while later than the other three...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 10:05:17 pm by Krulle »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1115
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
That the quotes from many religious leaders can be interpreted in different ways is essential.
If they were straightforward and non-interpretable, they would not gain that much attraction.
You have to think about them. And that makes them alluring.
You need to understand the image they carry.
But that is also the reason why they can be used for anything you want.
Using unambinguous "forgive, and do not seek revenge" is not a good line to cite when you want to go to war with someone else.
So Jesus less clear quotes will be cited, and not his unambiguous ones.
Regarding proposing other quotes: I am not that much of a religious secure person that I can propose something fitting.
If I stumble over something, I might come back to you, but son't expect me to.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
The Aristotle -> Galileo connection is tenuous at best.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
The Aristotle -> Galileo connection is tenuous at best.
From http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-3-b-gutenberg-and-the-printing-revolution-in-europe
Printing presses were soon producing great numbers of books translated into Latin from Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, and other classic languages. These books dealt with many subjects such as literature, the law, philosophy, architecture, and geography. By 1500, Renaissance Venice was Europe’s printing capital with 150 presses at work.
Galileo grew up near Venice, and was exposed to lots of this translated literature. There were of course lots of other important documents that were translated. But many of the authors of those documents had also been influenced by Aristotle. Famous intellectuals from the Islamic Golden Age, were for example often heavily influenced by Aristotle.
Anyhow. Since this connection spans thousands of years, and is less clear than the other connections, I have made the arrow curvey.
However, I am strongly tempted to think that if there had emerged an equally strong thinker right after Aristotle's death, maybe the scientific revolution would have started then, more than 2000 years ago. But the transmission of wisdom and understanding is a difficult art, and maybe a little bit of wisdom/understanding was lost from Socrates to Plato, and a little bit more from Plato to Aristotle. So, maybe Aristotle was more or less incapable of educating someone to become more or less as wise as himself.
Euclid's Elements is a very important book that was published after Aristotle's death. However, after the destruction of the Library of Alexandria, we see more dogmatism and less original thinking, more or less until Galileo and the Italian Renaissance.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 02:10:41 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
In some ways, Aristotle was clearer and more scientific than Plato, so I wouldn't call it a straight decline. The big problem was how he was treated as authoritative and final.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
In some ways, Aristotle was clearer and more scientific than Plato, so I wouldn't call it a straight decline. The big problem was how he was treated as authoritative and final.
I agree, but if he had been more wise, maybe he would have focused more upon that? Socrates and Akhenaten did:
Socrates: Awareness of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom. True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us. The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. I am a fool, but I know I'm a fool and that makes me smarter than you. I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.
Akhenaten: True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubteth often, and changeth his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubteth not; he knoweth all things but his own ignorance.
I really like Akhenaten. I just found out that he also understood that revenge is a bad idea: Why seeketh thou revenge, O man! with what purpose is it that thou pursuest it? Thinkest thou to pain thine adversary by it? Know that thou thyself feelest its greatest torments.
And remember, Akhenaten lived at 1300 BC. That is 3300 years ago. So he might very well have been the first person to formulate these thoughts. In the old testament, which was written around 700 BC (long after Akhenaten) they believe that revenge is a good idea. Mohammed also believed revenge to be a good idea. It is apparently not so easy for humans to understand that revenge is a bad idea.
I am changing this quote by Socrates:
into
I am a citizen, not of any city or country, but of the world.
and putting it in the end of the article.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 11:19:35 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
