Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    China Military and Geopolitics

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4416
    Points : 4412
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Sep 14, 2020 3:05 am

    Within Christian Catholicism & Orthodoxy itself, there r different branches & sects:
     Eastern Catholic  List of Catholic orders and congregations
     Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches

    Just like in the Koran, the Bible gives different things to different people.
    There were also Nestorian (Assyrian) Christians & Jews in China, but most of them were gone before the 1st Opium War. 
    Btw, Chingis Khan, upon learning the Christian theology of "1 God in Heaven", declared that there should be 1 empire on Earth- i.e. his Mongolian Empire that later united China under his grandson Kublai.
    Begome
    Begome

    Posts : 27
    Points : 29
    Join date : 2020-09-12

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Begome on Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:33 am

    Only the Eastern Orthodox Church is Orthodox because only it has the Orthodox theology that explains our worldview.

    Eastern Catholics are pretty close to our theology but still deviate in a number of important ways, such as an undue (and Nestorian) focus on the "sacred heart" (which actually comes from Frankish pagan heart worship) and the acceptance of the Pope as "infallible supreme ruler of the universe", which is an entirely un-Christian idea (but no surprise that such an idea comes out of the West); they are also responsible for a number of massacres against Orthodox Christians in the East and are mostly a geopolitical tool of the Papacy. So, while they are clearly not Orthodox Christians, they show that the Roman Catholic Church isn't really a united Church, unlike their claims and unlike our Church, because they have all sorts of groups within it that believe wildly different things. In the Orthodox Church, whether you are in the East or in the West or anywhere else (and this, of course, includes Western Rite Eastern Orthodox) you must believe in our theology or you are not Orthodox by definition.
    The Oriental "Orthodox" also deviate greatly from our theology...it's not just about Chalcedon, as they have an entirely different Metaphysics from us, which becomes clear when they debate actual Orthodox people (see e.g. youtube.com/watch?v=4n-myvYQO8M). So you see, it is important to know what is the actual belief of a person when putting them in some category...if they are not Orthodox in their belief, like the Apostles and Church Fathers were, then they are not really / fully Christian (and most Roman Catholics today don't even know about the Church Fathers, other than, perhaps, St. Augustine); additionally, even a properly Orthodox person is not automatically a Saint and thus still constantly falls into Sin (and even Saints can sin, of course), so it's not valid, either, to look at any actions of any Orthodox people and call that something that is supported by Christianity. If you want to know what actions are actually supported by Christianity you need to read the Bible in the context of (i.e. with the commentary of) the Church Fathers, because the Bible is a very large collection of very old Books in languages (regarding the original text) that almost no one can understand any more today, so the proper interpretation is not always trivial.

    If by your comment about the Bible giving different things to different people you mean the Old Testament notion of the "Chosen People" (Israelites) then this is simply the early portion of God's working in the world. He chose the Israelites to establish His temple and carry His Commandments out into the world. When they started to become self-obsessed, however, and didn't accept the prophesied Messiah, who is His Son, He rejected them and entered into a new covenant with humanity (the New Testament), such that now His Church (the Orthodox Church) is the New Israel; this is why Christianity, unlike Judaism or Islam, is actually universalistic and doesn't view some people as inherently better than others. But while the Old Testament may seem much more "harsh" on the surface, if you pay attention, you can still find the teachings of the New Testament present in it, e.g. the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20) or "Love your neighbour as yourself" and the idea of not regarding people's worth differently based on social status (Leviticus 19:15-18) etc.

    With respect to the Chingis Khan thing...I don't see how that has to do with Christianity; Islam and Judaism also believe in One God and establishing "one empire under the sun" (e.g. a world government) is actually what the Bible prophesies the Antichrist will do.

    In an attempt to salvage the derailing of the thread, I certainly agree that numerous states and organizations (and especially the West) have attempted to use some perverted, false notion of Christianity for geopolitical purposes and this certainly happened in China, as well. But in Orthodoxy we have this idea of "synphonia", a balance / harmony, which applies also to the relationship between the Church and the State; so proper Orthodox Bishops will not allow the Church to be misused as a tool for geopolitical ambitions; if you are interested, you can check out the official Russian Orthodox Church's position on such issues at mospat.ru/en/documents/social-concepts/

    I think China could greatly benefit from a Christianization and the fact that, despite the persecution, so many people are participating in (even properly Orthodox) liturgies there shows that these people hunger for the Truth. At the same time, neither Russia nor any other Orthodox country will forcibly impose Christianity on them and this is not how Christianity works anyway; if there is a revolutionary element to Christianity then it is the revolution in one's heart, but not a rebellion or state coup.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4416
    Points : 4412
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:16 pm

    With respect to the Chingis Khan thing...I don't see how that has to do with Christianity; Islam and Judaism also believe in One God..
    regardless of which teaching he learned 1st, they r all monotheistic, & while fighting Muslims he used it to justify his ideology- similar to the 19th century Manifest Destiny in the USA.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmEScIUcvz0


    Since the Kievan Rus baptism in 988, the Russian Orthodox Church always served the state. in the USSR & now Russia, it was/is under the KGB/FSB control. 

    ..China could greatly benefit from a Christianization and the fact that, despite the persecution, so many people are participating in (even properly Orthodox) liturgies there shows that these people hunger for the Truth. 
    to the Orientals, there's more than 1 truth- Christianity is just 1 more teaching that some of them find helpful, while they & don't discard/integrate elements of it with Confucianist, Buddhist, Taoist & animist beliefs & practices. The same person will practice Confucianism in his daily life, Buddhism at a funeral, & Taoism when learning/practicing self healing/visual/martial arts & visiting a TCM doctor. 
    Btw, the Falun Gong  combined elements Buddhism & Taoism; it's the latest example of their mutual influences on each other, as the Chan (Zen) Buddhism itself is a product of Indian Buddhism combined with Taoism, which under its influence established its own formal church structure with big temples & monasteries. 
    The Chinese rulers were always afraid of religious sects getting out of control; they know how the West used Christianity to subjugate, exploit & colonize non-Europeans, & that's why they don't let Christian churches/NGOs to be infiltrated by outside intel services.
    Begome
    Begome

    Posts : 27
    Points : 29
    Join date : 2020-09-12

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Begome on Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:35 pm

    regardless of which teaching he learned 1st, they r all monotheistic, & while fighting Muslims he used it to justify his ideology- similar to the 19th century Manifest Destiny in the USA.
    My point is that just because someone claims to be Christian or claims to be inspired by what he thinks Christianity is doesn't mean that actual Christianity is now responsible for his actions...also, "monotheistic" is a term that can mean different things; from our view most Roman Catholics are actually polytheists and Muslims are pantheists with a rather unclear status of "monotheism" (but this only becomes apparent when deep diving into the theology).
    The USA was never Orthodox.

    Since the Kievan Rus baptism in 988, the Russian Orthodox Church always served the state. in the USSR & now Russia, it was/is under the KGB/FSB control.
    There is big difference between coexistence in harmony and subservience. The ROC has supported the state when it was doing things it approved of and seeing how the Tsarist state was mostly leading the country in a very Orthodox manner, there was no reason to form any kind of "opposition"; this changed with the October Revolution, however, and the ROC certainly didn't bow down and support the communists, which is why they killed and tortured more than 50,000 priests, raped nuns and destroyed almost all monasteries and most Church buildings. It is no coincidence that so many people fled Russia after the revolution that they were able to found an entire new local Church (ROCOR - the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) that then initiated a schism with the ROC once the few remaining ROC bishops in communist Russia started conceding to the communists' demands with the public declaration of then-Metropolitan Sergius in 1927, who, in his faithlessness, though to be fair under great hardship, capitulated to the atheists and started the process of allowing the ROC to be undermined by KGB agents and unbelievers. This is why it took more than 15 years after the fall of the Soviet Union for ROCOR to reunite with ROC...ROCOR was very insistent that any remnant of so-called Sergianism is purged. The fact that even today only a little more than 5% of the Russian population can simultaneously fit into ROC parish churches, despite the fact that Russia has been building on average 3 churches per day in the last 15 years and was a very Christian country before the revolution with a population of about 90 million of which most could fit into a church on Sunday and important holidays, shows the massive destruction that was wreaked, so the notion that the ROC was only ever a tool of the government is absurd, but unfortunately quite popular in the West, which, IMO, is simply a projection of what they know of "their own Church", which certainly does serve Western elites no matter the ideology and has for a long time (you can find images of Protestant ministers doing the Hitler salute in Nazi Germany and it's abundantly clear that today both most Protestant organizations as well as the RC Pope clearly push Western Liberalism).

    Back to China: yes, some elements of e.g. Hinduism are perennialist, but typically this is relatively superficial and simply meant to suck people into the religion (it is being propagated very intensely and with some success in the USA, especially), but it definitely has it's very own theology and metaphysics that merely uses perennialist notions as a tool. "True perennialism" is more of a modern invention and makes no sense whatsoever...it's just relativism, which is always self-contradictory; mixing and matching elements from different religions together only makes sense if you don't actually believe in any of them, because they all contradict one another; it is the modern, consumerist way to look at religion as just another product to incorporate into one's secular, godless lifestyle that has very different basic assumptions philosophically than any of those religions and therefore simply serves as yet another temporary distraction from the latent suspicion that life is meaningless. People have to be constantly and intensely indoctrinated not to notice this, which is what modern education systems and media do (the "secular prophets" like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye "the Science Guy" even explicitly tell you that you shouldn't think about philosophy, because their own philosophical grounding is absolutely laughable and if people did start thinking about this stuff they might start to notice that).
    Some people, though, will notice and then they will tell others and search together for an alternative, which is where both ideologies and religions can enter to "fill the void"...only one can actually be true, however, and Orthodox Christianity makes a very compelling case for itself, which is why it's growing much better than the other "denominations", and not just in the East. I think some concerns on the side of China with respect to outside influence from NGOs and religious organizations is legitimate but when it comes to Orthodox Christianity, which very decentralized to begin with, the disagreement is much more fundamental and to be found on the level of world view.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4416
    Points : 4412
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:40 pm

    The USA was never Orthodox.
    true, but its Westward expansion "from sea to shining sea" was justified in the name of progress & anti-paganism/animism/catholicism, as those lifeways/religions were practiced by the Natives & Mexicans that stood in the way. 

    ..from our view most Roman Catholics are actually polytheists..
    Slavic-paganism-make-its-way-to-the-practice-of-Orthodox-Christianity-in-RussiaEastern Orthodoxy: Mirror Image of Pagan Romanism

    Pagan symbols adopted by Christianity  http://oaks.nvg.org/ap3.html

    ..the notion that the ROC was only ever a tool of the government is absurd,..
    Peter the Great changed the ROC rights, installed a new Patriarch, & sent the Old Believers to hiding in Siberia & later abroad. Patriarchs Alexis & now Kirill was/is working hand in glove with KGB/FSB & Putin.

    ..Orthodox Christianity makes a very compelling case for itself, which is why it's growing much better than the other "denominations", and not just in the East.
    most Chinese Christians r Protestants, Baptists or Catholics, not Orthodox- I doubt there will be a huge following of Orthodoxy there. Like in India, there'll be more BuddhistsMuslims there than all the Christians combined. Official statistics don’t exist, but the Pew Research Center, which surveys religious belief worldwide, estimates some 245 million Buddhists in China, around 18% of the total national population. Another 21% of Chinese adhere to folk religions that often incorporate Buddhist beliefs, according to Pew. Buddhism Is Growing in China, But Remains in Legal Limbo ...

    [url=https://www.chinahighlights.com/travelguide/buddhism.htm#:~:text=Buddhism is China's oldest foreign,involved reaching Enlightenment through meditation.]Chinese Buddhism Facts and History[/url]

    Indeed, the Chinese venerate the Dragon (big flying snake) since according to their believes it controls rains essential to rice cultivation, while for the Christianity it represents evil that gave an apple to Eve & fought the righteous saintly heroes. 
    Don't expect most of them to convert/accept the E. Orthodoxy which is likely inspired the Egyptian theology:  https://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2017/04/11/How-Egypt-was-Christian-before-the-birth-of-Christ#:~:text=11%20April%202017-,The%20documented%20history%20of%20Egypt%20dates%20back%20to%20the%20age,years%20of%20its%20written%20history.&text=In%20fact%2C%20Egypt%20has%20succeeded,many%20of%20its%20ancient%20beliefs.

    Even in Russian built Harbin, the Saint Sophia Cathedral is now a museum.



    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Sep 14, 2020 10:09 pm; edited 5 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    Begome
    Begome

    Posts : 27
    Points : 29
    Join date : 2020-09-12

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Begome on Mon Sep 14, 2020 11:05 pm

    true, but its Westward expansion "from sea to shining sea" was justified in the name of progress & anti-paganism/animism/catholicism, as those lifeways/religions were practiced by the Natives & Mexicans that stood in the way.
    ...and it has nothing to do with Christianity; none of these people were Orthodox and it was their governments that pursued the expansion; if some RCs sanctioned it that would not surprise me but, again, has nothing to do with Orthodoxy.

    Responding to your links: Secular, Protestant and RC Western propaganda against Orthodoxy is more than 900 years old (in case of the latter) and doesn't impress any Orthodox Christian anymore. While Christianity (again, that's Orthodoxy, not some heretical sect or cult) does occasionally adapt itself to the local culture in its rites (see, e.g. Western Rite today and even in the local Churches in the East there are small differences that have to do with the history and traditions of those places and peoples) and obviously took a lot of practices from the Jews (I already talked about the Israelites in a previous post) to make it easier for the local population to accept it, but, of course, only in a Holy way (i.e. "baptizing" the tradition or rite), the theology is not altered, unlike in Western Christianity where you don't even know that you used to be Orthodox a long time ago anymore, because you keep changing your theologies (yes, plural; there is no unified Protestant or RC theology) as you please...what do you actually believe in? We know what we believe.
    Peter the Great changed the ROC rights, installed a new Patriarch, & sent the Old Believers to hiding in Siberia & later abroad.
    No one claimed that the relationship between the Church and the State was always perfect, but it was certainly far more balanced than in the West; after all, we live in a fallen world and not in paradise. The naming of a patriarch by the ruler is nothing new and goes back to the Byzantine Empire; that doesn't mean that the one named has to accept or is the ruler's slave and there are many cases where patriarchs went against the ruler if they thought the ruler was acting against God, even if it meant his imprisonment and torture. The patriarch is also not some form of Western-style pope but merely "first among equals" and in Orthodoxy in general we place far more weight on the laity, which ultimately preserves the faith even against heretical bishops and patriarchs and faithless rulers.
    Old Believers are a group of dangerous sects with very variable beliefs (so here again we have the same problem: what do they actually believe?) who in their pride chose to rebel against the Church...they needed to be dealt with but not everything that happened to them was done in the right way. Today, even though they are almost completely gone and thus irrelevant, they are a darling of Western and liberal anti-Orthodox press and organizations and the myths surrounding their oppression grow ever more adventurous.
    Patriarchs Alexis & now Kirill was/is working hand in glove with KGB/FSB & Putin.
    Hmm...potential suspects for poisoning Navalny? Laughing  Rolling Eyes

    Regarding future development of religious groups in China: I agree that Orthodox parishes are small in numbers there right now and I admit that overall the Evangelicals are still better than we are at missionizing (to our shame) but the notoriously anti-Orthodox Pew research center and their oh-so-scientific "estimates" are like asking some old Gypsie lady to look into a crystal ball for you. Some people believe the Apocalypse is nigh and thus China will be turning Orthodox soon but personally I think it may well be 1k+ years away (really, I have no idea...people have been prophesying that "the End is nigh" for thousands of years). When I was talking about the growth of Orthodoxy I was primarily referring to Eastern Europe (incl. Russia) as "the East", the West (we are still small there, as well, but growing while, at least in Western Europe, RC and Prots are losing members) and Africa. There may also be a reuniting with Oriental Orthodox in the future (there were some talks) but they obviously have to fix their theology first.
    Indeed, the Chinese venerate the Dragon (big flying snake) since according to their believes it controls rains essential to rice cultivation, while for the Christianity it represents evil that gave an apple to Eve & fought the righteous saintly heroes.
    Don't expect most of them to convert/accept the E. Orthodoxy
    The Dragon has nothing to do with the "snake" in the Garden of Eden...the "snake" was a spiritual entity (the Devil), not an actual snake (hint: actual snakes can't talk).
    It's true that sometimes the Devil is symbolized as a snake or even a snake with wings (though in proper Icons it is always completely black, which is not normally the case with "Chinese Dragons") but even in Eastern Europe you have traditions that regard Dragons as being more "neutral" or even benevolent beings, such as in the traditions of Bulgaria or Serbia, both Orthodox countries.
    E. Orthodoxy which is based on earlier Egyptian theology
    It doesn't matter how much drivel these anti-Orthodox authors come up with...one of those links even talks about the "judeo-christian religion" Laughing why don't you go ask an Orthodox Jew what he thinks of the concept of Judeo-Christian Religion? This fantasy was invented by Protestants in the last century to destroy RC and Orthodoxy through Ecumenism. Just because there are similarities between religions doesn't mean that they're all the same; it does, however, point to a common origin, which is part of our narrative and world view.
    Even in Russian built Harbin, the Saint Sophia Cathedral is now a museum.
    No surprises there...the Chinese government doesn't like religion because it has a religion of its own to sell and free and independent people can be harder to control than mindless consumerist drones. In EO parishes in China there is a mandatory registration of all participants for every liturgy with full name etc. that has to be given to the government.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4416
    Points : 4412
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:10 am

    ...and it has nothing to do with Christianity; none of these people were Orthodox.. 
    I just used as an example on how religion is being used to justify subjugation of others. They weren't the 1st: Turks, Arabs, Crusaders, Spaniards, & Portuguese done it before.


    We know what we believe.
    don't tell me there was no internal bloody strife within ur church in Byzantium.



    even in Eastern Europe you have traditions that regard Dragons as being more "neutral" or even benevolent beings, such as in the traditions of Bulgaria or Serbia, both Orthodox countries.
    that came from pre-Christian believes.



    why don't you go ask an Orthodox Jew what he thinks of the concept of Judeo-Christian Religion?

    I don't care what he or any1 else may think; the fact is that Christianity (& Islam) came from Judaism, just like Buddhism & Jainism came from Hinduism & Confucianism came from Taoism.

    Just because there are similarities between religions doesn't mean that they're all the same...
    I never stated that they r the same.



    Old Believers are a group of dangerous sects with very variable beliefs (so here again we have the same problem: what do they actually believe?) who in their pride chose to rebel against the Church...
    they split into sects after being outlawed & driven into exile; the official ROC was a tool of government control over the population so Peter the Great could concentrate on forcing reforms & building of an empire.


    the Chinese government doesn't like religion because it has a religion of its own to sell and free and independent people can be harder to control..
    None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/johann_wolfgang_von_goeth_134023


    Religion is what weak people need- those who follow it r also putting themselves under others' control as they r constrained by dogmas, tabus, & other restrictions that often do more harm than good.
     
    “Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you'd want them to treat you. The religious right wants to tell people how to live.”  https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/116680-organized-religion-is-a-sham-and-a-crutch-for-weak-minded
    I'm not here to debate religious matters in depth- it's off topic & isn't relevant to the geopolitics of China. 
    Having said that, the CCP is absolutely right to safeguard her population from infiltration by Western based religious organisations that r being used to weaken China from within. 


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Sep 15, 2020 12:11 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    Begome
    Begome

    Posts : 27
    Points : 29
    Join date : 2020-09-12

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Begome on Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:10 am

    I just used as an example on how religion is being used to justify subjugation of others. They weren't the 1st: Turks, Arabs, Crusaders, Spaniards, & Portuguese done it before.
    It had nothing to do with the points I was making and was all along just a part of a larger anti-religions rant by you, which you now finally made explicit in the last paragraph of your last post. Apart from the fact that I'm not here to defend all religions, are you honestly going to claim that non-religious ideas never caused any harm, including genocide? Forgot about the Nazis already? Or the British with their Darwinian "the English male is the peak of evolution"-style racial supremacy?
    don't tell me there was no internal bloody strife within ur church in Byzantium.
    Sure there was and the heretics lost. Since then, for more than 1200 years, no more Ecumenical Councils were necessary because the ones that took place made the theology explicit enough that any further heretics were dealt with based on what was written.
    that came from pre-Christian believes.
    Probably; my point was that the existence of traditions with "benevolent dragons" does not mean the nation can't be Christian.
    I don't care what he or any1 else may think; the fact is that Christianity (& Islam) came from Judaism
    Wrong. Christianity came from the Israelite traditions; some Jews back then would call that Judaism but that's not supported by the Old Testament, which establishes that the covenant is not made with Jews but Israelites (in fact, throughout the Old Testament non-Jews become important messengers and servants of God and are included in the covenant as Israelites; no-where are "Jews" referred to as the "Chosen People", even though both terms are used in the Bible); modern Talmudic Judaism, which is what is being referred to by such "brilliant authors" is not just post-Christian but also extremely anti-Christian. Even Messianic Judaism is anti-Christian and Islam claims to not just be the heir of the Israelite traditions but also of Christianity...according to the Quran Jesus was a prophet of Allah and the Apostles were Muslims.
    they split into sects after being outlawed & driven into exile;
    If what they believe is true then the world must end any day now or has already ended, since "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against His Church" but they sure do seem to have prevailed against the Old Believers.
    the official ROC was a tool of government control over the population so Peter the Great could concentrate on forcing reforms & building of an empire.
    Repeating it does not make it true. As I already told you, we are not Roman Catholic and a Patriarch is not a Pope; he is not an infallible supreme ruler. The Body of Christ is the Church, which means it is primarily the laity (since there are way more of us than all the Priests and Bishops combined, who are not privileged before God); so when you say that "the official ROC was a tool of government control over the population" you mean that the population was a tool of government control over the population, which doesn't make any sense.
    We don't change our theology for geopolitical, or any other reasons, unlike the West, starting with the infamous "filioque" pushed by the Franks, especially starting with Charlemagne. If the ruler is Orthodox, good; if the ruler is not or is too much of a sinner, that's not good but it doesn't matter since we'll still remain Orthodox as we have for two thousand years, even as a majority of bishops, including the patriarch, became heretics in some periods; we will keep the faith always and no government or heretic inside or outside the Church can change that.

    Now on to the meat:
    First: your "brainyquote"...argumentum ad auctoritatem (a logical fallacy); why should I care what some Westerner says? By what standard, exactly, do you determine whether someone is free or not? How do you define "free"? How do you justify, in your world view, that someone should be free or not free? (Also: what, exactly, is your world view? I suspect atheistic materialism)

    Second:
    Religion is what weak people need- those who follow it r also putting themselves under others' control as they r constrained by dogmas, tabus, & other restrictions that often do more harm than good.
    Apart from the ad hominem this is ridiculous on multiple levels:
       1) since you clearly have a position (a "world view" as we are debating on the paradigm level here) you are also constrained by dogmas / taboos / other restrictions (at the very least some form of scientism/empiricism as it seems)
       2) therefore your implicit assertion that persons constrained by dogmas etc. are "weak" would apply to yourself and not separate you from the group you want to criticize, thus turning you into a hypocrite
       3) how do you derive the moral standard that decides what is "good" and "bad", what is "weak" and "strong"? I strongly suspect it's completely arbitrary and simply based on "muh feelings"
    and more:
    Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business.
    And what are you doing here, exactly? Are you not "sticking your nose into my business" spreading lies about my faith, telling me I and my friends are weak according to you, the "enlightened atheist"? Who is in control in the West right now? Is it Orthodox Christians or (mostly) liberal atheists? If I, as a Christian, wanted to keep my children out of school so they don't get turned into someone like you by the propaganda there they would literally lock me up and take my children away, as has happened to other Christians in Germany. So it seems to me it is people like you who are part of a sham (completely unjustified, incoherent world view), sticking your nose into other people's business while having "strength in numbers"; I could also say that "your incoherent world view is nothing but a crutch for weak-minded people with insecurities about their sinful lifestyle", which would perfectly accord with your arbitrary "Golden Rule morality - Treat others as you'd want them to treat you", but I'm going to take that back since I'm not here to insult the people on this forum.

    Third:
    The religious right wants to tell people how to live.
    Coming from someone in the West I can only laugh...you need to wake up. Liberals (who are mostly atheists, as well) are literally trying to tell everyone else how to live all the time (e.g. youtube.com/watch?v=qUm8h_ON8qo talking about an article in one of the largest German newspapers that literally titles "Who means to do good for the Russians needs to demand their liberalization" as just one of the latest examples)...along with telling us how we're all sexist, racist, patriarchal and should eat more soy and have more gay sex and commit more adultery and kill more babies etc. etc. etc...liberals are the worst moralizers because they have completely arbitrary morals combined with no humility or self-reflection whatsoever and thus get lost in endless layers of hypocrisy and self-contradiction.
    I'm not here to debate religious matters in depth- it's off topic & isn't relevant to the geopolitics of China.
    First, since China is one of the most anti-Christian places on the planet today and this stance has geopolitical implications, not to speak of the implications of the mainstream world view within a country on its military and geopolitical development (just look at the soyboy German army, which is now adopting genderized ranks, the English equivalent of which would be e.g. "Captainess" as well as endlessly going back and forth on whether Germany should have armed drones or not, because air strikes are patriarchal) and, second, you started this by deciding that some Protestant-spinoff cultish heretic who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus and started a genocide was a proper representative of Christianity, which I simply pointed out as false and then you turned it into a more extensive rant about the "evils of Christianity" while claiming that Patriarch Kyrill is an FSB agent and finally into a generalized "religion is a crutch for weak-minded people" ad hominem et alia fallacies feast...I'm happy to let it go but at this point an apology would be nice.

    Having said that, the CCP is absolutely right to safeguard her population from infiltration by Western based religious organisations that r being used to weaken China from within.
    I agree, but there aren't only "Western Christians" in China and Orthodox Christianity would absolutely strengthen the country.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4416
    Points : 4412
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:13 am

    are you honestly going to claim that non-religious ideas never caused any harm, including genocide? Forgot about the Nazis already? Or the British with their Darwinian "the English male is the peak of evolution"-style racial supremacy?
     -those had religious, even if not Christian, attributes as well.


    Sure there was and the heretics lost. Since then, for more than 1200 years, no more Ecumenical Councils were necessary because the ones that took place made the theology explicit enough that any further heretics were dealt with based on what was written.
    -how sweet, they decided what every1 should believe in & therefore those who won't conform didn't have the right to live & think differently. How about the Judaic/Christian dictums "do not kill" & "love ur enemies", were they made heretical also?


    Probably; my point was that the existence of traditions with "benevolent dragons" does not mean the nation can't be Christian.
    - the Chinese & other Asians have a lot more traditions to give up besides dragons to become truly Christian as u want them to be.


    Wrong. Christianity came from the Israelite traditions; some Jews back then would call that Judaism but that's not supported by the Old Testament, which establishes that the covenant is not made with Jews but Israelites..
    -they became Jews after leaving their homes in Palestine & mixing with others, while retaining Judaism as their faith & lifeway.

    If what they believe is true then the world must end any day now or has already ended, since "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against His Church" but they sure do seem to have prevailed against the Old Believers.- that's not relevant to my argument; their persecution by the ROC & the government is.

    when you say that "the official ROC was a tool of government control over the population" you mean that the population was a tool of government control over the population, ..-the laity could believe whatever it wanted as long as it did what it was told, didn't stand in the way of the powers that be & kept quiet.

    If the ruler is Orthodox, good; if the ruler is not or is too much of a sinner,..- by what criteria/definition? this is another tool of control of the faithful who give power to clerics to rule over them by defining & interpreting what is sin & what is a virtue. 

    ..even as a majority of bishops, including the patriarch, became heretics in some periods;..-so much for the strength of their character & the overall Orthodox theology in general. 

    By what standard, exactly, do you determine whether someone is free or not? How do you define "free"? How do you justify, in your world view, that someone should be free or not free?- freedom is a natural state of an individual, not under restriction of any imposed dogma on how he should think & behave, & not subjected to intrusion into his personal life. 

    (Also: what, exactly, is your world view? I suspect atheistic materialism)- that's not relevant & is none of ur business; worry about ur own problems & don't stick ur nose where it doesn't belong.

    you are also constrained by dogmas / taboos / other restrictions (at the very least some form of scientism/empiricism as it seems)- no I'm not; don't judge me by ur own standards.

       3) how do you derive the moral standard that decides what is "good" and "bad", what is "weak" and "strong"?-this has nothing to do with morality of any kind; everything is relative. However, there must be something wrong with a religion that allows to arbitrarily set & impose dogmas & rules that leaves so many victims in its wake.

    And what are you doing here, exactly? Are you not "sticking your nose into my business" spreading lies about my faith,
    telling me I and my friends are weak according to you, the "enlightened atheist"?- this shows that ur religion didn't teach u how to be objective & be above getting into polemics. I'm not at all concerned what ur believes r, as long as they don't cause u to violate/abuse the rights of others.

    So it seems to me it is people like you who are part of a sham (completely unjustified, incoherent world view),..-since u don't know what my worldview is, u r not to judge me, much less to engage in personal attacks here.

    ..liberals are the worst moralizers because they have completely arbitrary morals combined with no humility or self-reflection whatsoever and thus get lost in endless layers of hypocrisy and self-contradiction.- I'm not 1 of them, but the same can be said about many Christian clerics who don't do what they preach.

    First, since China is one of the most anti-Christian places on the planet today and this stance has geopolitical implications,..-we can & should discuss geopolitical implications w/o debating religious matters; as a matter of fact, I would now ask the mods to remove these posts elsewhere to keep this thread on topic. 

    second, you started this by deciding that some Protestant-spinoff cultish heretic who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus and started a genocide was a proper representative of Christianity,..-proper or not, it wasn't my point at all; China was victimised & weakened by the West by its proselytizing. If u have trouble with English comprehension, I can PM u in Russian next time.  

    ..claiming that Patriarch Kirill is an FSB agent..-Why should it offend u? Even if he isn't & never was, he's doing a good job for United Russia Party & Putin so far.
     
    I'm happy to let it go but at this point an apology would be nice.- hold ur breath; if u really need it, I'm sorry for u!

    I agree, but there aren't only "Western Christians" in China and Orthodox Christianity would absolutely strengthen the country.
    u can thank the Mongols & Tartars who used Chinese engineers to take Russian cities for not oppressing the ROC. 
    In retrospect, the Orthodox Christianity could do a lot better in preventing Russia from sliding into rebellions, serfdom, civil wars, revolutions, banditism/crime, drunkenness, famines, low life expectancy, oligarchism, & loss of territories. The Russian Empire was built upon incorporating other peoples into the Russian World, but it didn't work well- otherwise the USSR wouldn't have imploded. 

    In contrast, China had been invaded dozens of times, but the invaders themselves got Sinicized- thanks to enduring Confucian & Taoist/Buddhist tradition that sustained her & influenced all the others in E. Asia for millenia. Indeed, instead of suggesting she adopts Orthodox Christianity, how about some soul searching & considering adopting Confucianism, Taoism & Buddhism? The latter, of the Tibetan variety, is already practiced in Buryatia.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:21 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    Begome
    Begome

    Posts : 27
    Points : 29
    Join date : 2020-09-12

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Begome on Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:05 pm

    -those had religious, even if not Christian, attributes as well.
    Apart from the fact that you've behaved worse than most Evangelical zealots in your last posts (how's that for showing "religious attributes"?) it doesn't matter what religions they may or may not have referenced in their ideology. As I said many times now: I'm not here to defend some strawman you set up or some arbitrary religion or cult, but the only truth: Orthodox Christianity! Besides, if I went insane and shot a bunch of people "in the name of Christianity" right now it wouldn't tarnish Christianity because there's nothing in (actual) Christianity telling me to do that. In the case of atheistic ideologies, however, (Liberalism, Communism, Fascism) you will always have genocides (French Revolution, "cleansings", Holocaust) because you don't appreciate the value of a human being, because for you "everything is relative" (which is self-contradictory, as I'll explain below), so there is no universal moral standard telling you e.g. "do not murder". Orthodox Christian doctrine has never caused a genocide anywhere.
    -how sweet, they decided what every1 should believe in & therefore those who won't conform didn't have the right to live & think differently. How about the Judaic/Christian dictums "do not kill" & "love ur enemies", were they made heretical also?
    I didn't say there were killed, just that they lost; of course from your perspective you naturally jump to genocide of the opponent, no surprises there. The bloodshed was mostly perpetrated by the heretics (e.g. iconoclasts) and violence outside of pure self-defense or protecting the innocent on the part of the righteous was rare.
    - the Chinese & other Asians have a lot more traditions to give up besides dragons to become truly Christian as u want them to be.
    I actually lived in China for more than a year as well as other parts of Asia and I can tell you that especially in China there are barely any traditions left thanks to the rabid spreading of consumerism (for most Chinese it's all about money these days) and the atheism that is forced on the people by the ruling elites. Additionally, as I've already said, Orthodoxy has no problem adapting to the local culture, translating the scriptures and liturgies so the people can understand and even creating entire new rites of worship that fit more with the local culture. The only thing that doesn't change is the theology. Also: do I want the Chinese and everyone else to be Orthodox? Yes. Do they need to need to be Orthodox "as I want"? No; just in case there is a misunderstanding here.
    -they became Jews after leaving their homes in Palestine & mixing with others, while retaining Judaism as their faith & lifeway.
    That's also wrong, since "Judaism" was something that developed and not just monolithically...there are many different kinds of "Judaism" that came about but it is a thoroughly ethnic religion, which is not what God intended.
    by what criteria/definition?
    Do you still not get it? By the Orthodox criteria...this is why it's important to have a universal, unchanging standard.
    -the laity could believe whatever it wanted as long as it did what it was told, didn't stand in the way of the powers that be & kept quiet.
    this is another tool of control of the faithful who give power to clerics to rule over them by defining & interpreting what is sin & what is a virtue.
    This is self-contradicting...which is it? Do "the clerics rule over the laity" telling them what to believe or can the "laity believe whatever it wanted"?
    so much for the strength of their character & the overall Orthodox theology in general.
    Connecting to my previous point: you acknowledge that my assertion that in Orthodoxy it is the Body of Christ (His Church, which is mostly the laity) that keeps the faith; as long as the ruler and the clerics fulfil their function properly there is no problem; otherwise the laity and the minority of faithful clerics will keep the faith safe against the heretics until better times, as has happened many times in our history. We don't "go with the flow" and change our theology just because the mainstream demands it, like the "Western Churches" have done; this is why we are still Orthodox and you are not, which, contrary to your assertion, clearly shows the strength of Orthodoxy in comparison to the ever-changing and self-destructing Western theologies (which, btw., is where your relativism comes from in the first place...it is eternal revolution).
    freedom is a natural state of an individual
    Hardly. If that were true problems like drug addiction, depression, other kinds of pain and suffering, disease and death etc. wouldn't exist. The only freedom possible for us comes through a rejection of "the world" i.e. the passions that beset us; only through Christ and Theosis can we truly be free. And to engage in this process or not is our free decision.
    not under restriction of any imposed dogma on how he should think & behave, & not subjected to intrusion into his personal life.
    That is only possible to the extent that you can become a hermit somewhere deep in the forest or desert, which many Saints have done (although even then you will live with dogmas - the ones you impose on yourself). If you wish to live among other people there is always going to be a common set of rules and standards (dogma) that will restrict you. There is no system that gets rid of that.
    no I'm not; don't judge me by ur own standards.
    Of course you are and I don't say this based on my standards but simple logic: there is no epistemological basis without a framework within which to think about the world; at the very least, this framework will be part of the dogma of anyone capable of acquiring knowledge.
    that's not relevant & is none of ur business; worry about ur own problems & don't stick ur nose where it doesn't belong.
    Of course you don't want to talk about your world view, because it's utterly incoherent (as I'll show below)...that doesn't mean that it's not relevant since you are criticising mine and I am questioning the basis on which you are building this critique; you not wanting to answer is simply evasion and not an argument.

    And here comes the core issue: relativism...the following statements you made, just in one reply as an example, are universal claims and thus not relative:
    this has nothing to do with morality of any kind;
    everything is relative.
    However, there must be something wrong with a religion that allows to arbitrarily set & impose dogmas & rules that leaves so many victims in its wake.
    Yes, the claim that "everything is relative" is a universal claim and thus entirely self-contradicting. This is the typical philosophical position of Westerners today, because no one teaches you basic logic and philosophy anymore (by design, as I've mentioned before...your secular High Priests even tell you not to look into philosophy, because then you might notice how much BS you are fed). And of course this has everything to do with morality...do you honestly think that saying "there must be something wrong with a religion [...]", "don't stick ur nose where it doesn't belong", "Religion is what weak people need" are not moral claims? How do you determine where "my nose belongs" or doesn't belong? How did you decide that "some people are weak and thus need religion"? And of course these are all not just moral claims but also universal claims...I see this hypocrisy everyday: atheists telling me that I can't criticize their world view because "everything is relative", "everyone has their own truths" (both universal claims, btw.) and then turning around and telling me what to do (like not criticize their beliefs). It's pure Sophistry.

    If everything is relative and thus nothing universally true, then why are you trying to claim this as a universal truth?

    this shows that ur religion didn't teach u how to be objective & be above getting into polemics. I'm not at all concerned what ur believes r, as long as they don't cause u to violate/abuse the rights of others.
    -since u don't know what my worldview is, u r not to judge me, much less to engage in personal attacks here.
    Are you kidding me? I literally reflected your own statements back to you to show you how you are treating me...this is what I meant by a complete lack of humility and self-reflection. Go read your own posts about how "religious people are a weak-minded mob, part of a sham, telling others what to do", before you cry about "personal attacks".
    -we can & should discuss geopolitical implications w/o debating religious matters; as a matter of fact, I would now ask the mods to remove these posts elsewhere to keep this thread on topic.
    I have no problem with moving the posts, but everyone can see (and I've screenshotted this now) how I simply pointed out that your assertion about a cultish heretic, who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus and engaged in a genocide, being a proper representative of Christianity is false...then you went off on your anti-religious rants (which: why are you doing it in the first place, if "everything is relative"? How can it be a universal fact that "religion is bad"?).
    If u have trouble with English comprehension, I can PM u in Russian next time.  
    Again, so much for no personal attacks...if I were to, again, apply your own stated moral standard (Golden Rule) to this, I should be telling you how you're not able to understand my points, but I won't.
    Why should it offend u? Even if he isn't & never was, he's doing a good job for United Russia Party & Putin so far.
    It doesn't offend me at all, because I can't take it seriously...but you're welcome to actually present proof of how he is an FSB agent.
    if u really need it, I'm sorry for u!
    More condescension while whining about personal attacks.
    u can thank the Mongols & Tartars who used Chinese engineers to take Russian cities for not oppressing the ROC.
    They did oppress it, they just didn't destroy it.
    In retrospect, the Orthodox Christianity could do a lot better in preventing Russia from sliding into rebellions, serfdom, civil wars, revolutions, banditism/crime, drunkenness, famines, low life expectancy, oligarchism, & loss of territories.
    Why don't you compare the territory held by the pagan Kievan Rus before Christianization and today (or, if you like, before the October Revolution)? It seems to me they've done pretty well and yes, this is obviously due, in part, to the stability that a coherent and true system of faith provides.
    As I already pointed out, Orthodoxy is anti-rebellious and anti-revolutionary...just because God allowed degenerate Westerners to spread their harmful ideologies to Russia due to Russians not being strong enough in their faith to reject that (watch Солнечный удар (2014)...perfect movie to show that) doesn't mean that Orthodoxy isn't true.
    Banditism/crime and drunkenness are also strictly opposed by the Church, while atheism actively drives people toward those things.
    Serfdom in Russia was not slavery like in the US or South America or, even worse, the Muslim countries (which Orthodox Christians actually helped end...see, e.g. the conquest of Crimea, the then slave-trading center of Eurasia, by Catherine the Great)...the serfs didn't belong to the land owners directly but were tied to the land and couldn't just be murdered or starved but actually had to be cared for by the land owner (there was even a law that land owners were not allowed to free serfs during times of famine, so they couldn't get around the responsibility of feeding the serfs on their land, even if it meant they had to sell all their assets to pay for the expensive food, which was high in demand).
    The Russian Empire was built upon incorporating other peoples into the Russian World, but it didn't work well- otherwise the USSR wouldn't have imploded.
    In contrast, China had been invaded dozens of times, but the invaders themselves got Sinicized- thanks to enduring Confucian & Taoist/Buddhist tradition that sustained her & influenced all the others in E. Asia for millenia.
    Of course it worked well...there are > 50 ethnic groups living in the Russian Federation today, all russified. The USSR was not the Russian Empire...how can that not be obvious?
    Indeed, instead of suggesting she adopts Orthodox Christianity, how about some soul searching & considering adopting Confucianism, Taoism & Buddhism? The latter, of the Tibetan variety, is already practiced in Buryatia.
    Because all of them are false. I didn't end up Orthodox by birth (although I was a "cultural Christian") but actually grew up an atheist. It is only later in life that I did "soul searching" and considered many different world views and religions until becoming convinced that Orthodox Christianity is the truth. But of course it's no surprise that you're trying to push other religions...Voltaire also didn't mind religions in general, as long as they subjugated themselves to his ideology; he wrote "ecrasez l'infame" under all his letters because he hated the Truth, which is Jesus Christ, and wanted to destroy Christianity while promoting "religious freedom" (you're free to practice what you want but only where we can't see or we kill you - the infamous "Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood - or Death" liberty to do as we do or die, equality and brotherhood for all who think like us and death for everyone else...Napoleon and Hitler were also quite enamoured with Islam, because it preaches falsehood and sin, just like their ideologies).

    The Chinese people are not the Chinese government and the fact that the government is suppressing all sorts of different movements and religions there, including ones that have more of an "Asian tradition", like Falun Gong, shows that this is much more about remaining in power and perpetuating harmful ideologies than promoting a strong culture and preserving traditions. Like any revolutionary system it is going to continue to be rather unstable and will inevitably collapse. My hope is that Russia regains her faith in the truth and serves as a beacon and example for other nations in the future, including for China.
    That is really all I want to say in terms of strictly-on-topic comments...the only reason I keep refuting your anti-religious rants is because of a (very faint) hope that you will actually change your mind and because there might be other people reading this and perhaps use some of what I said to reconsider their own world view if they are not Orthodox.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4416
    Points : 4412
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Sep 15, 2020 9:24 pm

    I'm not here to defend some strawman you set up or some arbitrary religion or cult, but the only truth: Orthodox Christianity!
    to the Asians, there's more than 1 truth, & religious traditions r not necessarily mutually exclusive. Thus, Orthodox Christianity won't be accepted by most of them w/o changing it to something else, like Islam & Buddhism were changed centuries ago. 

    Orthodox Christian doctrine has never caused a genocide anywhere.- including during the Russian Empire's wars/colonizations in Alaska, Caucasus & Jewish pogroms? I didn't say there were killed, just that they lost;..-even if some were killed or died later as a result, it's unacceptable & not an  excuse.

    Orthodoxy has no problem adapting to the local culture, translating the scriptures and liturgies so the people can understand and even creating entire new rites of worship that fit more with the local culture. The only thing that doesn't change is the theology.
    why should they adopt something that conflicts with their worldview that formed & kept evolving over millennia w/o it? To most of them, the game isn't going to be worth the candle.
     

    That's also wrong, since "Judaism" was something that developed and not just monolithically...there are many different kinds of "Judaism" that came about but it is a thoroughly ethnic religion, which is not what God intended.- wrong; there is only 1 Judaism, although with many divisions added since its inception. How do u know "what God intended"? If u claim that God speaks through u or ur teachers, as many other Christians do, that's monopolization of truth. That alone disqualifies the rest of the Orthodox theology.

    Do you still not get it? By the Orthodox criteria...this is why it's important to have a universal, unchanging standard.- that again contradicts the Oriental worldview: the only thing permanent is change. For that, there r Yin-Yang & 5 elements theories, besides the I Ching (Book of Changes), the Tao Te Ching, & the Taoist Canon.

    This is self-contradicting...which is it? Do "the clerics rule over the laity" telling them what to believe or can the "laity believe whatever it wanted"?- They could hide their beliefs but were still being ruled, just like the Jews of Spain & its colonies who converted to Catholicism but still secretly practiced Judaism, or those Christians who paid taxes to Muslim rulers to be allowed to worship, but subjected to the Holy Inquisition or Sharia laws. "Those who work with their hands r being ruled; those who work with with their heads rule" https://www.amazon.com/Concept-Contemporary-Michigan-Classics-Chinese/dp/0892641444
    ..the strength of Orthodoxy in comparison to the ever-changing and self-destructing Western theologies..-but in comparison with Oriental traditions it's weak, as it's religious philosophy based on the Greek Platonism, while the real world operates well outside of its logical constraints. 
    The only freedom possible for us comes through a rejection of "the world" i.e. the passions that beset us; only through Christ and Theosis can we truly be free. And to engage in this process or not is our free decision.- what happened to the idea that "God is within us", & "we all have a free will, as God intended"?

    If you wish to live among other people there is always going to be a common set of rules and standards (dogma) that will restrict you. 
    wrong again- read the definition of Dogma!

    How do you determine where "my nose belongs" or doesn't belong?- I get to decide whether ur actions concerning me r appropriate or not, not u.

    How did you decide that "some people are weak and thus need religion"?- if they were strong, they would worship their own bodies, taking care of their health & well being, instead of just bending together for prayers & doing some charitable work they find helpful to their consciousness, and preaching to others in the hope to convert them to satisfy their egos

    If everything is relative and thus nothing universally true, then why are you trying to claim this as a universal truth?- "everything is relative & ever changing" is the universal truth.
    Are you kidding me? I literally reflected your own statements back to you to show you how you are treating me...- u r reminding me of those Muslims who get easily offended by criticism of their religion. It's not my goal to berate any1 here; if my being objective when in presenting arguments is so offencive, that only shows ur own shallowness & mediocrity.

    your assertion about a cultish heretic, who claimed to be the younger brother of Jesus and engaged in a genocide, being a proper representative of Christianity is false...-I never claimed that he was "a proper representative of Christianity"- don't ever put words in my mouth again! he was a manifestation of a common trend of religions mutually influencing each other.

    then you went off on your anti-religious rants (which: why are you doing it in the first place, if "everything is relative"? How can it be a universal fact that "religion is bad"?).- it can be good in some instances & bad in others, & I didn't say anywhere that religions r always bad; they play their role but they were misused & abused more often than not, in both East & West.

    Again, so much for no personal attacks...if I were to, again, apply your own stated moral standard (Golden Rule) to this, I should be telling you how you're not able to understand my points, but I won't.- me "not understanding" ur points is in ur judgement; they r shallow & every easy to understand, as to me, it's ur worldview that is incoherent. 

    It doesn't offend me at all, because I can't take it seriously...but you're welcome to actually present proof of how he is an FSB agent.-whether he is or not, it's not essential/relevant. In Russia, all high ranking hierarchs even below the Patriarch work with & report to the special services as needed. That's an axiom.

    They did oppress it, they just didn't destroy it.- even if they did oppress it, not hard enough to allow Sergey of Radonezh to become the spiritual head of the ROC & help Dmitry Donskoi to fight them.

    Why don't you compare the territory held by the pagan Kievan Rus before Christianization and today (or, if you like, before the October Revolution)? It seems to me they've done pretty well and yes, this is obviously due, in part, to the stability that a coherent and true system of faith provides.- the Mongols took fragmented post-Kievan Rus the ROC couldn't hold together; Alaska & California possessions with its converts had to be sold before others took it by force. Ukraine,  Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhstan & the Baltics with large Orthodox populations were lost during the USSR breakup; wars in Georgia & Ukraine couldn't be stopped by the ROC; today's RF areas beyond the Urals is sparsely populated & easy to hold. Not much to boast about! 

    Banditism/crime and drunkenness are also strictly opposed by the Church,..- The Orthodox Christianity was chosen by Count Vladimir because it didn't prohibit drinking of alcohol which was popular even then. 
    Serfdom in Russia was not slavery like in the US or South America or, even worse, the Muslim countries..- but it was in place till 1861, much later than in the rest of Europe & many other places.

    The USSR was not the Russian Empire...how can that not be obvious?- it was, under a different name. Refer to the Soviet Anthem.

    Because all of them are false.- by categorically stating that, u confirm in their minds that it's not worthy of converting into. People's nature stays the same- even of those who allegedly killed the self-declared son of God & later repented & now proselytizing faith in him; such people shouldn't be trusted. Their good intentions, if that was ever the case, paved the road to hell for the Ms of those they converted & their descendants.

    But of course it's no surprise that you're trying to push other religions...-only for the sake of the argument; I'm just beating u with at own game. 

    Napoleon and Hitler were also quite enamoured with Islam, because it preaches falsehood and sin, just like their ideologies).- they both fought the British & needed Muslim allies. Under the Ottoman Turks, Christians & Jews lived better than under kings & tsars. What sins does Islam preaches? To the Muslims, Christians r the bigger sinners.

    the Chinese government ..is suppressing all sorts of different movements and religions there, including ones that have more of an "Asian tradition", like Falun Gong, shows that this is much more about remaining in power and perpetuating harmful ideologies than promoting a strong culture and preserving traditions. - it views itself as the guardian of state unity; once the ideology cracks & yields to religious sects, the whole gov. structure will collapse. That's why the CCP owns & controls the PLA, not the state.

    Like any revolutionary system it is going to continue to be rather unstable and will inevitably collapse.- not if they transform into nationalistic KMT-like run state. China may later even become a confederation with regional autonomies but 1 capital.

    My hope is that Russia regains her faith in the truth and serves as a beacon and example for other nations in the future, including for China.- if/when that happens, the Chinese will regain their original faiths 1st before adopting anything else from unpredictable Russia.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:08 pm; edited 6 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)

    George1 likes this post

    Begome
    Begome

    Posts : 27
    Points : 29
    Join date : 2020-09-12

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Begome on Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:48 pm

    to the Asians, there's more than 1 truth
    That's just what some Asians want you to think...as I already pointed out in one of my previous posts the perennial element in parts of Hinduism, for example, is just superficial; deep down they have their own theology and metaphysics that is not perennial.
    Russian Empire's wars/colonizations in Alaska, Caucasus & Jewish pogroms?
    even if some were killed or died later as a result, it's unacceptable & not an  excuse.
    I didn't say that I was excusing it, but the Orthodox Church does not wage war...unlike Muslims or Roman Catholics we don't have an extensively developed "Just War" or "Holy War" doctrine; the Church will, however, support a war led by the state if it is defensive or helps protect the innocent or other Orthodox nations...this I have also already pointed out and pointed you to a link where you can read about the official ROC position on this stuff...if you're just going to repeat the same old lies again and again, despite me debunking you with proof then I'll have to call you a troll.
    why should they adopt something that conflicts with their worldview that formed & kept evolving over millennia w/o it? To most of them, the game isn't going to be worth the candle.
    Because it's actually coherent and because most of them don't really care about old traditions anymore anyway "thanks to" the Communists. Whether it's worth it for them or not will be their decision and not for some anti-religious Westerner to decide. Besides, if everything is relative, how do you even know what things are worth it for them or not? What universal standard that can be applied both to you and them are you using here, if universal standards can't exist?
    wrong; there is only 1 Judaism , although with many divisions added since its inception. How do u know "what God intended"? If u claim that God speaks through u or ur teachers, as many other Christians do, that's monopolization of truth. That alone disqualifies the rest of the Orthodox theology.
    Because God says so in the Bible (e.g. Rom 10:12-14, Gal 3:28-29 or the entire chapter Romans 11 which gives background even); the rest is just another straw man you drew up as well as an attempt at a fallacy fallacy (yes, those exist; look it up).
    that again contradicts the Oriental worldview: the only thing is permanent is change. For that, there r Yin-Yang & 5 elements theories, besides the I Ching (Book of Changes), the Tao Te Ching, & the Taoist Canon.
    That is self-contradicting again: if the basic principle in the world is eternal change then this principle must also eventually change, therefore inducing stability and contradicting itself.
    They could hide their believes but were still being ruled, just like the Jews of Spain & its colonies who converted to Catholicism but still secretly practiced Judaism, or those Christians who paid taxes to Muslim rulers to be allowed to worship, but subjected to the Holy Inquisition or Sharia laws. "Those who work with their hands r being ruled; those who work with with their heads, rule."
    Good, you cleared up the contradiction; however, I don't see the issue here now. Your point originally was that the ROC is just a Tsarist tool for control, while I pointed out that its basic principles (the theology) is preserved by the Body of Christ, which the Tsar can't change, no matter how many heretical patriarchs he tries to install. True Christians won't start a revolution but they also won't abandon the faith and their principles just because the Tsar says so.
    -but in comparison with Oriental traditions it's weak, as it's religious philosophy based on the Greek Platonism, while the real world operates well outside of its logical constraints.
    Orthodoxy isn't based on Platonism lol...this is just another popular Western smear job. We take from the Greeks what is useful but most of the time when we use the same philosophical terms they actually have a different meaning (e.g. look up the differences for terms like οὐσία, ὑπόστασις, νοῦς etc.)...also, I'd be very interested in exactly what you mean by the real world operating outside of certain logical constraints...might this be the beginning of you admitting that ultimately you reject logic?
    what happened to the idea that "God is within us", & "we all have a free will, as God intended"?
    Those statements do not contradict what I said; God is not just within us, He is permeating the entire universe with His Energies and, as I've said, we can all freely decide whether to participate in theosis or not...but if we don't then we will have chosen to be slaves to the passions.
    wrong again- read the definition of Dogma!
    Have you? From your link:
    Dogma: 1a : something held as an established opinion
                especially : a definite authoritative tenet (tenet is defined there as "a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true")
    I said there will be "a common set of rules and standards", which will obviously be based on definitive authoritative principles, beliefs or doctrines generally held to be true. Thus my statement holds.
    - I get to decide whether ur actions concerning me r appropriate or not, not u.
    Actually you don't and neither do I...not even in this forum and certainly not in the real world. Here it is the mods and the admin that will decide that and in the real world a court; both of those may take your statements as input but ultimately the decision will be based on rules that did not come from you.
    - if they were strong, they would worship their own bodies, taking care of their health & well being, instead of just bending together for prayers & doing some charitable work they find helpful to their consciousness.
    So I ask you for the, what, the third (?) time: How do you decide whether someone is strong or weak, good or bad? "Muh feelings"? Besides, even in the West you have studies showing that religiosity correlates with health and the Church certainly encourages people to stay healthy but that doesn't mean that you start "worshipping your own body", which would simply be unbridled pride and doomed to fail anyway because your physical body in this world will eventually get sick and die.
    Also, for a guy who just a moment ago was telling me about my allegedly poor English comprehension (it is a third language for me but I do think I reached an adequate level), that is some rather poor grammar there Laughing and I think you mean "conscience" not "consciousness".

    "everything is relative & ever changing" is the universal truth.
    lol!

    I may frame this in a picture lol1

    So if everything is relative, which by definition means it can't be universal, how can that assertion, which necessarily must be part of "everything", be universal?
    Also, as I've pointed out above already, if "everything is ever changing", why doesn't this assertion, which necessarily must be part of "everything", change?

    - u r reminding me of those Muslims who get easily offended by criticism of their religion. It's not my goal to berate any1 here; if my being objective when in presenting arguments is so offencive, that only shows ur own shallowness & mediocrity.
    More lies and condescension...how is calling billions of people on the planet "weak-minded" and accusing them of following a "sham", while you can't even present a semblance of coherence in your own world view yourself, being objective? Also, again, if everything is relative, how can you be objective? How do you know, from your world view (which, btw., from mine, is actually "weak-minded" in the sense that it's pretty stupid as I've shown by exposing the massive self-contradictions that lie at its core) that I couldn't have my "own truth" that is correct? And now you're probably going to whine about personal attacks again after calling me shallow and mediocre Laughing
    -I never claimed that he was a proper representative of Christianity- don't ever put words in my mouth again!
    Yes you did: you said that the Taiping rebellion was "Christian influenced", which is not true. What influenced that idiot was some hallucination and a pamphlet given to him by a heretic. This is like if I received a pamphlet about Yoga from some Westerner who doesn't even believe in Hinduism (which Yoga is partially based on) and then, when I kill some people after claiming that I need to do it because some entity told me it will allow the invention of the ultimate Yoga pose, you come along and accuse me of being a Hinduism-influenced terrorist. It's absurd. I might be a terrorist in that scenario, but it wouldn't be Hinduism that influenced me.
    Christianity is not promoting genocide and never has and this guy obviously didn't have the first clue about Christianity or he wouldn't have claimed to be Jesus' brother, which is literally impossible theologically.
    me "not understanding" ur points is in ur judgement; they r shallow & every easy to understand, as it's ur worldview that is incoherent.
    Prove how my world view is incoherent.
    -whether he is or not, it's not essential/relevant. In Russia, all high ranking hierarchs even below the Patriarch work with & report to the special services as needed. That's an axiom.
    lol!
    So you can't prove it. And, just for fun: where does that axiom come from? "muh feelings" again? lol1
    the Mongols took fragmented post-Kievan Rus the ROC couldn't hold together; Alaska & California possessions with its converts had to be sold before others took it by force. Ukraine,  Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhstan & the Baltics with large Orthodox populations were lost during the USSR breakup; wars in Georgia & Ukraine couldn't be stopped by the ROC; today's RF areas beyond the Urals is sparsely populated & easy to hold. Not much to boast about!
    You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between Church and State (no surprise there, this is one of the issues in Western history). Also, I can understand that you're jealous about Russia being the biggest country on the planet, but try to restrain yourself please, mkay. lol1
    - Orthodox Christianity was chosen by Count Vladimir because it didn't prohibit drinking of alcohol which was popular even then.
    lol1
    - but it was in place till 1861, much later than in the rest of Europe.
    So? It wasn't slavery.
    it was, under a different name. Read the Soviet Anthem!
    I know the Soviet Anthem...it's not the anthem of the Russian Empire (which was "God save the Tsar!"). Also, the flag, banner etc. were all different...that I even have to debate this is beyond ridiculous.
    - by categorically stating that, u confirm in their minds that it's not worthy of converting into. People's nature stays the same- even of those who allegedly killed the self-declared son of God & later repented & now proselytizing faith in him; such people shouldn't be trusted. Their good intentions, if that was ever the case, paved a road to hell for ms of those they converted.
    How do you know what's in Chinese people's minds?
    I agree that people's nature stays the same although I have a feeling that we mean two very different things here and the rest is just more BS. The Apostles didn't kill Jesus...this is basic knowledge that even most atheists have. And what exactly is "hell" from your view, since you're not a Christian?
    -only for the sake of the argument; I'm just beating u with ur own game. pwnd
    I added a little smiley into the quote so I can uphold the belief for myself that not everything you say is completely ridiculous Laughing
    What sins does Islam preaches? To the Muslims, Christians r the bigger sinners.
    What the Quran and the Hadiths promote violates almost all of the Ten Commandments, for a start.
    Also, even their "top scholar/debater" (Dr. Shabir Ally) recently lost overwhelmingly in a debate with an Orthodox Christian (youtube.com/watch?v=UQO8Ul4r3KQ), because they don't have a coherent world view.
    - it views itself as the guardian of state unity; once the ideology cracks & yields to religious sects, the whole gov. structure will collapse.
    Sure, but gov. collapse will happen anyway; I just hope what comes after is based on the truth.
    - not if they transform into nationalistic a la KMT run state. China may later even become a confederation with regional autonomies but 1 capital.
    First of all, that may very well be a sort of collapse; there is no guarantee that it will be a smooth transition. And secondly, as long as they keep themselves in a revolutionary state ideology wise they will always be unstable.
    - if/when that happens, the Chinese will regain their original faiths 1st before adopting anything else from unpredictable Russia.
    Orthodoxy does not just exist in Russia and you can't tell the future even though I'm sure you'd like to.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4416
    Points : 4412
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:48 am

    deep down they have their own theology and metaphysics that is not perennial.- by being flexible & able to change by absorbing what is useful makes it better suited & longer lasting. wrote:I didn't say that I was excusing it, but the Orthodox Church does not wage war...-sure, priests & monks don't, but as it consists of laity who belong to it, it does. The RF military has chaplains, chapels & churches on its bases. 
    Whether it's worth it for them or not will be their decision and not for some anti-religious Westerner to decide.- nor it is for some ROC or other Eastern Orthodox missionary.
    Besides, if everything is relative, how do you even know what things are worth it for them or not? What universal standard that can be applied both to you and them are you using here, if universal standards can't exist?- relativity & universal standards r not relevant in this context. "Learn truth from facts"; what have worked for Russia may never work for China & vice versa.
    Because God says so in the Bible..-it's full of contradictions & was written by different people at different times who had their own different agendas; there has been many different versions of it, each claiming to be correct, as well as sacred books that later got excluded from it. 
    That is self-contradicting again: if the basic principle in the world is eternal change then this principle must also eventually change, therefore inducing stability and contradicting itself.- changes come at various rates/cycles.
    True Christians won't start a revolution but they also won't abandon the faith and their principles just because the Tsar says so.- & thus subjecting themselves to oppression & suffering. Peter the Great & later Bolsheviks/Communists forced the ROC to submit to their will; while under control, it helped them to rule.
    Orthodoxy isn't based on Platonism lol...this is just another popular Western smear job. - the jury is till out on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism_and_Christianity#Neo-Platonism_in_Orthodox_theology

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282422396_The_Role_of_Plato_and_Aristotle_in_the_Formation_of_Orthodoxy_and_Catholicism/link/57383f2608ae9ace840ccd54/download

    ..also, I'd be very interested in exactly what you mean by the real world operating outside of certain logical constraints...might this be the beginning of you admitting that ultimately you reject logic?- our logic, valid or faulty, is limited to our knowledge (or lack of it) based on science that discovers new things all the time. For example, it was logical to assume that since heavens r perfect, the Moon's surface must be smooth. After Galileo showed the Pope the Lunar craters & mountains through his telescope, the Pope still refused to admit that it was a wrong assumption. 
    ..we can all freely decide whether to participate in theosis or not...but if we don't then we will have chosen to be slaves to the passions.- Buddhism & Taoism offer methods of cultivation w/o any help from God to control our passions & emotions.
    Have you? From your link:
    Dogma: 1a : something held as an established opinion
                especially : a definite authoritative tenet (tenet is defined there as "a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true")-
    these definitions r more appropriate: 

    c: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

    2: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
    Actually you don't and neither do I...not even in this forum and certainly not in the real world.- regardless, if I don't answer ur question, u don't get to know what I don't want u to know. 
    So I ask you for the, what, the third (?) time: How do you decide whether someone is strong or weak, good or bad? - by comparison: those who r free from an organised religion achieved better results as opposed to those who r not.
    even in the West you have studies showing that religiosity correlates with health and the Church certainly encourages people to stay healthy but that doesn't mean that you start "worshipping your own body", which would simply be unbridled pride and doomed to fail anyway because your physical body in this world will eventually get sick and die.- don't tell me those fat ROC priests & monks r healthy. Chinese Buddhist/Taoist priests & monks that r healthy r not fat. The 1st Chan(Zen) Patriarch Da Mo came from India to China & saw the Buddhist monks at the Shaolin monastery very weak from laziness & lack of exercise. He then taught them certain routines & methods to improve health & increase strength. Only then they were able to defend themselves & others, including the Emperor, who later granted them a special status. It became a martial arts university; its warrior & doctor monks were famous all over East Asia. 
    I have my own 3 Temples: 2 on both sides of my head & 1 is my entire body. In order to have a healthy mind, 1 must have a healthy body. 
    So if everything is relative, which by definition means it can't be universal, how can that assertion, which necessarily must be part of "everything", be universal?- why should "universal", as present or occurring everywhere; existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universal
     be mutually exclusive with "relative", as  considered in relation to something else; comparative?
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/relative

    Also, as I've pointed out above already, if "everything is ever changing", why doesn't this assertion, which necessarily must be part of "everything", change?- already covered above.

    ..how is calling billions of people on the planet "weak-minded" and accusing them of following a "sham", while you can't even present a semblance of coherence in your own world view yourself, being objective?- even if I lack any coherence, it doesn't make them any less weak, since they need their religion to stay organized & focused, or simply something to believe in. 
    Also, again, if everything is relative, how can you be objective? - I may be more objective than others like u, & that is enough in itself.
    How do you know, from your worldview (which, btw., from mine, is actually "weak-minded" in the sense that it's pretty stupid as I've shown by exposing the massive self-contradictions that lie at its core) that I couldn't have my "own truth" that is correct? - I don't need to have any particular worldview to form an unbiased/objective opinion on anything; at ur level u may be 100% correct, but at other higher levels u may be only partially correct or 100% incorrect.
    Yes you did: you said that the Taiping rebellion was "Christian influenced", which is not true.- he led it after having his "visions" under the influence of what he has read, & it wasn't the Koran or the Old Testament- I don't care what any1 says about it.
    Prove how my world view is incoherent.- I hope u'll realize it urself 1 day. A believer doesn't need any proof, nor do I need to waste my time on it.
    So you can't prove it. And, just for fun: where does that axiom come from?- secular & clerical rulers shared power over people/subjects since the time immemorial. Some rulers were high priests/living gods & defenders of the faith as well. 
    You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between Church and State -Two weeks ago, in a speech of his own at the Kremlin, the Patriarch declared in Putin’s presence  that the Church is now the equal of the state for the first time in Russian history;..
    https://johnhelmer.org/patriarch-kirill-loses-his-chair-removed-from-russian-state-line-up-at-the-federal-assembly/

    "Equal" means there's no difference in power they posess.
    Also, I can understand that you're jealous about Russia being the biggest country on the planet,..- no, I'm glad that it is so; that's makes our world balanced & more interesting.
    So? It wasn't slavery.- still pretty close to it. Later, after the rich landowners & kulaks were gone, peasants worked for the state while the ROC couldn't say anything in their defence.
    I know the Soviet Anthem...it's not the anthem of the Russian Empire (which was "God save the Tsar!"). -a country with a different name would need a different Anthem & flag. Putin himself said that the Bolsheviks changed the sign & the USSR was still Russia.
    How do you know what's in Chinese people's minds?-don't know for sure but after studying their history, medicine & philosophy for many years, it's not hard to extrapolate what their attitude might be. I've also visited there, HK & Taiwan some years ago & met many Chinese elsewhere.  
    The Apostles didn't kill Jesus...this is basic knowledge that even most atheists have.- didn't say they did, just people of that area & later Christians in general. 
    And what exactly is "hell" from your view, since you're not a Christian?- that was a figurative expression, meaning unfavorable outcome.
    What the Quran and the Hadiths promote violates almost all of the Ten Commandments, for a start.- a good example of relativism: what is sinful to some is fine for others & vice versa. Hinduism & Taoism also teach how to use sex for better health & attaining enlightenment.
    Sure, but gov. collapse will happen anyway; I just hope what comes after is based on the truth.- whose truth? there'll be many groups claiming to profess it.
    First of all, that may very well be a sort of collapse; there is no guarantee that it will be a smooth transition. -indeed, there may be terrible slaughter, as happened many times before in China. At least they can absorb that a lot better than Russia, despite not having fat Eastern Orthodox priests to guide them.
    And secondly, as long as they keep themselves in a revolutionary state ideology wise they will always be unstable.- it's outdated;  now it's "socialism with Chinese characteristics", i.e. state capitalism with central planning, gov. controls, & social programs.
    Orthodoxy does not just exist in Russia..- true, but she is the only predominantly Orthodox country bordering on it.
    I'm not willing to discuss anything related to religion with u, sorry. I realized that unfortunately it's not worth my time & there's no benefit for me in it.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Sep 17, 2020 5:31 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4416
    Points : 4412
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Sep 17, 2020 5:09 am

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25852
    Points : 26398
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 17, 2020 1:09 pm

    Western propaganda telling us not to believe Chinese propaganda...

    Americans are more willing to die for their country because they get more practise?

    Really?
    Begome
    Begome

    Posts : 27
    Points : 29
    Join date : 2020-09-12

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Begome on Thu Sep 17, 2020 6:11 pm

    Okay since I'm not willing to waste more time on this discussion and it's only marginally related to the topic here, I'll pick out some quotes to debunk further, popular criticisms of Christianity for the benefit of those interested and then show how arguing with people like you is pointless:

    -[The Bible is] full of contradictions & was written by different people at different times who had their own different agendas; there has been many different versions of it, each claiming to be correct, as well as sacred books that later got excluded from it.
    The Bible is just a reference to the canon of Holy Scripture; it includes books written by different authors in different time periods and in different languages (Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek), whose exact compilation was determined in different ways at different times. For the apostles the Bible was essentially the Septuagint, which is an ancient Greek translation of what is today considered the Old Testament; after witnessing Jesus Christ's teachings and acts as well as His death and resurrection (especially the latter) the apostles started spreading His teachings further, despite the state starting to persecute them for it (all the apostles were eventually tortured and killed by the state at different times). This is because they could not discard what they had witnessed and were thus compelled to believe and filled by the Holy Spirit to carry out this work despite the extreme hardships it brought to them (many of them were actually wealthy and had a comfortable life before).
    The Church was already being formed before this happened, with even Bishops being already present in these very early days (e.g. Acts 1:20) and Ecumenical Councils, as tools to resolve disputes over theology and doctrine, being reported on in the Bible itself as well (Acts 15:6-29); this is why the Church has proceeded to use this ecclesiastic structure and Ecumenical Councils to make decisions in the most important matters of the Faith. After the Apostles died, people were worried that their oral teachings might become corrupted over time, so they proceeded to write them down in what is today known as the Gospels and, together with some other writings of the apostles and other authors, became the New Testament.
    Since there were people who were trying, for various reasons, to influence the developing Church by publishing their own "gospels" and other writings they claimed to be Holy, the Church engaged in lots of debates and discussions and came together in Ecumenical Councils to determine which works were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus should be part of the canon of Scripture; they did this by looking at the teachings of the apostles and the Septuagint to see what kind of world view was being presented there. By formalizing and systematizing the teachings, the theology was born out (concretized), which allowed a clear derivation of the Christian metaphysics and thus allowed to more easily see which writings deviated from it and were thus false; the last book of what we today know as the Bible was written in the late first century; it is in the 4th century that the Orthodox Christian canon was proposed for the first time and it was formalized in the 6th century. This shows why Protestantism is false: it is the tradition of the Church, that determined the canon of Scripture, so you can't discard the tradition of the Church, which gave you the Bible, based on the Bible (the Protestant "sola scriptura" doctrine)...people didn't walk around with what we today know as Bibles in the first half of the first millennium because that collection wasn't even compiled yet.
    So, this should also make it obvious why any talk of "contradictions" is useless...the Church spent a great deal of time (half a millennium) carefully compiling the Bible and made sure that there are no real contradictions in it; I spent a lot of time looking at supposed contradictions, but they all disappear once you read some actually competent commentary, based on the Church Father's teachings, on it and understand the proper interpretation (plus, a lot of it simply comes from the fact that some people think the Bible was written in English, when in fact the languages used are much older and more limited, making a proper interpretation often not trivial).
    In order to spread and preserve the teachings, the Bible was, of course, copied many times; since people back then didn't have computers with error-correcting hard-drives and printers that print the same file in exactly the same way every time, variations started appearing due to mistakes made by the scribes who were hired to copy texts (which was pretty expensive back then). Today we know of around 6000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament alone, with millions of pages in total and around 200,000 variations between them. This amounts to, on average, one scribal error every ~10 pages (in the vast majority of cases a spelling error), which is probably far better than your average high school senior today could manage (if they even know how to write by hand anymore). However, the Church was aware of this and obviously discarded the lowest-quality manuscripts. As for the question of how much the variations impact doctrinal elements of Scripture, even liberal, anti-Christian scholars like Bart Ehrmann admit that they don't.

    Regarding Orthodoxy and the alleged Platonic influence: I already pointed out to you that many Greek philosophical terms which are used by the Church Fathers to derive the Christian theology and metaphysics from the Gospels and Septuagint have a different meaning than in Platonic or even Aristotelian writings; assuming that a word must always have the exact same meaning in every context in called the word-concept fallacy. The Church Fathers have defined all the relevant terms (see, e.g. St. John of Damascus' "An exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith") and this alone debunks such smears. If anything, it is Roman Catholicism that is Platonic as most of them worship the "absolutely simple divine essence", which is a far more impersonal, Platonic understanding of God than we have: for us God is personal. The One True God is The Father and He, being nominally God, rules together eternally with His Only Begotten Son (His Word / Logos) and His Spirit, who share equally in His Essence and His Actions in the universe and are thus also divine (God in the qualitative sense). That is nothing like Platonism. The Church Fathers even talk about this: read St. Basil's "Adress to young men on the right use of Greek literature" (tertullian.org/fathers/basil_litterature01.htm).

    Some of the rest I've tried to put in a more useful order...these are just some more debunkings and examples of fallacies on your part:
    First, to answer your objection about my showing the contradiction of relativism:
       - why should "universal", as present or occurring everywhere; existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions be mutually exclusive with "relative", as  considered in relation to something else; comparative?
    Because "being in relation to something else" means it is dependant on that other thing and therefore subject to change if the other thing changes, which means it cannot be "operative under all conditions". Thus, "universal" is mutually exclusive with "relative" and my statements hold. Just for reference for others I'll repost them, since this is the core of the issue:
    You said:
    "everything is relative & ever changing" is the universal truth.
    So if everything is relative, which by definition means it can't be universal, how can that assertion, which necessarily must be part of "everything", be universal?
    Also, as I've pointed out above already, if "everything is ever changing", why doesn't this assertion, which necessarily must be part of "everything", change?

    - our logic, valid or faulty, is limited to our knowledge (or lack of it) based on science that discovers new things all the time.
    False. Your attempt at applying logic may be faulty or valid, but logic itself is merely a set of axioms, based on which we can reason within the world. It can be condensed down to the three laws of thought:

    1) The Law of Identity - Whatever is, is. (also known as "A thing is always itself")
    2) The Law of Non-Contradiction - Nothing can both be and not be. (also known as "contradictory propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense")
    3) The Law of Excluded Middle - Everything must either be or not be. (also known as "Every judgement is either true or false")

    Without these three laws you cannot even reason at all. Even a simple rejection of them (e.g. "I reject the laws of logic") is rendered completely meaningless, because without other people assuming that you assert the laws of logic the statement can mean anything at all, including it's inverse (i.e. that you don't actually reject the laws of logic), because only by taking the Law of Identity as axiomatic will the words be attached to the meaning assigned to them in the current cultural and linguistic context, only by taking the Law of Non-Contradiction as axiomatic can this statement not mean its inverse (acceptance of the laws of logic) and only by taking the Law of Excluded Middle as axiomatic can there not be some arbitrary "middle ground" interpretation, leaving everyone to wonder which "mode of truth" you are actually implying.

    As for tying logic to science: that is a fallacy (petitio principii, AKA begging the question), because science itself depends on logic. Without logic you obviously can't do science, and there are a lot more presuppositions that science requires, such as assumptions of regularity in the world, assumptions that the outer world you observe actually correlates with your perceptions of it and many more. This is why science cannot be used to derive logic or epistemic sources; you need an already-in-place world view within which you can then do science.
    Furthermore, science is limited to the natural, the physical...matter and energy. It cannot investigate the metaphysical, because the metaphysical cannot be perceived by our natural senses. Think about numbers, for example: the number "7" can be displayed on a screen or written on a piece of paper; but is that really the number "7" itself? Of course not! If it was then I could forever destroy that number by burning the piece of paper and no one could use it in maths anymore. That's obviously not the case. The number is also not in our brains, since our brains differ from one another and are made up of different atoms and yet the number 7 remains exactly the same, no matter which human makes use of it and many humans who have done maths have died and their brains rotted and yet the number is still here (and would be, even if all humans died tomorrow). That's because things like numbers and logic (and also God) are metaphysical, not physical and thus cannot be investigated through science. They are a fundamental, universal part of the world we live in; they are "universals".

    - relativity & universal standards r not relevant in this context. "Learn truth from facts"; what have worked for Russia may never work for China & vice versa.
    Of course they are relevant...in order to compare across categories, in this case your value system and theirs, you need to have a universal standard by which to evaluate both. If you were consistent in your relativism you wouldn't judge me or the Chinese at all because you would have no idea what would be good or bad for them or me, because our "truths" would be entirely independent from yours. As to "learn truth from facts": that is extremely limited as I've already laid out above after my explanation of what logic is. In Empiricism you hit a well known problem, that Empiricists still haven't been able to solve (and never will): the Problem of Induction:
    Imagine a turkey is kept by a farmer and is able to reason and experience as we do. The turkey lives for years under the farmer's care and observes being fed and protected from predators every single day of his life, without fail. If the turkey were now to scientifically speculate on the course of the rest of his life, he would rationally and logically be able to reach the conclusion that this almost paradisical state of affairs will continue for the rest of his life until he dies a natural death. There is no reason why he should think otherwise, because this is all he has observed so far. Of course we, knowing a greater context, would have reason to be sceptical of that conclusion since we know that farmers like to keep turkeys until they get fat and then kill them to sell just before Thanks-Giving, for example. But the turkey doesn't know that.
    This is just an easy way to demonstrate the limitations of science...not only is science limited to the physical but there is no way that you will ever know whether your current theory will be falsified with new data tomorrow or next year or in 100 years, because you can't ever be certain that you now know the full context. Even modern theories, like General Relativity (which, btw. falsified Newton's Laws in the sense that it updated them, even though for hundreds of years people thought those laws were solid) or the Standard Cosmological Model aren't safe...the latter is recently coming under fire due to a series of experiments using different methodology that are discordant with it and the former is not fully compatible with Quantum Physics. Even without these examples, however, in a hypothetical world where all scientific theories are compatible and no evidence has been found to falsify any of them they could still all be false without the people "believing in them" knowing it. And "believing in science" or scientific theories is rather unscientific to begin with...yet many "objective, science-oriented" atheists do just that.

    - by being flexible & able to change by absorbing what is useful makes it better suited & longer lasting
    By definition something that is ever-changing cannot be "long lasting"...this should be obvious.
    - changes come at various rates/cycles.
    That doesn't matter; even at a very low rate of change, if the basic principle is that everything changes, the basic principle must also change eventually, which is self-contradicting and thus shows that "eternal change" cannot be the basic principle.
    - by comparison: those who r free from an organised religion achieved better results as opposed to those who r not.
    You have a completely arbitrary moral system based on a completely self-contradicting world view, which means you have no valid basis to call something better than something else (especially since, in order to do that, you would need a universal standard of comparison, which you reject as a relativist). Also, as always, instead of showing actual proof, even of the scientific kind, you just arbitrarily claim it since you seem to think that everyone else just needs to take your incoherent drivel as axiomatic. Meanwhile, it is well established (e.g. see here mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)62799-7/pdf) that religion has a positive impact on health (in that article, which is a review of many studies and meta-analyses, they even recommend clinicians to rely on "chaplains" to address patients' spiritual needs).
    - I don't need to have any particular worldview to form an unbiased/objective opinion on anything
    Yes you do. Your world view is your epistemic source (your "interpretative framework", if you like), without which you can't have any knowledge. Your world view (some variation of relativism) is completely incoherent, which is why your argumentation is completely incoherent; you literally think, as you've even explicitly demonstrated multiple times, that you can just make up axioms arbitrarily without needing to justify them and then you expect everyone else to go along with it.
    - I may be more objective than others like u, & that is enough in itself.
    That's nice, dear. Another one of your "axioms", I take it.  lol1
    - he led it after having his "visions" under the influence of what he has read, & it wasn't the Koran or the Old Testament- I don't care what any1 says about it.
    Correct; he read a heretic's pamphlet. Had he actually read the Old and New Testament and understood them he wouldn't have committed genocide. This is why it was false to claim Christianity was responsible. And I suppose that your "I don't care what any1 says about it" means that we're dealing with yet another one of your axioms here, right? clown
    - I hope u'll realize it urself 1 day. A believer doesn't need any proof, nor do I need to waste my time on it.
    So you can't prove how my world view is incoherent. No surprise there.
    - secular & clerical rulers shared power over people/subjects since the time immemorial. Some rulers were high priests/living gods & defenders of the faith as well.
    This is, at best, the fallacy of division. Even if I were to grant your generalized statement it still doesn't make your assertion true with respect to the specific case.
    Two weeks ago, in a speech of his own at the Kremlin, the Patriarch declared in Putin’s presence  that the Church is now the equal of the state for the first time in Russian history;.."Equal" means there's no difference in power they posess.
    First of all, this was last year, not two weeks ago. Second, if you check what Patriarch Kirill actually said, it's "We are offered the opportunity to discuss various issues that concern our people, our society, and, of course, our Church," (talking about the Church interacting with the state) and "And I would even dare say that for the first time in Russia's history, such a relationship has established itself between the Church and the state."...so this has nothing to do with sharing any power or having the same power in some other way, but merely that the state is listening to their opinions more.
    - a good example of relativism: what is sinful to some is fine for others & vice versa.
    And yet you judge me and billions of other people by calling us "weak-minded"...if you actually were consistent (as consistent as one can be in your world view, at least, since you'll never have a stable epistemic basis) then you wouldn't do that.

    In conclusion: Not only have you shown yourself to be a relativist, which I demonstrated to be a deeply self-contradicting world view, but you don't even understand what logic is and think that you can get all your answers from science (that is, when you're not just making them up as "axioms"). As a result it is not surprising that you're making little sense in your argumentation and commit one fallacy after the next. Your overall argumentation is basically Sophistry and serves only to manipulate those who encounter it, not to arrive at the truth. This is actually what e.g. Germanic pagans used to practise intentionally because they thought it was part of what they considered to be "magic"...manipulating the world and especially the minds around oneself for ones own advantage (which is, btw., also the Darwinian view of rhetoric and conversation...that's not a coincidence). It is evident that you are unwilling to reconsider your position and you have in multiple cases made the exact same point again, even though I had refuted you with proof before. This, as well as the generally low quality answers you give, can be considered as part of a Gish Gallop tactic designed to waste my time.
    Your actions here, therefore, whether this is how you view it or not, can be considered a kind of pagan ritual, which I'm frankly not willing to be part of any longer. Ironically it is precisely Western atheists, who often claim to be rational, objective, science-based and utterly non-religious, who tend to behave this way. This is also the root of most of the issues in the West today; why do you think the media just keeps lying so openly and intentionally? Why do Western academics claim that there are no biological differences between men and women? Why are your politicians, especially, driven entirely by greed and drenched in sin? Because they all reject the very concept of Truth, which is Jesus Christ; because they even hate Truth, Beauty and the Good. It is the same sickness afflicting you that is rotting in the West. In the end you are simply rejecting God and returning to your pagan roots. For anyone interested in a much more elaborate analysis of the West's development and decline from an Orthodox perspective in English, you can find and read (or listen to on youtube to) Father Seraphim Rose's "Orthodox Survival Guide".

    And now for the bit that ties it into this thread's actual topic:
    - whose truth? there'll be many groups claiming to profess it.
    The Truth. There is only one...this is the whole point. Without acceptance of a universal truth there will always be revolution.
    socialism with Chinese characteristics
    Socialism of whatever kind is still a revolutionary ideology and always will be, because it's completely arbitrary and ultimately based on a similar kind of relativistic world view you are promoting; that's why it only holds on to power through fear and oppression. People seek meaning and purpose in life and the atheistic, socialistic elites in China can't give them any; that's why the people are turning to religions or practices like Falun Gong despite being persecuted for it.
    True stability only comes with an acceptance of the truth. That's why the (Orthodox) Byzantine Empire was the longest lasting empire on the planet to date, despite having been riddled occasionally with heretics and back-stabbed by the West (Fourth Crusade) as well as bearing the brunt of the Muslim horde's assaults. Its downfall was multifactorial and had to do, among many other issues, but not least, with a growing faithlessness and ethnic pride, particularly among Greeks. The downfall of the current Chinese regime will have a much simpler explanation.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4416
    Points : 4412
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:18 am

    The Bible is just a reference to the canon of Holy Scripture; it includes books written by different authors in different time periods and in different languages (Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek),..
    The Hebrew Bible is is based on more ancient Babylonian & Sumerian texts. According to most interpretations regarding Biblical chronology, the Earth is only ~6K years old, which isn't true, as proven by geologists & paleontologists, not to mention anthropologists, as hominids & humans been around for much longer.
    ..after witnessing Jesus Christ's teachings and acts as well as His death and resurrection (especially the latter) the apostles started spreading His teachings further, ..This is because they could not discard what they had witnessed..
    there's no independent record of what they witnessed; they started a new religion & were persecuted, but that isn't in itself a proof that what they were telling is the truth, the whole truth, beyond any reasonable doubt.
    the Church engaged in lots of debates and discussions and came together in Ecumenical Councils to determine which works were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus should be part of the canon of Scripture;..  By formalizing and systematizing the teachings, the theology was born out (concretized),.. 
    all these later interpretations/rulings, while still subjective, don't validate the veracity of the original reason for the new religious movement/cult.
    So, this should also make it obvious why any talk of "contradictions" is useless...
    I should have also used the word "inconsistencies" & lies:

    The_Age_of_Reason  FREE DOWNLOAD

    https://librebook.me/zabavnaia_bibliia

    Notes on  The Problem of Evil

    [url=http://pitt.edu/~jdg83/teaching/pdfs/15 Mackie Lewis - Problem of Evil.pdf]Mackie and Lewis — The Problem of Evil[/url]

    Pseudo-science, the Bible and human freedom

    https://ascienceenthusiast.com/10-crazy-bible-stories-that-christians-conveniently-ignore/

    So if everything is relative, which by definition means it can't be universal, how can that assertion, which necessarily must be part of "everything", be universal? ..even at a very low rate of change, if the basic principle is that everything changes, the basic principle must also change eventually, which is self-contradicting and thus shows that "eternal change" cannot be the basic principle.
    Everywhere, things r relative to each other; FYI, the Taoist principle of Yin & Yang & changes it describes/postulates that governs them is universal, i.e. aplicable to all phenomena. 
    By definition something that is ever-changing cannot be "long lasting"...this should be obvious.
    A tradition/religion that adopts with necessary changes is still the same 1 with new elements. The evolve & therefore endure, while those which don't completely cease to exist.

    You have a completely arbitrary moral system.. 
    no, I don't: When the Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is morality. When morality is lost, there is ritual. Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos. --- Lao Tzu (Tao Te Ching, #38)
    Ethics & Morality In Taoist Practice
    Also, as always, instead of showing actual proof, even of the scientific kind, you just arbitrarily claim it since you seem to think that everyone else just needs to take your incoherent drivel as axiomatic.
    even if I had presented a proof, u would get around it as all believers do who don't accept anything that is against their worldview as proof; as stated before, I don't care what any1 think
    Correct; he read a heretic's pamphlet. Had he actually read the Old and New Testament and understood them he wouldn't have committed genocide. 
    he used it to rally rebels to his cause, just like many others before him who claimed that gods or god told them to rise up & make war. That's why Chinese rulers were & r always weary of religious sects that may become a rebel warring clan/faction set to seize power. Any religion is a convenient tool that can be used to justify both destruction of the old & creation of something new in its place. Christianity in all its forms is no exception.
    So you can't prove how my world view is incoherent. No surprise there.
    U'll give me that proof if u continue to reject the arguments in the links above & below.

    This is, at best, the fallacy of division. Even if I were to grant your generalized statement it still doesn't make your assertion true with respect to the specific case.
    no, it's called "the preponderance of evidence'. 
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/feb/12/1

    http://www.celticorthodoxchurch.com/kirill_KGB.html

    https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2012/07/31/patriarch-plants-church-near-fsb-school-a16678


    https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/F_009_Kyrill_2.html

    https://risu.ua/en/kgb-christians-putin-stalin-and-the-kgb-s-history-of-manipulating-the-orthodox-church_n77727


    https://twitter.com/ryskeldisatke/status/1127080311165263872
    And yet you judge me and billions of other people by calling us "weak-minded"...
    even these cats r stronger minded, since they have no need tonor  pray at any church: 
    https://www.rt.com/news/436521-cats-sermon-church-stray-animals/

    in fact, their ancestors/relatives were worshipped In Egypt.
    People seek meaning and purpose in life and the atheistic, socialistic elites in China can't give them any; that's why the people are turning to religions or practices like Falun Gong despite being persecuted for it.
    that movement has a lot more chances for growth than yet another imported branch of Christianity, since it's based on Buddhism & Taoism. Marxist theory & Judeo-Christian system of principles & values r not compatible with E. Asians.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s42V8BGBvTk

    [url=http://pitt.edu/~jdg83/teaching/pdfs/15 Mackie Lewis - Problem of Evil.pdf][/url]

    ..Laotzu spurned both religious and civil ceremony as misleading and harmful spectacle, his faith and conduct depending upon no outward prop but upon inner accord with the conscience of the universe. Tao Te Ching by Witter Bynner

    “Silence is a source of Great Strength.” “Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.” “Because one believes in oneself, one doesn't try to convince others. Because one is content with oneself, one doesn't need others' approval.Lao Tzu 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s90S3v5Vjs


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xWnHxbt0Qw 


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtcgJ1yZkIc   

    Israelites Came to Ancient Japan Did the Lost Tribes of Israel Come To Ancient Japan?


    • Various Other Similarities Between Ancient Israel and Ancient Japan

    • Tomb of Jesus in Shingō


    If the Ancient Japanese could incorporate rituals & other elements of Judaism into Shintoism, it's a safe bet the Chinese would do the same with E. Orthodoxy, borrowing elements of it into their belief systems, if it ever wins many adherents. They've done before when some Sumerians reached China ~4K years ago & later Buddhism & Islam made their way there.



    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:51 am; edited 4 times in total (Reason for editing : add links, text)
    Begome
    Begome

    Posts : 27
    Points : 29
    Join date : 2020-09-12

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Begome on Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:11 pm

    Alright, since I have some time right now, I'll try and clear another round of BS so that others may profit and not fall for these silly smears of Christianity...

    First, to continue the core part of the argument - your relativism and its incoherence:
    Everywhere, things r relative to each other; FYI, the Taoist principle of Yin & Yang & changes it describes/postulates that governs them is universal, i.e. aplicable to all phenomena.
    If the "Taoist principle" is universal then it can't be relative (as I've even explicitly demonstrated in my previous post from your definitions); therefore, not everything is relative. This means "everything is relative and ever-changing" cannot be the basic principle. If you want to claim that "everything except the Taoist principle is relative and ever-changing" then a) you're not a relativist anymore, because universals can clearly exist in your world view and b) you need to properly justify why the Taoist principle is the only possible universal and c) properly justify how other things that seem to be universal, like logic and morality and many more are valid without being universal (e.g. why should anyone follow the Taoist principle? There is clearly logic as well as a moral claim involved here that won't make sense unless they, also, are universal).
    A tradition/religion that adopts with necessary changes is still the same 1 with new elements. The evolve & therefore endure, while those which don't completely cease to exist.
    Nope. If something changes so entirely that it's very core is changed then it seizes to exist and is replaced by something else. If a certain "core" remains, then that core obviously didn't change. This is just a further version of the issue above...as you have shown multiple times, you want to claim that "everything is relative" while arbitrarily deciding that certain things are "axioms" (and thus universal) without giving proper justification for them; we're just supposed to let you decide that for us, which is reminiscent of the behavior of little children.
    When the Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is morality. When morality is lost, there is ritual. Ritual is the husk of true faith, the beginning of chaos. --- Lao Tzu (Tao Te Ching, #38)
    This is ridiculous. So obviously, even though "everything is relative", "the Tao", "goodness", "morality" and "ritual" are universals according to that statement. Furthermore, why should anyone follow this chain, especially once morality "is lost"? To assert so is a moral claim! How can there be moral claims when "morality is lost"?

    And it seems we've just discovered another one of your moral principles:
    even these cats r stronger minded, since they have no need tonor  pray at any church:
    https://www.rt.com/news/436521-cats-sermon-church-stray-animals/

    in fact, their ancestors/relatives were worshipped In Egypt.
    So basically "might makes right", which further confirms my theory that you're just a pagan LARPer.
    Also, unsurprisingly, this second moral principle of yours completely contradicts your first (Golden Rule - do onto others what you'd like them to do onto you).
    If I was really hungry and it's the Apocalypse so there's nothing to eat but I find a stray cat (or even another human) then while according to the Golden Rule I shouldn't eat them, I practically can as long as I am stronger and according to "might makes right" that's totally fine and I should do it. This is the kind of BS that roams around in atheists' and pagans' minds...my theory on why you hold these positions, from a psychological perspective, is that on the one hand you want to feel justified to do anything you like to others as long as you practically can (like steal candy from a baby - might makes right), while at the same time telling yourself that you're really just a "good guy" who abides by the Golden Rule....until he doesn't.
    This is exactly why people have been, for Aeons, looking for a consistent world view, that does away with BS like that and provides proper justification for universal truths, including moral truths. They found it in Christ and His Church but you Western pagans don't want to hear it, because then you can't do "whatever I want, maaaan" anymore and not feel guilty and know that you are judged. This is why socialism is so friendly with Islam and many other religions except Christianity...because they're all completely incoherent and thus easily allow justification for things like "killing the rich" or putting whoever you don't like into the Gulag etc...how can you even complain about e.g. liberals, when you are just as arbitrary and incoherent as they are?
    Here is an illustration of your moral position (just exchange Odin with Tao or whatever  lol1 ):
    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 64fxXWHD

    And what will likely again be part of your reply?
    I don't care what any1 think. pwnd
    lol1

    Some other relevant bits:
    “Silence is a source of Great Strength.” “Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.” “Because one believes in oneself, one doesn't try to convince others. Because one is content with oneself, one doesn't need others' approval."- Lao Tzu

    lol!
    Oh man...Since he is communicating this (he's "speaking") it would follow that he "doesn't know" then...also why, if his goal were actually not to convince others, is he telling others his beliefs? Finally, since you keep replying to my posts, you obviously are trying to either convince me or other potential readers of your position. Which is, again, a total contradiction if you actually believe what this Lao Tzu guy preaches (though to be fair, you're only following in his foot steps, since he is also totally contradicting himself)  lol1

    Okay now for some Christian apologetics:
    The Hebrew Bible is is based on more ancient Babylonian & Sumerian texts
    No, it isn't...just because something has similarity to something else (is correlated) does not mean that there is a causal link (correlation != causation)...anyone who knows basic scientific principles knows this, btw.
    The fact that there are similarities just further confirms our view that there is only one truth and one correct historical narrative that simply exists in corrupted forms in some other sources.
    According to most interpretations regarding Biblical chronology, the Earth is only ~6K years old, which isn't true, as proven by geologists & paleontologists, not to mention anthropologists, as hominids & humans been around for much longer.
    First of all, even the Young Earth Creationists are constantly bickering among themselves how old the Earth is supposed to be, which is due to the fact that the Bible doesn't state the age of the Earth anywhere...the genealogies cannot be interpreted to be without implicit gaps for various reasons which would be clear to you, had you ever actually read the Bible.
    Second, alone the fact that the "י֥וֹם" (yo-wm) in the original text (Ancient Hebrew original of Genesis 1) is not consistently translated as day in other parts of the Bible (e.g. it's used to signify large periods of time of arbitrary length) should give you a clue that "yo-wm" doesn't necessarily have to be understood as a 24 hour day and thus you can't know how old the Earth is. The same goes for the Hebrew words for "morning" and "evening", which can also mean "beginning" and "end"...this is because Ancient Hebrew is a very limited language that only has around 7000 words, so most words have many different meanings. And even if you were to insist on a 24-h interpretation, there are ways to make that work...read e.g. comments by physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder, who points out that time, as viewed in the context of the theory of Relativity, changes with respect to the rate at which it passes; since space and time are linked, a stretching of space also means a stretching of time. If the Standard Cosmological model is correct then the universe expanded rapidly and is still expanding, so space stretched a lot and so did time. If one were to view the passage of time at a reference point in space-time 1 sec after the Big Bang (from that reference frame), then the time that passed from "then" to "now" would be exactly 6 times 24 hours (the 6 "days" of creation)...other views, like the coherentist view, are presented e.g. here. I'm not endorsing any of those views since ultimately they are simply to satisfy a scientistic obsession created by the High Priests of the secular post-modern world; the official position of the Orthodox Church is that we don't know if creation can be modelled correctly using science (since it obviously involves the super-natural, which is inaccessible to science) and thus all such theories, including the Young Earth Creationist view, are, at best, "theologumina" (theological opinions) and will never be dogma.
    there's no independent record of what they witnessed; they started a new religion & were persecuted, but that isn't in itself a proof that what they were telling is the truth, the whole truth, beyond any reasonable doubt.
    Of course there are independent records...here is just one of many write-ups about this.
    I'll tell you another great proof if you read this chapter of the Bible and tell me who it is about (a very well known historical person).
    As to The Truth: I've already talked about this in my previous post...the theology and metaphysics are derived from Scripture. The way that we know they are true is that they make sense and give a coherent, logical explanation for the world in all important aspects (epistemology, morality, metaphysics).
    all these later interpretations/rulings, while still subjective, don't validate the veracity of the original reason for the new religious movement/cult.
    The historical evidence does; see above. But also note that even liberal scholars admit that a) Jesus Christ was a real historical person, b) that he was crucified by Pontius Pilate and c) that his grave was found empty after three days...the only disagreement is around why his grave was empty (they usually claim his followers robbed it without presenting evidence for that). Why would the apostles and his other followers, many of whom were wealthy and had a comfortable life, give all that up and accept being persecuted and tortured by the state (and eventually killed), with that activity flaring up after Jesus' death, if they didn't see him resurrect? It's completely implausible that they would do that unless they witnessed this and many other miracles.

    The other anti-Christian links just contain incoherent or even unrelated drivel / content and since one of them doesn't even work (no permission to view document) I take it that you probably found them while typing "why Christianity bad" into Google without actually clicking on and reading any of this yourself.
    If you want to make an actual argument, make it.

    As to our beloved "KGB Patriach"  lol1 :
    The fact that you post smears from the likes of "Guardian" or "The Moscow Times" shows that you're not far from typical Western liberals even if you claim you are.
    Your "celtic orthodox" link is even more hilarious: this is apparently a group that derives its apostolicity from some Eastern Catholic Ukrainian "bishop" and they seem to like worshipping Fulton Sheen  lol!
    So they're obviously not Orthodox, probably some SSPX or SV RCs or even some weird RC-larping Protestant group and they derive their "legitimacy" from some Ukrainian heretic, which makes it quite unsurprising that they want to smear Patriarch Kyrill...there's nothing of substance anywhere to be found...it's all made-up BS and conjecture by anti-Orthodox people and russophobes; note also how that guy in the interview on twitter doesn't actually affirm the statements of the tweet itself and further presents no proof for his assertions...according to him Russia today is ruled by 1) "the KGB" 2) "the ROC" and 3) "Russian business"...ridiculous. This also shows, again, that you're simply using Gish Gallop tactics by flinging dung like a monkey to waste my time since you obviously don't examine the links you post yourself.

    And finally, returning to the more-strictly-on-topic portion:
    he used it to rally rebels to his cause, just like many others before him who claimed that gods or god told them to rise up & make war. That's why Chinese rulers were & r always weary of religious sects that may become a rebel warring clan/faction set to seize power. Any religion is a convenient tool that can be used to justify both destruction of the old & creation of something new in its place. Christianity in all its forms is no exception.
    Completely irrelevant, as I've said about 3 or 4 times now...I'm not here to defend all religions, only the Truth, which this guy had no clue about.

    If the Ancient Japanese could incorporate rituals & other elements of Judaism into Shintoism, it's a safe bet the Chinese would do the same with E. Orthodoxy, borrowing elements of it into their belief systems, if it ever wins many adherents. They've done before when some Sumerians reached China ~4K years ago & later Buddhism & Islam made their way there.
    You can't just mix and match religions together however you like...the new religion you would create that way will be self-contradicting! Which, for you, is just more of the same since that also applies to your world view.  Laughing
    Mixing and matching religions is what spoiled Western brats do to fill the hole of faithlessness and purposelessness is their lives, while not really committing to anything, including the religions they pretend to profess.

    that movement has a lot more chances for growth than yet another imported branch of Christianity, since it's based on Buddhism & Taoism. Marxist theory & Judeo-Christian system of principles & values r not compatible with E. Asians.
    So here you are again arbitrarily deciding that something that is "based on Buddhism & Taoism" is simply better...that alone has multiple levels of idiocy in it: 1) Buddhism and Taoism aren't the same thing, so something can't be coherently based on both 2) there are many different forms of Buddhism and probably also Taoism (e.g. with Buddhism alone there are very different interpretations that contradict one another, like Chen Buddhism and Zen Buddhism) and 3) you have to actually show with a valid, coherent argument, why it is better...there is no reason why anyone should following along with your arbitrary "axioms" that you constantly keep making up.
    As for the latter part of the quote: I ask you again, for the second time: how do you know what is good or bad for Asians?
    This smells to me like the typical Western supremacist idea of "knowing what's best for everyone" and then forcing that on everyone else. You need to actually demonstrate that this view or that view is best, as I have done with mine, while disassembling yours. The people of China or wherever can then decide for themselves if they want to follow the Truth or not, but even if they don't, that doesn't falsify the Truth.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4416
    Points : 4412
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:59 pm

    If the "Taoist principle" is universal then it can't be relative (as I've even explicitly demonstrated in my previous post from your definitions); therefore, not everything is relative.
    Being relative within itself & how others r relating to it, either accepting or rejecting it, also make it universal. 
    The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; The Named is the mother of all things. 

    [url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/beliefs/tao.shtml#:~:text=The Tao that can be,the mother of all things.]Religions - Taoism: What is the Tao? - BBC[/url]

    So obviously, even though "everything is relative", "the Tao", "goodness", "morality" and "ritual" are universals according to that statement.
    everything under the Tao is not universal; those concepts/things r parts of the Tao just like any other phenomena.
    Furthermore, why should anyone follow this chain, especially once morality "is lost"? To assert so is a moral claim! How can there be moral claims when "morality is lost"?
    No, t's not a moral claim, but observation: when people loose their morality, after losing/not knowing The Way (Tao) before that, they rely on ritual to help them. Since different peoples use different rituals/teachings, conflicts within &/ between them arise. 
    So basically "might makes right", which further confirms my theory that you're just a pagan LARPer.
    right or wrong isn't relevant here- as nature is indifferent, the stronger & the open minded r the 1s better equipped to survive. 
    They found it in Christ and His Church but you Western pagans ..
    FYI, I'm of the Jewish, Italian & Slavic descent, grew up & educated in E. Europe as well as USA,, & been exposed to the ROC rituals. They no longer impress me.

    Since he is communicating this (he's "speaking") it would follow that he "doesn't know" then...also why, if his goal were actually not to convince others, is he telling others his beliefs? Finally, since you keep replying to my posts, you obviously are trying to either convince me or other potential readers of your position. 
    hair splitting & nitpicking again! Lao Tzu (whom Confucius called a Dragon) was asked to write his philosophy by a border guard before allowing him to cross to the West. I'm not like u, telling others what they should or should not believe in; I post my replies as a mental exercise- take it or leave it.  
    The fact that there are similarities just further confirms our view that there is only one truth and one correct historical narrative that simply exists in corrupted forms in some other sources.
    Some1 said: "when gossips grow old, they become myths". The Christian accepted sources came after more ancient sources, so they would produce more corrupt/incorrect info.

    Familiar Mysteries: The Truth in Myth

    ..the genealogies cannot be interpreted to be without implicit gaps for various reasons which would be clear to you, had you ever actually read the Bible.
    if there r gaps, then the Bible (which I did read) isn't a complete record & therefore can't be claimed as a reliable source. Bible scholars' & clerics' calculations which many accepted as correct & true were proven wrong, just like the dogmas that the Earth is the center of perfect Heaven & there's only 1 Sun- Galileo Galilei (whom the RCC rehabilitated only a few decades ago) & J. Bruno (who was burned at the stake) showed otherwise & thus undermined the RCC power. 
    Regardless of the Book of Genesis various interpretations at any given time, the Christians used them to their advantage to push their agendas & beliefs on others. 
    Of course there are independent records...here is just one of many write-ups about this.
    all of them r written long after the alleged christ resurrection, & many refer to each other or other non-contemporary sources.
    The way that we know they are true is that they make sense and give a coherent, logical explanation for the world in all important aspects (epistemology, morality, metaphysics).
    As stated before, since that particular logic & morality didn't succeed in making Russia the greatest place on Earth since the year of 988AD, I rest my case.
    The other anti-Christian links just contain incoherent or even unrelated drivel / content and since one of them doesn't even work (no permission to view document) I take it that you probably found them while typing "why Christianity bad" into Google without actually clicking on and reading any of this yourself.
    I've read all of them- u need to have an account to open that article. 
    If you want to make an actual argument, make it.
    my arguments r their arguments- if they don't impress u, I could care less since it's not my problem.

    As to our beloved "KGB Patriarch"  China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 566615 :
    The fact that you post smears from the likes of "Guardian" or "The Moscow Times" shows that you're not far from typical Western liberals even if you claim you are.
    their affiliation/leaning r not relevant- if the info. is correct, ur biased attitude  will prevent u from accepting it no matter what, since u r blinded by faith.
    I'm not here to defend all religions, only the Truth, ..
    by all means, but don't try to shove ur version of it down any 1's throat. The ROC conversions of natives in Siberia, the Far East, California & Alaska helped the Russian Empire to control them, just like Catholic missionaries helped the Spanish, Portuguese & French Empires to colonize & subjugate Ms in Asia, Africa & the Americas. The Chinese know it & remember how they lost lands & lives to the Christian Cossacks.
    You can't just mix and match religions together however you like...the new religion you would create that way will be self-contradicting!
    Christianity is the product of such mixing:
    Even before the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE, when Nestorianism was deemed heretical, Christians in Asia and Asia Minor drew religious inspiration from the other faiths that surrounded them. For example, early Christian ascetics were influenced by the self-denying practices of Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist mystics; some spent many years in seclusion. One such Christian mystic, St. Simeon Stylites, spent 37 years living by himself atop a pillar in Syria. There were major Nestorian centers from Jerusalem to Beijing and Xi'an, and bishoprics (areas controlled by bishops) were scattered along the Silk Road like beads in a strand. Timothy I, a Patriarch of the Church of the East, oversaw the establishment of a church center in Tibet. In 781 CE, just as Timothy began his leadership of the Church of the East, Chinese Nestorians in Chang'an, imperial capital of the Tang Empire, put up a nine-foot-tall limestone monument called the Nestorian Stele; it celebrated 150 years of Christianity in China. The monument describes Christ in Buddhist language: "[Christ] fixed the extent of the Eight Boundaries [the Eight Consciousnesses of Mahayana Buddhism], thus completing the truth and freeing it from dross [worthlessness]; he opened the gate of the three constant principles [impermanence, suffering, and nonself], introducing life and destroying death." ..Syncretism of cultures and traditions developed in many different contexts during the classical period: Hinduism is a highly syncretic religion that developed and spread through diverse parts of the Indian subcontinent; Mesopotamian culture and legal codes influenced Judaism and the Hebrew Scriptures; and Greek culture influenced Judaism as Alexander of Macedon’s empire spread east.
    https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/ancient-medieval/syncretism/a/syncretism-article

    The Roman Empire did not become Christianized overnight. Roman religious beliefs changed slowly over time. At the time the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 CE, Christianity was still spreading. It is also important to remember that Christianity itself did not appear suddenly or fully-formed. Christianity grew out of Jewish traditions and was shaped by Roman cultural and political structures for several centuries.To take one lasting example, the head of the Roman Catholic Church—the Pope—takes his title from the old Roman office of pontifex maximus—the high priest. Roman culture was not wholly replaced, but was often repurposed as it came into contact with other peoples and cultures.Christianity was deeply influenced by both Judaism and Roman cultural institutions. We can't fully understand the development of the Christian religion without putting it into these contexts! https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/world-history/ancient-medieval/christianity/a/roman-culture
    From the end of the 18th century some authors have suggested that some elements in medieval Christian art reflect images found in Mithraic reliefs.23 Franz Cumont was among these, although he studied each motif in isolation rather than the combination of several elements and whether they were combined in Christian art in the same way.24 Cumont said that after the triumph of the church over paganism, artists continued to make use of stock images originally devised for Mithras in order to depict the new and unfamiliar stories of the bible. The "stranglehold of the workshop" meant that the first Christian artworks were heavily based on pagan art, and "a few alterations in costume and attitude transformed a pagan scene into a Christian picture".
    http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=mithras_and_christianity
    1) Buddhism and Taoism aren't the same thing, so something can't be coherently based on both
    they influenced each other, & it's another example of syncretism, of the religious, as opposed to philosophical, Taoism & Mahayana Buddhism.
    2) there are many different forms of Buddhism and probably also Taoism (e.g. with Buddhism alone there are very different interpretations that contradict one another, like Chen Buddhism and Zen Buddhism)
    yes, the link above also explains it; the Chan Buddhism is the Zen Buddhism- the former is in China & the latter in Korea & Japan. Shaolin monks avoided killings but were permitted to eat meat to have more muscle mass. Being Shintoists, the Samurais adopted it; although the original Buddhism is against harming of all animal life, during their invasion of Korea they hunted tigers for sport to build up their courage.
    3) you have to actually show with a valid, coherent argument, why it is better...
    Chingis Khan listened & followed his [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yel%C3%BC_Chucai#:~:text=Yel%C3%BC Chucai was a Confucian,chief adviser to Genghis Khan.]Confucian/Taoist advisor[/url], thus ensuring his growing empire's longevity. Since Russia is the successor of the Golden Horde, & given the ROC shortcomings listed by me before, & the longevity of Chinese civilisation, it's worth considering adopting something from them.
    how do you know what is good or bad for Asians?
    if it the Eastern Orthodoxy was good for them, it would be more popular ever since its Russian  missionaries went there; they tried to adopt Soviet Stalinist socialism that coexisted/was controlled by it) with it & lost Ms + decades in development; any1 suggesting they adopt Eastern Orthodoxy will be laughed at. https://youtu.be/0SZVTj60eFM?t=1380
    This smells to me like the typical Western supremacist idea of "knowing what's best for everyone" and then forcing that on everyone else.
    I'm just refuting ur own suggestions, pointing out the historical record of ROC "successes", & comparing them with Asian teachings & their real successes. 
    You need to actually demonstrate that this view or that view is best,..
    no, I don't, especially when dealing with a believer who is incapable of seeing the forest for the trees. Since everything is relative, what's best in 1 set of circumstances may not be as good as in the other. That's why spontaneity, open mindedness & syncretism r embraced by Taoism & Asian cultures in general. Claiming to poseas the so-called "Truth", & calling it the "only Truth", is an affront, as to them there's more than 1 truth.  
    The people of China or wherever can then decide for themselves if they want to follow the Truth or not, but even if they don't, that doesn't falsify the Truth.
    1 dictum in Taoism is "do not do anything that's of no use". Whatever this truth or urs means, if it weren't & isn't going to be useful to them, as I suspect is the case so far, it has no value in their real life. 
    To them, as to me, it's plain disgusting when some1 boasts/claims to possess a teaching or ideology that he hopes evey1 else should accept & conform to. Therefore, I have no desire to engage in any more discussion here on religion in general & its implications for China in particular. 
    THIS MENTAL EXERCISE IS OVER. DON'T BOTHER TO REPLY. THANKS IN ADVANCE!



    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:30 pm; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)

    Sponsored content

    China Military and Geopolitics - Page 6 Empty Re: China Military and Geopolitics

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:15 am