Genjitsushugi Yuusha no Oukoku Saikenki - Ch. 59.1 - The Arrival of the Saint (1)

[cash5891]

Post Script: various forms of: Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Shamanism, Paganism (which is pointless to say because that basically encapsulates any polytheistic religion) don't forcibly spread their religion and/or beliefs. Other forms, or, more specifically, people claiming to follow them, do forcibly spread. But, like with people claiming to be Christians, but actively NOT following the teachings of Christ (and instead following the teachings of "important" people who came centuries or millennia afterward), can we really call them practitioners of the faith they claim to follow?

And I will leave it after saying that...

I say the question of whether certain members are "true followers" or not tends to skirt "no true Scotsman" territory, distracts from the main topic (whether religion is a net positive or negative for society at large), and eventually gets bogged down in semantics. IMO as long as their "lineage" (read: dogma, creed, institution, prominent characters, etc.) can be clearly traced to the ancient belief, then it can at least be argued that the ancient belief is at the very least a source or inspiration for the virulent, invasive species that currently bears its name. Case in point: rabid fundamentalist Christians in the USA -- nothing like Jesus nor his teachings, but are arguably the result of centuries of dogmatizing/interpreting/proselytizing/cherry-picking those very teachings. So these people might not be "Christians" in the sense of following all of Jesus' teachings, but they are absolutely religious.

I would also emphasize here the importance of differentiating belief and religion: the former is personal, the latter is organizational. I have nothing against the former, but life experiences have made me extremely wary of the latter. Surviving a religious civil war tends to do that to you.

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
-- Steven Weinberg

 

[Areos]

I foresee another war coming

 

[Aricitic]

While waiting on verification from you, I will proceed on the assumption that these "non-invasive" religions exist. You have already outlined the problem with them: they are eventually outpaced/taken over by the "more invasive" varieties. Thus as we look at larger and larger societal scales, it becomes increasingly unlikely for the "non-invasive" religions to thrive compared to the "invasive" ones -- which IMO lends credence to the idea that when all is said and done, (surviving) religions in general have a net negative effect on society.

Sadly, I must agree with the fundamental result of your argument (with one exception that you are going to hate me for).
So, as I pointed out, they exist, for (usually) limited time, but are more often than not irrevocably taken over or simply killed... And the negative done in the "name" of the surviving ones almost always outpaces the "net" good.

The one exception (that I sincerely hope remains an exception) that you will hate me for is called "Science." Yes, even Science itself has the makings of "a religion."
As per (https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/religion-and-belief):
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe.
Science fallows all of these: collection of cultural systems? See any college or educational or research institute. Belief systems? Any FIELD of science (or study). Worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality? Any FIELD of study that involves where humanity comes from or goes to. Moral values? Same as above. Even the last sentence exists within the fields of science: narratives, symbols traditions and "sacred histories" undoubtedly exist within each field. While Science doesn't really intended to give meaning to life, it certainly attempts to explain the origin of life or the universe.

Additionally: there was a "list" of (something like five or so) defining features of a religion... Or what is required to register as a religion (Last Week Tonight had a segment on it), but I found the above first, so I went with that.

Finally. I'm not trying to discredit Science by attributing it as a (potential) religion. No, point in fact, it is the ONLY such thing whose very doctrine is to disprove itself (and there by prove it's findings). But I must also point out that given some of the things that people who are very much well respected Scientists are trying to claim they have (material, verifiable, literal) proof of (i.e. what makes a theory instead of a hypothesis) is astronomically, astoundingly impossible. I will get into that at anyone's request, but I've already spammed enough walls of text for now. And I need to check if you have updated your post in response to me completing my last one.

 

[Aricitic]

I say the question of whether certain members are "true followers" or not tends to skirt "no true Scotsman" territory, distracts from the main topic (whether religion is a net positive or negative for society at large), and eventually gets bogged down in semantics. IMO as long as their "lineage" (read: dogma, creed, institution, prominent characters, etc.) can be clearly traced to the ancient belief, then it can at least be argued that the ancient belief is at the very least a source or inspiration for the virulent, invasive species that currently bears its name. Case in point: rabid fundamentalist Christians in the USA -- nothing like Jesus nor his teachings, but are arguably the result of centuries of dogmatizing/interpreting/proselytizing/cherry-picking those very teachings. So these people might not be "Christians" in the sense of following all of Jesus' teachings, but they are absolutely religious.

I would also emphasize here the importance of differentiating belief and religion: the former is personal, the latter is organizational. I have nothing against the former, but life experiences have made me extremely wary of the latter. Surviving a religious civil war tends to do that to you.

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
-- Steven Weinberg

This. I full heartedly agree with this. Especially the second paragraph. It's (basically) what I tell most people about my very belief system. I, personally, an NOT "religious" as I don't follow a specific "religion". I hold beliefs that may or may not change based on what I experience and learn.
And I strongly believe that, while we all have the right to "share" what we believe, no one has the right to force their beliefs on another.

 

[yisuhz]

Then what's the f ing point of being a saint if she the current saint will just become a bishop under him now. The Saint title doesn't sound like a good thing to have if it's just a name and it can be easily striped, but yet it comes with responsibilities like, say, going to another country in place of the pope and ask to be a concubine

 

[DarkeLourd]

ah yes, Holy Kingdom of Lunaria that is neither Holy or a Kingdom...
Theocracy strikes again

And they aren't even FROM the moon! They hit the HRE trifecta.

 

[Grailm]

I disagree. At the end if the day people have an Inherent desire to understand. When times are hard people want to know why, and who or what is responsible. Because throughout our evolution we've learned that the unknown can kill us. Religion provides an answer to the "why" of things and shorts out our reasoning ability through the pressure to conform.

As for religious fervor, well he does a pretty good job of handling things. I think k you'll like it.

People only want to understand so long as it benefits them. Give them the choice between a sweet little lie or the painful truth and the vast majority of people will choose to believe in a lie. Too believe what they want to believe. Religion is far more then about providing answers to things, that's honestly the least of it amongst why one chooses to believe in something. Its about creating a sense of community, a guide to follow, comfort, justification for actions, etc. etc.

Even without a say "god" or anything supernatural. A great many people will gravitate towards a collective belief because above all, it gives them purpose. Thus, he needs to handle this carefully.

 

[Kurro]

Lol I knew this would happen (think most with general knowledge did) The whole pointless dribble about talking about religion in the forum.

Look at history and religion, or more correct the people at the top, it's all about controling the people. Nothing more. And very unfortunately it works. 😑 I REALLY hate religion with a passion.

 

[NezzKind]

Ironically...

Spoiler: LN SPOILERS

The mother dragon is an actual demigod(?) and the lunarians worship an ipad. iirc

 

[Ludvagn]

Sadly, I must agree with the fundamental result of your argument (with one exception that you are going to hate me for).
So, as I pointed out, they exist, for (usually) limited time, but are more often than not irrevocably taken over or simply killed... And the negative done in the "name" of the surviving ones almost always outpaces the "net" good.

The one exception (that I sincerely hope remains an exception) that you will hate me for is called "Science." Yes, even Science itself has the makings of "a religion."
As per (https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/religion-and-belief):
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe.
Science fallows all of these: collection of cultural systems? See any college or educational or research institute. Belief systems? Any FIELD of science (or study). Worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality? Any FIELD of study that involves where humanity comes from or goes to. Moral values? Same as above. Even the last sentence exists within the fields of science: narratives, symbols traditions and "sacred histories" undoubtedly exist within each field. While Science doesn't really intended to give meaning to life, it certainly attempts to explain the origin of life or the universe.

Additionally: there was a "list" of (something like five or so) defining features of a religion... Or what is required to register as a religion (Last Week Tonight had a segment on it), but I found the above first, so I went with that.

Finally. I'm not trying to discredit Science by attributing it as a (potential) religion. No, point in fact, it is the ONLY such thing whose very doctrine is to disprove itself (and there by prove it's findings). But I must also point out that given some of the things that people who are very much well respected Scientists are trying to claim they have (material, verifiable, literal) proof of (i.e. what makes a theory instead of a hypothesis) is astronomically, astoundingly impossible. I will get into that at anyone's request, but I've already spammed enough walls of text for now. And I need to check if you have updated your post in response to me completing my last one.

While I do agree with you that science is very much like a religion, I can not see that science says anything about spirituality or morals.

The only definition I could find of spirituality that does not create a circular argument by refering back to religion was in reference to the soul, which (unless I've missed some big scientific discovery) science does not believe exists.

Science itself doesn't say anything about morals either. As far as I know, morals may be based on science and science may follow morals (in how/what experiments are carried out), but science itself never says anything about what's morally right or wrong. That usually comes from the local laws and/or ones upbringing/genetics.

 

[Aricitic]

While I do agree with you that science is very much like a religion, I can not see that science says anything about spirituality or morals.

The only definition I could find of spirituality that does not create a circular argument by refering back to religion was in reference to the soul, which (unless I've missed some big scientific discovery) science does not believe exists.

Science itself doesn't say anything about morals either. As far as I know, morals may be based on science and science may follow morals (in how/what experiments are carried out), but science itself never says anything about what's morally right or wrong. That usually comes from the local laws and/or ones upbringing/genetics.

Science does say things about morals. Ethics is a field of study. Even ignoring Ethics itself, Sociology, Psychology, Criminology, to name a few, are fields of science that handle ethics. While they may be considered "soft" science, Social Sciences are still science.

And, just because nothing has been proven about spirituality doesn't mean that science never touches the same topics. Various fields of science attempt to explain what happens during and after death. Science has attempted to define and still attempts to quantify the "soul". The mere fact that it hasn't been done (successfully) doesn't mean it hasn't or isn't attempted. Things that (currently) cannot be proven are not categorically classified as not science (at least not by any real scientist) but instead "shelved" until the tools available allow for more experimentation, should that prove inconclusive they are shelved again...
The only thing "not scientific" is claiming that data exists when it clearly doesn't and isn't verifiable, or manipulating the data to get the results you want. There are no "forbidden" topics, only methods to study those topics. Only experiments performed in ways that violate the rights of others. Otherwise the medical field would never have developed, period. Dissecting corpses without permission was only "bad" when they didn't have permission from the deceased and/or family... Etc, etc.

Back to morals, and then I'll shut up... Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, to name a few. Ethics and Philosophy are definitely considered science.
EDIT: I have more to say, but it is 3:34 AM here and I really need to sleep.

 

[chendu]

Prepare for the bamboozle !! X)
Tanks for the food

 

[miniongodking]

People were helping each other and finding a reason to live before religion existed, and they'll do it just fine after as well.

point being religions develop a method for this, not so much that a religion monopolizes this. phil was stating religions are bad (no debate) made me laugh so i posted a quick counterexample

 

[miniongodking]

BASED P

Yes, yes there has. Unfortunately I am incapable of naming literally any of them because either they have no name, or they were absorbed, or destroyed (or absorbed and then destroyed) by other religions or other peoples.
The reason why we wouldn't know of these religions are precisely because they don't actively spread their beliefs.
I can think of one example. A religion believed that it was bad (against God, or some other reason) to breed. They didn't actively spread the religion, and all died (of old age, generally). That religion died with them exactly because they didn't spread it (successfully anyway).
No idea what it was called (I vaguely remember it being an "offshoot" to Christianity, but could be wrong). I would look it up, but have already proven that opening tabs to research on my phone (which is what I am using) can and will refresh this tab, losing everything I have typed. I will see if I can find out AFTER submitting this post.

EDIT: well, that was pointless. After literally 500 sites about abortion and reproductive rights, I couldn't find any hint at what I was talking about. I'll look into it again later.

Post Script: various forms of: Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Shamanism, Paganism (which is pointless to say because that basically encapsulates any polytheistic religion) don't forcibly spread their religion and/or beliefs. Other forms, or, more specifically, people claiming to follow them, do forcibly spread. But, like with people claiming to be Christians, but actively NOT following the teachings of Christ (and instead following the teachings of "important" people who came centuries or millennia afterward), can we really call them practitioners of the faith they claim to follow?

And I will leave it after saying that...

BASED POST ACTUALLY WELL RESEARCH AND NUANCED OBSERVATIONS ON SPIRITUALITY AND WHAT FAITH ENCOMPASSES BEYOND ROMAN CATHOLICISM FUCKING BASED

 

[isoycrazy]

While I do agree with you that science is very much like a religion, I can not see that science says anything about spirituality or morals.

The only definition I could find of spirituality that does not create a circular argument by refering back to religion was in reference to the soul, which (unless I've missed some big scientific discovery) science does not believe exists.

Science itself doesn't say anything about morals either. As far as I know, morals may be based on science and science may follow morals (in how/what experiments are carried out), but science itself never says anything about what's morally right or wrong. That usually comes from the local laws and/or ones upbringing/genetics.

Science does say things about morals. Ethics is a field of study. Even ignoring Ethics itself, Sociology, Psychology, Criminology, to name a few, are fields of science that handle ethics. While they may be considered "soft" science, Social Sciences are still science.

And, just because nothing has been proven about spirituality doesn't mean that science never touches the same topics. Various fields of science attempt to explain what happens during and after death. Science has attempted to define and still attempts to quantify the "soul". The mere fact that it hasn't been done (successfully) doesn't mean it hasn't or isn't attempted. Things that (currently) cannot be proven are not categorically classified as not science (at least not by any real scientist) but instead "shelved" until the tools available allow for more experimentation, should that prove inconclusive they are shelved again...
The only thing "not scientific" is claiming that data exists when it clearly doesn't and isn't verifiable, or manipulating the data to get the results you want. There are no "forbidden" topics, only methods to study those topics. Only experiments performed in ways that violate the rights of others. Otherwise the medical field would never have developed, period. Dissecting corpses without permission was only "bad" when they didn't have permission from the deceased and/or family... Etc, etc.

Back to morals, and then I'll shut up... Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, to name a few. Ethics and Philosophy are definitely considered science.
EDIT: I have more to say, but it is 3:34 AM here and I really need to sleep.

My two cents.

Science is not a religion. A religion is a basis of arguments and beliefs founded on one core premise. "God is real." Science lacks that belief and looks to explain all actions in the universe to the final logical end. There are some base assumptions made, yes, look at Euclid's five axioms for geometry, but those don't define the moral or ethical way of life like religion. Science could one day prove god exists, but that wouldn't make it a religion. Religion is about faith without evidence to support the claim.

So, to me, anyone who claims that they can prove the Christain God exists is basically an idolator. Their evidence is required for God to exist in an argument. So their evidence must come before God.

And to all, thank you for having four pages of religious discussion without it becoming vitriol. An earnest congratulations is deserved.

 

[Nyaaa]

Souma bout to be like Indonesia and make national religions.

 

[miniongodking]

I say the question of whether certain members are "true followers" or not tends to skirt "no true Scotsman" territory, distracts from the main topic (whether religion is a net positive or negative for society at large), and eventually gets bogged down in semantics. IMO as long as their "lineage" (read: dogma, creed, institution, prominent characters, etc.) can be clearly traced to the ancient belief, then it can at least be argued that the ancient belief is at the very least a source or inspiration for the virulent, invasive species that currently bears its name. Case in point: rabid fundamentalist Christians in the USA -- nothing like Jesus nor his teachings, but are arguably the result of centuries of dogmatizing/interpreting/proselytizing/cherry-picking those very teachings. So these people might not be "Christians" in the sense of following all of Jesus' teachings, but they are absolutely religious.

I would also emphasize here the importance of differentiating belief and religion: the former is personal, the latter is organizational. I have nothing against the former, but life experiences have made me extremely wary of the latter. Surviving a religious civil war tends to do that to you.

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
-- Steven Weinberg

“yapping with no citations is still yapping”
— miniongodking

 

[hurafloyd]

And let the population become zealots themselves that will result in an extremist revolution, causing the state to convert to a theocratic extremist state hostile to any nation not of the same religion? Because i can think of a Couple countries that are technically like that.

Freedom of religion doesn’t work if you let people proselytize aggressively. That deprives others of THEIR rights to have a different religion, especially if the proselytizing religion insists that their one god is the true god and all other gods are heretical poser demons or very critically bad misinterpretations of the big cheese.

Its not possible to control anyways, regardless of religious suppression or not, hell even if you purge them like the romans did with the christians or the japanese also did at some point, rome still turned to christianity and japan assimilated christianity into their culture (even if its not a state religion). Souma should also know that you cant stop religion as long as poverty is widespread.

The other solution I could think of is that Souma creates his own religion to balance out foreing faiths, which would bring a religious hostilities anyways, so no, he cant escape this outside becoming laic or establish his own fundamentalist state, which the latter will never happen.

 

[cash5891]

So, to me, anyone who claims that they can prove the Christain God exists is basically an idolator. Their evidence is required for God to exist in an argument. So their evidence must come before God.

Yes, this exactly. If you have faith, why do you still seek evidence? Isn't your seeking indicative of a lack of faith?

Science fallows all of these: collection of cultural systems? See any college or educational or research institute. Belief systems? Any FIELD of science (or study). Worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality? Any FIELD of study that involves where humanity comes from or goes to. Moral values? Same as above. Even the last sentence exists within the fields of science: narratives, symbols traditions and "sacred histories" undoubtedly exist within each field. While Science doesn't really intended to give meaning to life, it certainly attempts to explain the origin of life or the universe.

Are you sure you're not conflating science as a discipline and science as a branch of academia populated by people who all bring their own beliefs and worldviews, some (many?) of which are in direct conflict with scientific principles? I know a guy with a PhD in physics who despite his training and education remains quite superstitious -- he knows these beliefs are probably untrue, but it comforts him to act as though they are true, and he still does a good job in his research despite these admittedly unscientific beliefs.

As Ludvagn and isoycrazy point out, science as a discipline makes no statement about any higher power, absolute truths, or morals. Scientists, on the other hand, can and do ascribe to all sorts of combinations of these -- but I think this speaks more about the humans studying the discipline than the discipline itself.

This distinction is important and must be made, otherwise pretty much any endeavor involving humans (who all have their own belief systems) can be broadly categorized as religion, at which point the label becomes rather useless. If everyone is rich, then nobody is rich.

 

[episode]

I dont give a fuck about religion what not. What i see is a possibility for getting a saintussy and a mother dragussy. And maybe a popussy as well if the pope is a bitch with a holy gown.

You read this for religion trap bait, while im reading this for the bussy. We are not the same.