Has Christianity EVER made the world a better place?

[Hollandmichigan]

richao Wrote:  ...
I'm not sure whether it's the point of Christianity to make the world a better place and, as others point out, to engage in a fruitful discussion, we'd need to define "Christianity" (i.e., do you mean the teachings, the institutional church, Christians (whether acting jointly or as individuals))..

i'd like to hear your thoughts on this distinction too, jeremy. I've been taking christianity strictly to mean the religion and not its institutions or adherents. It wouldnt be jumping into the waters of "who's really a christian" to do that, i don't think.

[myotch]

(05-09-2012 09:41 PM)Hollandmichigan Wrote:  Oh, honestly, did you really just replace the word "better" with "benefit" and act like this makes any difference in your argument...(blather blather)..

I could be stupid and all that negative stuff you want to say about me. After all, you are the genus and we must be made to feel small in your presence.

Or, I could be addressing a side-conversation earlier in the thread where it was suggested that having objective descriptions, mileposts, etc. for "better" and "Christianity" so that you, I, and everybody else can be on the same page.

You benefit from the vagueness of these terms, and that's why you keep moving the goalposts. You would like to keep Christianity and Christians separate from each other in this discussion. Which would make it a pretty useless and rather one-sided conversation.

One could not discuss the benefits of a philosophy or a political ideology or the "way of life" of some indigenous tribe without providing some examples of people actually participating in some fashion.

What it has boiled down to is that you want objective information that came directly from Christianity as the only satisfactory answer. One simply can't measure the beneficence of everything on the corporeal. "Man does not live by bread alone".

Quote:But --I stress for effect-- we are once AGAIN seeing advice to seek treatment from medical professionals. Unless of course you want to argue that the word "physician" is now somehow synonymous with "priest", or "rabbi" or "monk". Or "GOD" perhaps

There was a time when the village priest in most any Christianized area not within a huge city was, in fact, the only doctor available. The Catholic Church - we can just refer to it as The Church because there simply was no other game in town back in the day - trained the priests in medicine for this very reason - with the purposes of serving. But, I'm belaboring the point. "Doctor" is latin for "teacher", so "rabbi" (teacher) could be an appropriate synonym.

Quote:If you think this is a rabbit trail then you havent understood my argument up to this point. It's what I've been driving at from the beginning.

On the contrary, I got your number in our previous conversation. You are a contrarian, so it doesn't matter if your opposition makes salient, valid points.

Quote:Then I rest my case.

Then the verdict is that you have failed. But you knew that.

Quote:Then the christian religion itself has never improved the world, and never bothered to place such a burden upon itself. And quite a number of protestants seem to agree on that point.

Let's forget the history of the Church - i.e. the body of believers practicing Christianity - in it's professional contributions of a greater understanding of creation, attempting to alleviate suffering, etc. Gone. Lets focus on the regular Joe and Jane Christian.

Joe knows what the Bible says and teaches. But like most men, Joe has a problem with anger and lust. Now a few hundred years ago, Joe might have benefitted a little from knowing that his particular problems with lust, and how he expresses his anger and maybe even the types of frustrating things that actually anger him - testosterone and other hormones more pronounced in the male gender, and I don't know - maybe he had an overbearing mother and an absent father, and he kind of resents that fact.

It's good that Joe could have known these things, and it is good that these things are scientifically knowable.

But Joe also has that knowledge of the Bible, too, and it has helped him form a conscience in regards to his relationship with others around him. His anger and lust can become a problem with those around him, and his neighborhood, and his community.

Now, Joe works on his sins and his sinful nature, feeling empowered by the Christ that overcame Joe's sin and everybody else's. He can become a better man who seeks to do no harm or negative thing to others. And when he fails, he can, with a virtue of humility, ask forgiveness. And because his neighbors are also Christian, his wife is Christian, they feels impelled to forgive him. Joe can go to his priest, who can test if Joe in sincere in his recognition of the need for repentance, and if sincere, Joe can hear, through the priest, on behalf of the Divine "You are absolved". This is powerful stuff. And though no part of any of this uniquely Christian, the developed Christian doctrine on sin and forgiveness is rather complete and presented in a compelling way.

Every time this has happened, the world has benefitted.

Quote:You're coming awfully close to suggesting it, I think. But it's a pretty valid point to make...

Then make the point and don't use the straw man to make it. Own it.

Godfather 3, a pretty terrible movie, does have a great scene where Michael Corleone (Al Pacino, if you are not familiar), is listening to a Bishop Cardinal, who has just taken Michael's confession. He picks up a pebble and says it is like Christianized Europe and the America's - thoroughly smoothed and shaped by the running waters of Christianity. He then breaks the pebble in half, and tells Michael that like the bone-dry insides, society may have been shaped by Christianity, but Christianity had never penetrated it.

I wouldn't ever make the case that Christianity was at the root of all civilization. Like you said, civilization predates Christianity. It even predates Judaism. Even the Bible is clear on that - monotheism just wasn't there before Abraham, and wasn't even prevalent in the region well into the establishment of the nation of Israel.

Quote:You're never keen on crediting anyone other than the church for material achievements...

But that hasn't been the discussion. If this thread was about the historical benefit of the Stoics, animalism, or teen dance musicals, my participation would be of a different flavor, altogether.

Quote:...yet there could have never been a church had it not been for the shoulders of giants upon which it stood. So if you're going to argue that the world owes the church a debt of gratitude, I suggest that it clean house first and show some humility.

I don't know of a church that hasn't preached on the "right time in history, right region of the world" in which Christianity began, in some fashion or another. The widening spread of Greek influence at the time of the diaspora and Hellenized Jews returning to the Holy Land was a major influence on how Christianity spread, and how distinctly un-Jewish this "Jewish cult" would become. Of course, we as Christians see the Hand of Providence. And you see...anomaly? Convergent systems-theory in practice? Synergetic environment for a pandemic cultural movement?

Quote:Absolutely not. I repeat that, first of all, the money used to support those ventures was given to the church by people who--and I stress this very emphatically--were mostly poor and ignorant and believed in the LITERAL teaching of the church at that time.

And the tithes and offerings of others...

Quote:A literal heaven, hell and purgatory; with literal angels, demons and saints, who could roam the earth in a literal fashion. Who believed in literal miracles and the literal power of prayer.

Yes. Though I don't think saints roam the earth.... but still, I can agree. I believe literally in those things.

Let me ask you... Do you believe that life - plant life, intelligent life - exists on other planets? Do you think we are not alone in this universe? Just wondering.

Quote:The church was seen as the only means by which one could be saved--something that was necessary to escape an eternity in hell. On this basis ALONE was the church given such great authority and wealth. To suggest that, no, it was instead recognized and supported as a medieval charitable orginization, is a massacre of common sense and history.

So, common sense, as much as you recognize it as so, must have not only existed but was once prevalent before the over-reaching dogmatic Church and the medieval period. It must have been, since it such common sense was massacre-able. Not every ancient Greek was an Aristotle. Some were Plato.

Quote:None of these things are true in any objective sense, we know this now, and it can be assumed the wealthier and more educated elite who benefited from those tithes knew better too.

ho hum.

Quote:So even if I were to give you your point, for the sake of argument, you're still left with the ethical dillema of WHERE those resources came from. You can't argue that improving humanity while simultaneously running the weakest portion of it into the ground is any kind of benefit.

So your argument is that the poor were taxed into being poorer, and upon those taxes, the Church could build great things, and sponsor great things. A little down the post, you mention that these funds were taxes.

So, if we accept that these were taxes...so what? In the same way today, government can build it's buildings, build it's schools, and provide grants to scientists. They do so on the backs of the working poor and the middle class. Is modern science more or less morally objectionable because of it's reliance on the sweat and backs of "the people"?

Quote:As an aside, I would argue that the ones who should be credited for realizing these endeavours are the backs of the working peasants upon whom ALL of medieval society depended, at every level.

What was the effective tax rate of the medieval serf? 15%? 75%? 3%? Was it a 10% tithe-tax? Was that on the gross or the net? What would be a just tax rate for medieval serfs? What's a just tax rate now for the working poor?

I've never met an expert on medieval taxation before. It's rather refreshing to talk to one now. I have many questions.

Quote:Excuse me sir, I was clarifying my question for you, so don't come back and tell me it's illegitimate. Am I to assume that you have no such examples? And do you deny that other religions have influenced art in exactly the ways which you described?

It's wholly illegitimate. I answer a question, then you re-qualify the question to the extent it is not answerable. When I apply your reasoning in doing so to, say government or scientific institutions, you claim to not understand.

Yes, Islam has influenced art across Turkey and the Middle East. A lot of it is quite pleasant and even genius. However, Western Culture is greatly influenced by Christianity in regards to the arts, science, government - and much to the better than many places on earth and other religions. Objectively so.

Quote:But hold on, you're going way too far straight out of the gate. I didn't just ask for instances in scripture. Did I not ask if any of these things were given directly by god? Or Through prayer? What about miracles? Mother teresa was brought up earlier. Do you believe in the veracity of the miracle of the woman who was healed by a picture of Mother Teresa? The one for which she (MT) was beatified. And if you do, does it not also stand to reason that god could have given copernicus the heliocentric model of the universe? There is no need to dive into Catholic theology to answer this question.

I don't and don't "not" believe the veracity of claims of miracles. I am not so much agnostic to these claims as I am ambivalent. Whether or not they happened has no sway on my faith. However, I do think there is a case to be made for at least a psychological benefit to such things - a picture of a saint, or a rosary, a crucifix, prayer of others that simply does not translate into something similar for the atheist. Not saying that the atheist cannot appreciate transcendence and mysteries in various forms. It's just that transcendence and mystery seem somewhat better adapted to religious faith, with a beneficial outcome.

Quote:You are the one who does not understand the question, sir, so stop this massive projection. It does not say, "have christians ever made the world a better place", or "have catholic institutions ever made the world a better place", or "has charity ever made the world a better place". it clearly says CHRISTIANITY. The christian religion. Don't blame me for wanting to stick to topic.

I said it before, but it's worth repeating. There's no point in separating Christianity from the Christian, or Christianity from Christian organizations solely existing in for the purpose of Christianity; at least no more point than in separating science from the scientist, or science from purely scientific institutions.

If we are at an impasse, it is probably on this point alone.

Quote:But no charity would be needed at all if it were not for the islamic, jewish and christian fanatics tearing the region apart in the first place.

What? There is always need for charity. "The poor will always be with us."

Quote:You seem to be under the impression that everyone thinks charity is a good thing. That's not the case, many people do not want charity because they don't want to be under the thumb of people who are so clearly eager to take credit for their existence.

If you need charity, but are unwilling to take it... Do you think that's pride? Or are they waiting to be marxist revolutionaries?

You still fail to address that Hezbollah likely takes more money from outsiders, agitators than from it's own people.

Quote:Lets hypothetically imagine an orginization that commits atrocities yet also performs works of charity. Do those works of charity excuse the atrocities or the orginization that commits them? Does it validate the belief system that motivates their actions? I submit that the answer is no.

Transparent hypothetical.

Since you like to change the game midfield, it's my turn. 500 years ago, one organization was doing both charitable work and committing acts that were demonstrably against it's stated mission and founding documents which preached a concluded ideology of love and mercy - we'll call these acts "atrocities". Then, that organization, which was as political as it was religious 650 years ago, finds itself being less directly political and more religiously active now, because 700 years ago, that organization split and splintered because of the political, and though still splintered, can generally agree and even come together over the greater religious issues.

Another organization is only 500 years newer, based on founding texts that read like "the rules of war for men with black hats" and the texts are as directly political as they are religious, and that organization has a small, regional band that finds itself currently committing atrocities and performing charitable works, all for a religion-political ideology, and is largely funded by some bigger bands in the organization, who wish to be more directly political and religious, and who wish to wage war based on their founding documents.

Can either one or the organizations in question be totally valid in their current efforts? If not, which one is more valid in their efforts?

I would argue that BOTH organizations are more or less currently validated by their actions, but only one has a greatly positive affect on the world, and even by objective standards, a greater positive impact on the world than the other, comparatively speaking. The one that has the greater impact now hasn't always been true to its ideals. The one that has a negative impact has always been more or less true to its ideals.

[Hollandmichigan]

(05-10-2012 05:53 AM)myotch Wrote:  Or, I could be addressing a side-conversation earlier in the thread where it was suggested that having objective descriptions, mileposts, etc. for "better" and "Christianity" so that you, I, and everybody else can be on the same page.
You benefit from the vagueness of these terms, and that's why you keep moving the goalposts. You would like to keep Christianity and Christians separate from each other in this discussion. Which would make it a pretty useless and rather one-sided conversation.

Myotch, I don't even know what to say anymore. First you say that the word "better" is "comparative", a pseudo-intellectual argument that never made any sense, and THEN you go on to start using the word "benefit", because you think this isn't "comparative". These are semantic games, I've seen it all before from religious circles. If i'm benefiting from anything at all, it's the plain and sane use of the language. I would submit that you would benefit from that as well. But if you want to start using the word "benefit", FINE, use it, it MEANS THE SAME THING. When has the Christian religion ever benefited the world? Do you feel better now? Something tells me that you're going to argue that there's a difference between "benefiting" the world and "improving it". Absolute madness.

Quote:One could not discuss the benefits of a philosophy or a political ideology or the "way of life" of some indigenous tribe without providing some examples of people actually participating in some fashion.

This is entirely subjective. If all you're going to argue for is that groups of people motivated by their subjective experiences have improved the world immensely, I've already agreed with you.

Quote:What it has boiled down to is that you want objective information that came directly from Christianity as the only satisfactory answer. One simply can't measure the beneficence of everything on the corporeal. "Man does not live by bread alone".

Quoting scripture at me doesn't do anything for your argument anymore than if a muslim were quoting the koran.

Quote:There was a time when the village priest in most any Christianized area not within a huge city was, in fact, the only doctor available. The Catholic Church - we can just refer to it as The Church because there simply was no other game in town back in the day - trained the priests in medicine for this very reason - with the purposes of serving. But, I'm belaboring the point. "Doctor" is latin for "teacher", so "rabbi" (teacher) could be an appropriate synonym.

There is an obvious difference between a medical professional with a doctorate and an academic professional with a doctorate. You wouldn't want the latter amputating your leg. Simple question: did the village priest use the medical knowledge of the day or the religous knowledge of the day to treat his patients? If he was using medical knowledge ,then he was acting in his role as a medical professional. Perhaps he was motivated by his relgion to become a medical professional. I cannot deny that. And you cannot deny that this puts him in the same league as a physician who belongs to another religion.

And i stress again, just to be perfectly clear: im not trying to insult 'those religious beliefs. m simply stating that you can't credit Christianity for something it is not responsible for.

Quote:On the contrary, I got your number in our previous conversation. You are a contrarian, so it doesn't matter if your opposition makes salient, valid points.

You start your sentence with "on the contrary", and then accuse me of being a contrarian? I would say that you don't understand irony.

Quote:Joe knows what the Bible says and teaches. But like most men, Joe has a problem with anger and lust. Now a few hundred years ago, Joe might have benefitted a little from knowing that his particular problems with lust, and how he expresses his anger and maybe even the types of frustrating things that actually anger him - testosterone and other hormones more pronounced in the male gender, and I don't know - maybe he had an overbearing mother and an absent father, and he kind of resents that fact.

If he wasn't religious in the first place, Joe wouldn't see "lust" as a problem. He'd know that, people cannot read his mind, and that no one can know whether or not he is "lusting" for someone. If he saw things from a modern perspective, he'd understand that he is a mammal, and that mammals have sexual urges that they cannot control, and that some of them are rather bad-tempered. If Joe is a medieval peasant, these truths still apply.

Quote:But Joe also has that knowledge of the Bible, too, and it has helped him form a conscience in regards to his relationship with others around him. His anger and lust can become a problem with those around him, and his neighborhood, and his community. Now, Joe works on his sins and his sinful nature, feeling empowered by the Christ that overcame Joe's sin and everybody else's. He can become a better man who seeks to do no harm or negative thing to others. And when he fails, he can, with a virtue of humility, ask forgiveness. And because his neighbors are also Christian, his wife is Christian, they feels impelled to forgive him. Joe can go to his priest, who can test if Joe in sincere in his recognition of the need for repentance, and if sincere, Joe can hear, through the priest, on behalf of the Divine "You are absolved". This is powerful stuff. And though no part of any of this uniquely Christian, the developed Christian doctrine on sin and forgiveness is rather complete and presented in a compelling way.

You're descending into entirely subjective experiences. Sins, virtues and forgiveness exist entirely within the christian religion. You'd have to show that these things objectively exist within the human species. Else, you cannot claim that christianity improves a condition, when it has never existed in the first place.

Quote:Godfather 3, a pretty terrible movie, does have a great scene where Michael Corleone (Al Pacino, if you are not familiar), is listening to a Bishop Cardinal, who has just taken Michael's confession. He picks up a pebble and says it is like Christianized Europe and the America's - thoroughly smoothed and shaped by the running waters of Christianity. He then breaks the pebble in half, and tells Michael that like the bone-dry insides, society may have been shaped by Christianity, but Christianity had never penetrated it. I wouldn't ever make the case that Christianity was at the root of all civilization.

So your point is: that christianity had a civilizing effect that wasn't present before before it emerged? But what did they do to civilize people? This is a cute story from the scene in Godfather 3 but it's a complete assertion. What could christians have done, in any time period, that could not have been physically accomplished without their faith? We can point to science and show that, had scientists not had science, mandkind couldn't have physically brought about the internet, or gps, or computers, or lifesaving medicines. Where is the religious equivalent?

Quote: Like you said, civilization predates Christianity. It even predates Judaism. Even the Bible is clear on that - monotheism just wasn't there before Abraham, and wasn't even prevalent in the region well into the establishment of the nation of Israel.

I didn't just say that Civilization predates Christianity. I also said that Christianity is a product of civilization. Your church, specifically, wouldn't exist at all, in any sense, without the greek and roman languages, without the emperor Constantine, who mandated it throughout the empire, etc etc..

Quote:But that hasn't been the discussion. If this thread was about the historical benefit of the Stoics, animalism, or teen dance musicals, my participation would be of a different flavor, altogether.

This is an absurdly ignorant statement. You are obviously completely ignorant of the enlightenment and secularists and all they've done to bring about modern society. And was that not you who, at the start of this conversation, was arguing that no one in recent times has done more for science than the catholic church? And your ancient history is obviously just as shitty as your medieval history. You are obviously under the impression that no serious material achievements have been accomplished outside of the christian church if you're using "animalism and teen dance musicals" as examples of what others have done in society. This is repugnant and shameful.

Quote:I don't know of a church that hasn't preached on the "right time in history, right region of the world" in which Christianity began, in some fashion or another. The widening spread of Greek influence at the time of the diaspora and Hellenized Jews returning to the Holy Land was a major influence on how Christianity spread, and how distinctly un-Jewish this "Jewish cult" would become. Of course, we as Christians see the Hand of Providence. And you see...anomaly? Convergent systems-theory in practice? Synergetic environment for a pandemic cultural movement?

Are you arguing that there could be a christian religion without the roman emperor's mandate? without language? or writing? or paper? never mind preaching, there would be no means of preaching, and arguably nothing to preach, had it not been for these things. And now you're once again descending into a subject that you are completely ignorant of. Next you'll be saying that societal accomplishments could have not come about without god because we're made of atoms.

Quote:Yes. Though I don't think saints roam the earth.... but still, I can agree. I believe literally in those things.

You believe that angels and demons roam the earth in a corporeal form?

Quote:Let me ask you... Do you believe that life - plant life, intelligent life - exists on other planets? Do you think we are not alone in this universe? Just wondering.

How does this relate to the existence of supernatural beings? Yes, life can exist on other planets with similiar conditions. If they do, they came about naturally and through evolution by natural selection, as they did on earth.

Quote:So, common sense, as much as you recognize it as so, must have not only existed but was once prevalent before the over-reaching dogmatic Church and the medieval period. It must have been, since it such common sense was massacre-able. Not every ancient Greek was an Aristotle. Some were Plato.

What the hell are you going on about? What I meant is that, to believe that the church was recognized and supported as a charity is to believe utter bullshit and propaganda. They were seen as the divine authority of god on earth and they ruled the christian world in that capacity. Period.

Quote:So your argument is that the poor were taxed into being poorer, and upon those taxes, the Church could build great things, and sponsor great things. A little down the post, you mention that these funds were taxes.

They were poor peasants who could have enjoyed a higher standard of living had they not been giving funds to a church whose authority was based on lies.

Quote:So, if we accept that these were taxes...so what? In the same way today, government can build it's buildings, build it's schools, and provide grants to scientists. They do so on the backs of the working poor and the middle class. Is modern science more or less morally objectionable because of it's reliance on the sweat and backs of "the people"?

Are you comparing the catholic church to a secular government? and are you claiming that science does not improve the material lives of people in our society?

Quote:What was the effective tax rate of the medieval serf? 15%? 75%? 3%? Was it a 10% tithe-tax? Was that on the gross or the net? What would be a just tax rate for medieval serfs? What's a just tax rate now for the working poor?

I don't need to know the tax rate. It's not my point. Any orginization that forces people to support a belief system is wrong. When that belief system isn't even true, is doubly wrong.

Quote:It's wholly illegitimate. I answer a question, then you re-qualify the question to the extent it is not answerable. When I apply your reasoning in doing so to, say government or scientific institutions, you claim to not understand.

Let me be clear then: I meant to ask whether the christian faith has directly contributed to the progress of art or music? Yes or no?

Quote:Yes, Islam has influenced art across Turkey and the Middle East. A lot of it is quite pleasant and even genius. However, Western Culture is greatly influenced by Christianity in regards to the arts, science, government - and much to the better than many places on earth and other religions. Objectively so.

You're forgetting ancient egypt. Their entire culture was dominated by their religous beliefs and so was their art. It led to the development of the pyramids, the temples, etc.. this is just one of many possible examples. The Mayans would be another.

[

Quote:I don't and don't "not" believe the veracity of claims of miracles. I am not so much agnostic to these claims as I am ambivalent. Whether or not they happened has no sway on my faith. However, I do think there is a case to be made for at least a psychological benefit to such things - a picture of a saint, or a rosary, a crucifix, prayer of others that simply does not translate into something similar for the atheist. Not saying that the atheist cannot appreciate transcendence and mysteries in various forms. It's just that transcendence and mystery seem somewhat better adapted to religious faith, with a beneficial outcome.

Well, in The woman in mother teresa's case was evidently not being honest. Her doctor later reported that she had a non-cancerous tumor that was treated with the use of medicine. All I wanted to know is whether you believe in literal supernatural miracles. If you believe that someone can be healed by supernatural intervention, it stands to reason that scientific progress could be advanced in such a fashion as well. The psychological "benefit" you're describing is referred to as the placebo effect. It well-known to occur entirely naturally and is often used in double-blind tests during trial stages of drugs.

Quote:I said it before, but it's worth repeating. There's no point in separating Christianity from the Christian

I am not making this distinction. The question is. There is a very REAL difference between an adherent of the christian religion and the christian religion itself, is there not? If the question were, "has islam ever made the world a better place?", we wouldn't think that islam was referring to muslims, would we?

Quote:..or Christianity from Christian organizations solely existing in for the purpose of Christianity..

Hold on a second. This is a huge confession. I was under the impression that the church is a charitable orginization. Now you admit that it exists "solely for the purpose of christianity". Thank you.

Quote: at least no more point than in separating science from the scientist, or science from purely scientific institutions.

There is a very REAL difference between a scientist and the discipline they practice. You seem to think that i'm playing semantics becuase you are and that's not the case. I can point to the discipline of science, and say that had science not existed, we wouldn't have many things, such as medicines, that objectively improves the material lives of people in our world. What would we not have if christianity had never existed?

Quote:What? There is always need for charity. "The poor will always be with us."

you're quoting scripture again. And what a confession, that god can do nothing about poverty. And what a terrible thing to tell people, that they will always be doomed, without any hope, to a life of poverty and misery. And the suggestion that this poverty does not exist because of the fanaticism in that region is simply denialism on a massive scale.

Quote:If you need charity, but are unwilling to take it... Do you think that's pride? Or are they waiting to be marxist revolutionaries?

No. It's the desire to not live under the good graces of other people. The desire for freedom. The ideals that america and democracy happen to be founded on, thank you. And I doubt you even know what a marxist is.

Quote:You still fail to address that Hezbollah likely takes more money from outsiders, agitators than from it's own people.

I don't see how that changes anything at all, even if it is true. You seem to be confusing impartiality with objectivity.

Quote:Transparent hypothetical.

What? It's a hypothetical question. Two orginizations, both commit atrocities, both happen to also perform charitable contributions. Both hezbollah and the church have committed atrocities and they have made charitable contributions. These are the only relevant points we need to discuss.

Quote:Since you like to change the game midfield, it's my turn. 500 years ago, one organization was doing both charitable work and committing acts that were demonstrably against it's stated mission and founding documents which preached a concluded ideology of love and mercy - we'll call these acts "atrocities". Then, that organization, which was as political as it was religious 650 years ago, finds itself being less directly political and more religiously active now, because 700 years ago, that organization split and splintered because of the political, and though still splintered, can generally agree and even come together over the greater religious issues.

Another organization is only 500 years newer, based on founding texts that read like "the rules of war for men with black hats" and the texts are as directly political as they are religious, and that organization has a small, regional band that finds itself currently committing atrocities and performing charitable works, all for a religion-political ideology, and is largely funded by some bigger bands in the organization, who wish to be more directly political and religious, and who wish to wage war based on their founding documents.

Can either one or the organizations in question be totally valid in their current efforts? If not, which one is more valid in their efforts?

But you're again comparing christianity and Islam, which is not at all related to my argument, just to be clear. But if you want to know my opinion on christianity and Islam: they're both wrong, because neither of the faiths have objectively improved the world. None of their beliefs are in any way based in fact or evidence. and any orginization or system of belief founded on lies is ethically wrong. If you want to dispute that, all you need to do is point to one singe achievement that can be attributed to either faith. And I will concede the entire argument in your favor.

Back to the original argument at hand: I think that if you have an orginization that commits atrocities but also contributes to charity, you should throw the devil out with the bath water and create something like.. i don't know.. the redcross for example?

This is completely unrelated, but I've been mulling it over in my head. If i can steal the metaphor that's used to describe the difference between a pessimist and an optimist, it seems to me that the difference between a believer and a non-believer is this: the believer looks for anything good in his/her faith, and if something can be found, decides that the glass is half full and keeps it. The non-believer, on the other hand, points to all the ethical failures, logical inconsistencies and outright lies and says, the glass is half empty, let's cut whatever good we can find out of it, throw the rest out and start from scratch. But wait, that would be called secular humanism!

[D-Stan]

Well, this has been an interesting thread.

[lucrezaborgia]

Lol at the assertion that good christians made japan awesome

[Donb123]

(05-11-2012 02:58 AM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:  Lol at the assertion that good christians made japan awesome

Lol at people's inability to not project rather than reading what is said... just saying. I'm not willing to revisit this foolishness as one person has pretty well declared himself Smartest Person in the World and Winner of teh Interwebz.

[DaisyDeadhead]

(05-07-2012 05:09 PM)steve95054 Wrote:  Based on this assertion, you think that paganism and superstition are just as good as what we have now.

Steve, paganism and superstition are alive and well, part and parcel of "what we have now"--there are in fact more new age and pagan folks than ever before.

I think people like you have everything to do with popularizing paganism... if you dislike paganism, maybe you shouldn't write this wacko stuff thereby prompting people to go stampeding in that direction?

You are a great commercial for avoiding Christianity. I often forget why I left, then I come to this forum and remember.

Thanks, keep up the good work.

[DaisyDeadhead]

(05-08-2012 10:46 AM)Donb123 Wrote:  The Nazi regime wasn't Christian and I love how y'all deflect but whatever...

There was a hard-core Christian faction within the nazi party:

The Deutsche Christen (English: German Christians) were a pressure group and movement within German Protestantism aligned towards the antisemitic and Führerprinzip ideological principles of Nazism with the goal to align German Protestantism as a whole towards those principles. Their advocacy of these principles led to a schism within the German Protestant church and the attendant foundation of the rival Confessing Church in Germany.

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians

[Donb123]

(05-11-2012 05:33 PM)DaisyDeadhead Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 10:46 AM)Donb123 Wrote:  The Nazi regime wasn't Christian and I love how y'all deflect but whatever...

There was a hard-core Christian faction within the nazi party:

The Deutsche Christen (English: German Christians) were a pressure group and movement within German Protestantism aligned towards the antisemitic and Führerprinzip ideological principles of Nazism with the goal to align German Protestantism as a whole towards those principles. Their advocacy of these principles led to a schism within the German Protestant church and the attendant foundation of the rival Confessing Church in Germany.

--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians

Okay? I bet there's a group of successful, rich, white collar banking 1%ers who will vote for Obama too.

[DaisyDeadhead]

(05-11-2012 05:45 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  Okay? I bet there's a group of successful, rich, white collar banking 1%ers who will vote for Obama too.

Well of course, he bailed them out to the tune of $800 million dollars up front. What's not to like?

Don't get the analogy.