• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christianity - Has it been a net gain or loss in world history?

Has Christianity been a net gain or loss on world history?

  • Christianity has been a net loss on the world we would have been better off without it.

    Votes: 15 51.7%
  • Christianity has been a net gain on the world we are been better off because of it.

    Votes: 14 48.3%

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .

kmkemp

Active Member
Why single out one group as responsible for the Holocaust? In effect, you are doing the same thing that Hitler did minus the power. Let's talk about the thousands of other groups that were allegedly involved in some fashion. I'm sure you are now a part of at least some of them.
 

BUDDY

User of Aspercreme
Why single out one group as responsible for the Holocaust? In effect, you are doing the same thing that Hitler did minus the power. Let's talk about the thousands of other groups that were allegedly involved in some fashion. I'm sure you are now a part of at least some of them.
I can single out one group for blame for the holocaust....Germans.

hope said:
Thanks, Buddy. I guess I simply don't equate references to Jesus as sufficient criteria for labeling someone a "Christian."

Regardless, to claim Christianity is responsible for the Holocaust on such a slender thread of connection is really, really going out on a limb. When one has an axe to grind, one will find anything, no matter how small, to support one's point of view.
Oh, I dont' buy what is being sold when it comes to christian responsibility for the holocaust, I just see the faulty logic. So many times some people say that if a bad thing is done by someone who calls themselves a christian, then christianity is responsible. I don't buy it.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Why single out one group as responsible for the Holocaust? In effect, you are doing the same thing that Hitler did minus the power. Let's talk about the thousands of other groups that were allegedly involved in some fashion. I'm sure you are now a part of at least some of them.
Oh, I am. I'm part German. But I'd never be fool enough to say the German people have never committed any atrocities. It takes religion to manage that kind of denial.

I'm also a member of one of the groups that was interned and killed, and still gets a boot in the head from your people every chance you get.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Oh, I dont' buy what is being sold when it comes to christian responsibility for the holocaust, I just see the faulty logic. So many times some people say that if a bad thing is done by someone who calls themselves a christian, then christianity is responsible. I don't buy it.
We can at least say that Christians did Hitler's dirty work for him, and that neither the Catholic religion nor the Protestant religion managed to instill a morality in its followers that made that unthinkable.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Hiya Fluffy,

You offered:
Some general points/rebuttals:

1) Many people seem to attribute particular historical events to Christianity and form a conclusion from this.
Yep. And...rightly so.

There are two problems with this sort of reasoning. Since scientific progress is an example that has been brought up regularly in this thread, I will use it to illustrate these two problems.
Cool. Things that might be examined by means of reason and methodology.

Firstly, often the person hasn't formed the view of Christianity from the particular event but has already got a view of Christianity and are then finding events which could, when looked at from that point of view, be used to support that view.
OK. Personal bias [most] likely influences a rationalized opinion. Check.

This is circular and can be identified if the person merely makes the claim but fails to back up why they feel Christianity is the dominant factor and, especially, if they are unable to identify any other possible factors.
Hmmm. Could you cite a relevant example?

Why? Because it indicates that they haven't even given the issue sufficient thought to identify any.
Again, likely...but not a forgone conclusion.

Many people have claimed that Christianity has stifled scientific progress but failed to justify why they think Christianity is the dominant cause of slow scientific progress.
If "someone" were to claim that Christianity is/was the "dominant cause of slow scientific progress...", then that someone might feel compelled to support that claim with "justifying" evidential "proofs" [against].

Perhaps it is enough to observe that Christianity has never been either friend or advocate of scientific discoveries/revelations/conclusions...especially when those insights suggest (or confirm) that deities or theistic claims are essentially irrelevant (or otherwise nonessential) to naturalistic "explanations" that present an equal or higher level of plausibility/acceptability as evidential fact...vs. any "faith-based" claim.

It might be true that Christianity did do this but without a justification that dismisses other factors and installs Christianity in this position, it is a broken argument.
Or, to parrot a more popular axiom, "Two wrongs, don't make a right". But...equality of error should not suggest equality of legitimacy.

Secondly, even if we identify Christianity to be the cause of a particular event, we have no way of knowing whether the event would have occurred anyway had Christianity never existed.
Indeed. Speculations upon whatever "might have been" tend to ignore (almost by design) present day realities.

Even if the event is particular to Christianity (e.g. Papal dominance of Europe) there is no way to tell, without an incredible amount of information, whether a sufficiently similar enough event might have occurred anyway (e.g. dominance of Europe by a similar political structure). It is not valid to infer from the way things are to the way things would have been.
Such is but one focal distinction of idealism versus rationalism.

In the case of scientific progress, we have no way to tell whether other causes would have led to a similar period of scientific slow down or even whether there is a period in the future in which scientific slow down would have occurred if Christianity had not existed.
Perhaps not.

We can only wonder upon the potential "top speed" of any car that has no brakes, and is driven only to achieve a maximum velocity. One may rightly quibble as to whether the "destination" is of greater value/worth, than the associated risks and pitfalls that may accompany such unrestrained speed and direction...
(In the broadest sense, "Do the ends justify the means?". Is scientific insight/discovery/revelation inherently dangerous, or just potentially so? If I can build a really fast car--faster than any other car ever even conceived--should efforts be extended to prevent or dissuade such a mechanical manifestation from attaining fruition? The question is then "why?", or "why not?". Should human knowledge, or it's associative capacities of realized achievement, be subject to purely ethical/moral protestations alone? t what point may reason be allowed to prevail over objections presented by faith-based beliefs, or doubt, or ignorance, or fear?) .

However...it's hard to realize any destination with enhanced alacrity when you are trapped behind a vehicle purposely driven to slow it's ongoing pursuit.

Christianity may not be particularly effective in suppressing human innovation, but it has labored tirelessly and purposefully to inhibit human implementations of insight, wisdom, and inspirational revelations.

2) Many people have only identified the direct affects of Christianity without analysing the extent of the interweaving web of events that every aspect of Christianity has influenced over the course of 2000 years.
Then it would only be fair to ruminate upon the directly manifested effects that Christianity has managed to deflect, confound, or inhibit within/upon (predominantly) scientifically-derived conclusions. We can look "backwards", and speculate upon the prospective impacts upon modern medicine in the absence or MRIs, X-Rays, genetic DNA comparisons, or sanitary hygiene. We could just look to the "evidences" of "miraculous healing" instead. Faith as tool of evaluation, legitimacy, and measured breadth of challenge to a more comforting religious dogma...

In fact, many have assumed that history would have stayed roughly the same minus whatever events they attribute directly to Christianity. This is simply a highly inaccurate hypothesis.
If Christianity were removed from history, then that world would have deflected and divested itself from this one well over 2000 years ago. That "time", is a very long time for things to change and we really have no idea what the modern world would like other than that it would not be anything like it is at the moment. We just don't know whether that is (or would conclusively produce either) a good thing or a bad thing. "Things" would certainly be different. Fair enough to assume that all reasoned choices produce and present their own unique challenges and obstacles to face and overcome.

I but argue that mankind's perspective (on whole) need not be reliant upon faith-based appeals to emotion and unsupported claims (of divine interventions/concerns, or "miracles") to effect more determined choices and more consistently desirable results/outcomes. Instead of "praying" (hoping) that 200,000 homeless American veterans might find a hot meal and warm shelter tonight...we can act (now; today) to effect both essentials of human dignity to those that deserve them most.

WE can act to affect direct and immediate "positive" changes.

3) Many people have confused "net gain" and "net loss" with "positive" and "negative". A net gain would be a set of positives and negatives that Christianity brought into the world which, when considered together, created a world that was greater than any other possible world. People have been very good at identifying what they see as the positives and negatives of Christianity but they then make the faulty assumption that they might legitimately make an assumption on the net gain or loss from this information.
I must concede that my drawn conclusions are (predominantly) predicated upon prospective evaluations of resultant gain/loss. This may be an inherent flaw resident within my own capacities of reason.

Indeed, I self-identify (politically and philosophically) as a liberal "progressive". I prefer to operate upon the assumption that unrestricted opportunity and unchained intellectual inquiry present the very best perspectives upon which to confront the unknown, the unexpected, and the unexplained (or unanswered/unchallenged). Within my own cognizant capacities and reality, I will never be satisfied by any "answer" that (at best) tenders a facile yet insistent fulmination of, "God Did It".

Maybe "He" did. All I know is that we are left to pick up "His" dirty socks on the floor; since His only promise is "I'll get to that...one day...soon".

I only know that don't possess the requisite faith to accept any faith-based conclusion as being reasonable, rational, or as offering any scintilla of acceptable "truth".
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
I can single out one group for blame for the holocaust....Germans.
The Germans weren't responsible for the Holocaust, Nazis were the cause. Not all Germans were Nazis (And no, I am not German)
 

Smoke

Done here.
The Germans weren't responsible for the Holocaust, Nazis were the cause. Not all Germans were Nazis (And no, I am not German)
Paul Celan, a Jewish survivor of a Nazi labor camp, said that everyone who survived (including himself) was a Nazi. He recognized that some killed with their own hands, others with their complicity, and others with their silence.

Every time a Christian throws a dollar in the collection plate, he's supporting and sharing in the actions of his church. Every time a Christian attends services at a church that marginalizes people, that supports oppression and violence, he bears witness that bigotry and oppression and violence are acceptable to him.
 

Fluffy

A fool
Heya s2a,
s2a said:
Hmmm. Could you cite a relevant example?
Of moving from the general to the particular? There is no way to tell for sure since if one were guilty of doing this, one would not admit to it and often delude oneself into thinking otherwise. I've done it myself many times so I'm aware of how easy it is. However, I believe you can see clues in the way people write. The most common clue, apart from the ones I mention in my last post, is when a person's writing mimics their thoughts (i.e. they put forward a general view and then offer 1 or 2 particulars that conform to but do not justify that general view).

There are plenty of posts on this thread that I am suspicious of but this is nothing more than my suspicions. I don't wish to accuse anybody of doing this but am instead pointing out the possibility so that each individual can re-evaluate their position in their head without having the consequence (and negative motivator) of losing face.

s2a said:
Again, likely...but not a forgone conclusion.
I agree. I just think that it is an important idea to hold in our minds as we make our own claims. I try to hold it in mine when I make one.

s2a said:
Perhaps it is enough to observe that Christianity has never been either friend or advocate of scientific discoveries...
It depends how you attain your conclusion. If you are get there by making several historical observations then you still fall into the bias trap if you are unable to cite relevant historical examples. I would add that to do so would require significant historical research and to make such an extreme generalisation would require such a long list of caveats as to make it difficult to do so honestly. Many posters on this thread appear to have taken this route.

On the other hand you appear to be formulating your conclusion from an analysis of faith and naturalism which is an entirely different matter. I do think that it is a stronger argument. Much tighter at the very least.

s2a said:
Or, to parrot a more popular axiom, "Two wrongs, don't make a right". But...equality of error should not suggest equality of legitimacy.
I'm not sure if I quite understand you here. I agree that a poorly justified claim that Christianity is bad does not automatically legitimise Christianity. I feel that unless we are able to make well justified claims that we should then withhold judgement. I would also draw a distinction between legitimising Christianity and legitimising the role that Christianity has played in this world. The first being an analysis of the positives and negatives that Christianity has brought with it, the second being an analysis of the presence of Christianity compared to its absence. (I go into more depth on this later)

s2a said:
Such is but one focal distinction of idealism versus rationalism.
That is true but I was thinking more along the lines of Humean scepticism.

s2a said:
We can only wonder upon the potential "top speed" of any car that has no brakes, and is driven only to achieve a maximum velocity...
But we don't need to quibble about the ends when we don't even know the entire journey yet. To give a very jarring example:

Scenario w/ Christianity: year 0-2000 represents a period of scientific slow down. year 2001 to 20 million represents a golden age of science.
Scenario w/o Christianity: year 0-2000 represents a golden age of science. year 2001 to 20 million represents a period of scientific slow down.

However, that isn't even the issue at hand. At the moment we are in an age where scientific discovery is increasing at an exponential rate. This is the direct result of a reality that includes Christianity. We would have to attain that by an entirely different route if something as far reaching as Christianity were removed. To justify that possibility we are then in the realm of "what if" which I tackle with my 2nd and 3rd points.

s2a said:
However...it's hard to realize any destination with enhanced alacrity when you are trapped behind a vehicle purposely driven to slow it's ongoing pursuit.

Christianity may not be particularly effective in suppressing human innovation, but it has labored tirelessly and purposefully to inhibit human implementations of insight, wisdom, and inspirational revelations.
I specifically disagree with this point. For example, lets say that if Christianity had not arisen, another religion that was more repressive that Christianity would have arisen instead. In this scenario, scientific slow down would have occurred for another 3000 years beyond the current year. In this case, Christianity is responsible for scientific slow down but represents a net gain to science since it protects us from this other scenario.

The point is not that this is a likely scenario but that we really have no idea what possibilities are likely in the absence of Christianity and without a way of measuring certain variables to a much greater degree that is provided to us by the discipline of history, I don't see how it is currently possible either.

s2a said:
Then it would only be fair to ruminate upon the directly manifested effects that Christianity has managed to deflect...
Yes we can analyse the effect that Christianity has had on this world. We just cannot analyse the impact of Christianity in terms of counterfactuals and without doing so we cannot form a conclusion about whether Christianity is a net gain or loss.

The reason for this is the Humean sceptic line with regards to defining causation as an observation that A regularly follows B since this cannot be used to infer that if not B then not A (i.e. we cannot give an account of causation in terms of counterfactuals). If this is rejected then we still have the difficulty of gathering the necessary historical information to make such an account properly grounded. And I mean specific information about exactly the way the world was 2000 years ago.

s2a said:
I but argue that mankind's perspective (on whole) need not be reliant upon faith-based appeals to emotion and unsupported claims...
In which case I agree but feel that you evaluating Christianity in terms of positive and negative and not net gain and net loss. I again point out that the current political climate that causes us to gain these liberal values is derived directly from a history that includes Christianity and even if the sole purpose of Christianity is to provide such a climate and then die, it would still be a part of reality that we would not wish to have never been.

s2a said:
WE can act to affect direct and immediate "positive" changes.
Of course when we talk about the future then we can only enact what we perceive to be positive changes and hope that these translate directly into a net gain. We have no rational basis to do so but the mind is currently too small to do anything else. It could be that your positive changes result in the next Hitler. I am reminded of a Simpson's episode in which world peace and the destruction of all weaponry allow Earth to be enslaved by alien invaders.

s2a said:
I must concede that my drawn conclusions are (predominantly) predicated upon prospective evaluations of resultant gain/loss...
This is the position I find myself in as well. However, whilst I disagree with many epistemological and ontological claims offered by Christianity as well as the results that those claims appear to have had on this world, I find myself unable to say that I would prefer a reality in which Christianity had never existed.

Thanks for your comments. I've had to clip a few of your quotes because otherwise the post is too long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: s2a

BucephalusBB

ABACABB
Paul Celan, a Jewish survivor of a Nazi labor camp, said that everyone who survived (including himself) was a Nazi. He recognized that some killed with their own hands, others with their complicity, and others with their silence.
In a camp you can get a bit biased as well.. There were enough germans as spies, resistance or fled before.

Every time a Christian throws a dollar in the collection plate, he's supporting and sharing in the actions of his church.
Doesn't mean he supports all actions. When I pay the red cross when they come at the door I pay for the ones that need it, not for the vacation of the employees, but I don't know where my money is actually going to. I just hope the needed ones get it..
 

Smoke

Done here.
In a camp you can get a bit biased as well.. There were enough germans as spies, resistance or fled before.
I know. The point was that those who sat quietly and did nothing bore their share of the guilt, too.

Doesn't mean he supports all actions. When I pay the red cross when they come at the door I pay for the ones that need it, not for the vacation of the employees, but I don't know where my money is actually going to. I just hope the needed ones get it..
Well, of course you're paying for the vacation for the employees, and what's wrong with that? Red Cross employees need vacations just like anybody else. I'd have a problem with the Red Cross if its employees didn't get paid vacations.

But unlike John Hagee's Cornerstone Church, the Red Cross doesn't urge the bombing of Iran. I trust you can see the difference.

As for me, I'm coming around to the way of thinking that says you can support an organization even if you disagree with some of its major talking points. So I trust that nobody here will criticize my decision to join the Ku Klux Klan, or try to stereotype me as a racist, or try to portray the Klan in a negative light because of its sincerely-held religious beliefs.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
As for me, I'm coming around to the way of thinking that says you can support an organization even if you disagree with some of its major talking points. So I trust that nobody here will criticize my decision to join the Ku Klux Klan, or try to stereotype me as a racist, or try to portray the Klan in a negative light because of its sincerely-held religious beliefs.

I think it is incredibly sad if you think that Christianity is like the KKK.
 

Smoke

Done here.
I think it is incredibly sad if you think that Christianity is like the KKK.
I think it's incredibly sad if you've convinced yourself otherwise. Maybe if you had the ability to be a lesbian for a year, you'd have a better perspective on how Christianity treats people it doesn't like.

However, I don't insist that you see the similarities between the KKK and the other forms of Christianity; I'd be happy if you could see the similarity between what I said facetiously and what you're saying in all seriousness.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
I think it's incredibly sad if you've convinced yourself otherwise. Maybe if you had the ability to be a lesbian for a year, you'd have a better perspective on how Christianity treats people it doesn't like.

However, I don't insist that you see the similarities between the KKK and the other forms of Christianity; I'd be happy if you could see the similarity between what I said facetiously and what you're saying in all seriousness.

They are not even close to being the same. The KKK's sole purpose is to kill, terrorize, and hate blacks and other minorities. Christians sole purpose is not to hate gays. Most Christians don't hate gays(I know some do) but all KKK members hate blacks. I find it odd that you can't see the difference.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
I think it's incredibly sad if you've convinced yourself otherwise. Maybe if you had the ability to be a lesbian for a year, you'd have a better perspective on how Christianity treats people it doesn't like.

However, I don't insist that you see the similarities between the KKK and the other forms of Christianity; I'd be happy if you could see the similarity between what I said facetiously and what you're saying in all seriousness.
I think you do more harm in generalizing it to the whole of Christianity. You know full well that some Christians on this board are more akin to UU's.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
They are not even close to being the same. The KKK's sole purpose is to kill, terrorize, and hate blacks and other minorities. Christians sole purpose is not to hate gays. Most Christians don't hate gays(I know some do) but all KKK members hate blacks. I find it odd that you can't see the difference.
Christine, some in this board don't believe you don't hate gays because of beliefs we share. If you don't believe in gay marriage for example, you hate gays. Makes perfect sense huh?
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
Christine, some in this board don't believe you don't hate gays because of beliefs we share. If you don't believe in gay marriage for example, you hate gays. Makes perfect sense huh?

No, not really, but I will take your word for it. :areyoucra:D
 

Smoke

Done here.
They are not even close to being the same.
The members of the KKK are Christians. You have to be a Christian to join.

The KKK's sole purpose is to kill, terrorize, and hate blacks and other minorities. Christians sole purpose is not to hate gays.
No, that's not their sole purpose. They're a fraternal organization that provides mutual support, fellowship, and education, just like all other Christian groups. In fact, some Klans explicitly renounce violence and terror.

Most Christians don't hate gays(I know some do) but all KKK members hate blacks. I find it odd that you can't see the difference.
I find it odd that you think all KKK members hate blacks. Why? How many Klansmen have you known? Surely you don't blame every single Klansman for the actions of a few? How can you think that just because people belong to an organization that promotes racism, they must necessarily be racist? Seems to me your attitude toward the Klan is just like my attitude toward most of the rest of Christianity.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Christine, some in this board don't believe you don't hate gays because of beliefs we share. If you don't believe in gay marriage for example, you hate gays. Makes perfect sense huh?
No, Victor, I understand that you love us -- in our place.
 
Top