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

[BUDDY]

Simple question really. The subject came up in another thread and I am looking for blatant honesty from the members of this forum. Do you believe that christianity has been good or bad overall for the world both currently and historically? Think of all you know about christianity since its' foundation...and discuss.

 

[BUDDY]

I need a moderators help here please. Question number two shoudl say net gain, not net loss. Could someone please correct this for me? Thank you.

 

[wednesday]

I say a loss, the world was fine without it (Paganism, monotheism ect.). From what i've read, Christianity basically moved in and destroyed existing religions which i think is wrong and damages the history of the world. Look at Norse mythology, the temple in sweden (Gamla Uppsala)
has been destroyed. In Egypt, the temple of Hatshepsut has Christian symbols carved everywhere. Although Christianity has done some good for the world, currently and for the better part of its history, Christianity has caused more trouble and cost more lives than a lot of other major religions.

 

[sandandfoam]

Maybe it's me, but that does not look like a simple question.
I can answer regarding myself but as regards 'the world' I don't know because I'm not sure what would be included in a definition of Christian in a 'world' sense. For example the Catholic Church teaches that the use of condoms is not acceptable in the fight against aids. This is not a teaching that I would consider a Christian teaching rather I consider it a Catholic teaching.
Christianity as I understand it has been good for the world, but I understand Christian in a broad, liberal sense, not a dogmatic one.
What do you mean by Christian?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Well, witch hunts were enough for me.

 

[Gentoo]

I need a moderators help here please. Question number two shoudl say net gain, not net loss. Could someone please correct this for me? Thank you.

All fixed

 

[BUDDY]

What do you mean by Christian?

Um, any religious movement claiming to be followers of Jesus Christ.

And I am asking for opinion based on the history. It's easy to find and usually easier to form an opinion on.

 

[Smoke]

A religion that gave us Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, Seraphim of Sarov, Julian of Norwich, Meister Eckhart, Sojourner Truth, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King, James Cone, Carter Heyward, Xenia of Petrograd, John the Wonderworker, Innocent of Moscow, Jimmy Carter, Flannery O'Connor and Oscar Romero and beat the Turks back from Vienna can't be all bad.

Still, it's also the religion that gave us Innocent III, the Borgias, Cardinal Richelieu, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Kent Hovind, Padre Pio, Jonathan Edwards, Benny Hinn, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Benedict XVI, James Dobson, Hal Lindsey, Luis Palau, Rod Parsley, Nikon of Moscow, Lee Strobel, the Ustaše, the Iron Guard, the Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts, the Spanish Conquest, the Thirty Years' War, the Holocaust, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, missionaries, the Index of Prohibited Books, the Traditional Values Coalition, Creation Science, Pius IX, Fred Phelps, Charles Coughlin, George W. Bush, the Defense of Marriage Act, John Paulk, Bill Bright, Tim LaHaye, Ian Paisley, the Southern Baptist Convention, Stephen Harper, Keith Hay, John Hagee, Phyllis Schafly, Randall Terry, Bill Donohue, Gary North, Anita Bryant, the Ku Klux Klan, and Jack Chick.

All in all, I think we'd have been better off without it, provided that its absence didn't allow Islam to conquer the world.

 

[rojse]

What about the stymying of scientific progress? I won't bring up individual incidents, because I don't want to go off into a tangent to the debate itself, but the Church opposed many scientific ideas, and still does, long after they have proven to be workable, and a far greater improvement upon old, dated scientific theories that were used to support Christian-based thinking.

 

[rojse]

All in all, I think we'd have been better off without it, provided that its absence didn't allow Islam to conquer the world.

You don't need to have a religious army to oppose a religious army. Religion has not allowed several countries to band together in a war, unless it is in their best interests politically or through military strategy.

 

[Smoke]

What about the stymying of scientific progress? I won't bring up individual incidents, because I don't want to go off into a tangent to the debate itself, but the Church opposed many scientific ideas, and still does, long after they have proven to be workable, and a far greater improvement upon old, dated scientific theories that were used to support Christian-based thinking.

From nobeliefs.com:

Granted that opposition to science and reason is hard to quantify, and that this graph is more symbolic than factual, I think it makes a pretty valid point.

Arthur Koestler said something that I can't locate at the moment, to the effect that Europeans in 1500 knew less about the world than their ancestors knew in Classical Greece.

​

 

[Smoke]

You don't need to have a religious army to oppose a religious army. Religion has not allowed several countries to band together in a war, unless it is in their best interests politically or through military strategy.

If it hadn't been for Christianity, Islam might have never existed, or might have been quite different, and if it hadn't been for theological conflicts between Eastern and Western Christianity, the Turks might have been stopped before they reached Constantinople. It's kind of interesting to speculate about it.

Anyway, I agree with your point.

 

[ChristineES]

Actually Christianity is a good thing to have: Non-Christians can blame all the world's problems on it. You always need a scape-goat.

 

[Smoke]

Actually Christianity is a good thing to have: Non-Christians can blame all the world's problems on it. You always need a scape-goat.

I've never known a non-Christian who blamed all the world's problems on Christianity.

Those are further problems with Christianity: the dogged refusal to admit that the evil Christians do in the name of Christianity has anything to do with Christianity, and the eagerness to gather one's robes about oneself in offended righteousness when confronted with facts.

 

[BUDDY]

Still, it's also the religion that gave us Innocent III, the Borgias, Cardinal Richelieu, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Kent Hovind, Padre Pio, Jonathan Edwards, Benny Hinn, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Benedict XVI, James Dobson, Hal Lindsey, Luis Palau, Rod Parsley, Nikon of Moscow, Lee Strobel, the Ustaše, the Iron Guard, the Dark Ages, the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts, the Spanish Conquest, the Thirty Years' War, the Holocaust, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, missionaries, the Index of Prohibited Books, the Traditional Values Coalition, Creation Science, Pius IX, Fred Phelps, Charles Coughlin, George W. Bush, the Defense of Marriage Act, John Paulk, Bill Bright, Tim LaHaye, Ian Paisley, the Southern Baptist Convention, Stephen Harper, Keith Hay, John Hagee, Phyllis Schafly, Randall Terry, Bill Donohue, Gary North, Anita Bryant, the Ku Klux Klan, and Jack Chick.

All in all, I think we'd have been better off without it, provided that its absence didn't allow Islam to conquer the world.

There are a lot of names in that list that I would wonder about. For example, what has John Hagee done as a negative to humanity? Actually, you don't have to say as that is not what this is about. I find it interesting though the measurements people are using to give their answer. I was expecting things related to Constantine and the crusades, not christian preachers with no history of violence and the incitement of violence.

 

[ChristineES]

I didn't even say that every non-Christian blames the world's problems on Christians, I meant it to mean that a lot of people do. Of course there are evil people who call themselves Christians, there are evil people in any group- including some evil atheists or anything else. Just as there are good people in any group.

 

[rojse]

From nobeliefs.com:

Granted that opposition to science and reason is hard to quantify, and that this graph is more symbolic than factual, I think it makes a pretty valid point.​

Arthur Koestler said something that I can't locate at the moment, to the effect that Europeans in 1500 knew less about the world than their ancestors knew in Classical Greece.​

​

I do agree that scientific progress is hard to quantify, but you can name all of the scientific theories that the Church opposed then, and today, which is a lot more informative.

It's still continuing now, even though their objections are based more on moral dilemmas proposed by new technologies than scientific argument.

 

[Smoke]

I didn't even say that every non-Christian blames the world's problems on Christians, I meant it to mean that a lot of people do.

I wonder where you find such people. I have never known a single one.

 

[Smoke]

I find it interesting though the measurements people are using to give their answer. I was expecting things related to Constantine and the crusades, not christian preachers with no history of violence and the incitement of violence.

I don't know if I'd be so quick to let John Hagee and many other preachers off the hook quite so easily; many of them go out of their way to incite hatred and condone violence. (In fact, in praising the Christians for beating the Turks back from Vienna, I suppose I've condoned some violence myself. But I'm willing to condone it in much more limited circumstances than most Evangelical preachers.)

However, what's more to the point is that violence hasn't been the only evil to proceed from Christianity.

 

[ChristineES]

I wonder where you find such people. I have never known a single one.

A lot of people are hostile to people who are hostile them, it is a human failing. Christians even do it. I have met very many kind Christians.