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

[ChristineES]

Look im no fan of Christians.

Does that include me, Penguino?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Does that include me, Penguino?

Im sorry Christine. Let me rephrase it, i mean Christianity.

 

[Mister Emu]

Um, she was right about the cats thing.

She may be accurate in that killing cats helped spread it, but there would have been black plague whether or not cats were killed.

Also the Black plague entered Europe in 1340's and the Malleus Maleficarum wasn't written until 1486, published in 1487...

Thirdly, the Catholic Church Banned it in 1490...

Finally:

Also, as some researchers have noted, the fact that the Malleus was popular does not imply that it accurately reflected or influenced actual practice; one researcher compared it to confusing a "television docu-drama" with "actual court proceedings." Estimates about the impact of the Malleus should thus be weighed accordingly.

from Malleus Maleficarum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They might have said "what little was left"; what the article fails to mention is that the Christians of Western Europe were for the most part illiterate clods compared to Eastern Christians, Muslims, or their own Jewish neighbors.

I don't deny this, but I would argue it has everything to do with local conditions in the "west", and not much, if anything, to do with Christianity...

 

[ChristineES]

Im sorry Christine. Let me rephrase it, i mean Christianity.

Apology accepted.

 

[Willamena]

Every experience of mankind is a net gain.

 

[gnomon]

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.

Honestly.

It's a dumb question. It's dumb because asserting either answer as positive moves beyond ignorance into stupidity. Perhaps even pretentiousness.

It's also disturbing. And I'm not even being rude.

Honestly.

 

[Storm]

I still want to know why BUDDY's trying to "start a Christian uprising on RF" and what exactly that's supposed to accomplish.

 

[BUDDY]

I still want to know why BUDDY's trying to "start a Christian uprising on RF" and what exactly that's supposed to accomplish.

Sarcasm only. I was totally kidding.

 

[Storm]

Oh. Stupid text-only forum.

 

[BUDDY]

Honestly.

It's a dumb question. It's dumb because asserting either answer as positive moves beyond ignorance into stupidity. Perhaps even pretentiousness.

It's also disturbing. And I'm not even being rude.

Honestly.

Never claimed the answer either way to be positive. And yes, you are being rude. Honestly, how is it disturbing to ask for the opinion of people on a religious forum on the historical effect of one the of the world's major relgions?

If you are afraid to answer the question, then just say so, but to somehow assert that I am being ostentacious or full of pretense is to fully misinterpret the question and its meaning. It is a simple question and is totally opinion, based upon historical evidence and how you see it. You could call it personal historiology if you like. Certainly you have an opinion on how christianity has effected history and historical peoples.

I find your characterization of the question judgemental and arrogant.

 

[gnomon]

Never claimed the answers either way to be positive. And yes, you are being rude. Honestly, how is it disturbing to ask for the opinion of people on a religious forum on the historical effect of one the of the world's major relgions?

If you are afraid to answer the question, then just say so, but to somehow assert that I am being ostentacious or full of pretense is to full misinterpret the question and its meaning. It is a simple question and is totally opinion based upon historical evidence and how you see it. You could call it personal historiology if you like. Certainly you have an opinion on how christianity has effected history and historical peoples.

I find you characterization of the question judgemental and arrogant.

I answered the question. I think it's quite obvious I'm not afraid to do that.

What I find dumb is that people could assert either answer as positive. Of course, Christianity has had an incredible influence on shaping our history. However, any assertion as to what our history would be without Christianity is pure speculation. I also doubt any assertion as to the individual opinion of Christianity of people from its inception. We do not have that information. We have a relatively small number of individuals opinion. Also, consider that Christianity as commonly practiced today in the United States is not the same as the Christianity which first arrived on this continent.

The implication that history was on a course prior to the advent of a philosophy is discouraging.

The question invites fallacious reasoning. I'll use the posts already given either way in this thread as proof. The real question being answered is one of whether or not an individual likes Christianity.

To be even more honest, I find an increase in generalized aspersions of Christianity on this forum. Generalizations from absolute ignorance. It's not for any reason I've already mentioned on a few other threads of such nature the logical fallacies of composition and generalization.

I apologize for calling it dumb. I'm just amazed that you felt that you needed to ask the question in the first place. Asked almost as if you had to defend your faith. Which, on this forum, you should not have to.

I find you characterization of the question judgemental and arrogant.

That's an accurate characterization. Frubals to you for being the first to come right out and say it.

 

[BUDDY]

What I find dumb is that people could assert either answer as positive. Of course, Christianity has had an incredible influence on shaping our history. However, any assertion as to what our history would be without Christianity is pure speculation. I also doubt any assertion as to the individual opinion of Christianity of people from its inception. We do not have that information. We have a relatively small number of individuals opinion. Also, consider that Christianity as commonly practiced today in the United States is not the same as the Christianity which first arrived on this continent.

I agree whole heartedly that it would be pure speculation. It certainly takes some knowledge to even consider the answer. I do not think it is wrong to speculate the course history would have taken should christianity never existed. I also see nothing wrong with speculating the opposite. The entire questions, as I stated from the beginning, is purely opinionated.

The implication that history was on a course prior to the advent of a philosophy is discouraging.

The question invites fallacious reasoning. I'll use the posts already given either way in this thread as proof. The real question being answered is one of whether or not an individual likes Christianity.

To be even more honest, I find an increase in generalized aspersions of Christianity on this forum. Generalizations from absolute ignorance. It's not for any reason I've already mentioned on a few other threads of such nature the logical fallacies of composition and generalization.

I apologize for calling it dumb. I'm just amazed that you felt that you needed to ask the question in the first place. Asked almost as if you had to defend your faith. Which, on this forum, you should not have to.

I didnt feel a need to ask it. I just wanted to start conversation. I have always been fascinated by historical "what ifs".

 

[gnomon]

I agree whole heartedly that it would be pure speculation. It certainly takes some knowledge to even consider the answer. I do not think it is wrong to speculate the course history would have taken should christianity never existed. I also see nothing wrong with speculating the opposite. The entire questions, as I stated from the beginning, is purely opinionated.


I didnt feel a need to ask it. I just wanted to start conversation. I have always been fascinated by historical "what ifs".

Perhaps I was a bit over the top. Okay, more than a bit. It happens when I let my frustrations from other threads spill over.

Speculating is fine. I do it too. It's when speculation leads to a belief of fact that bothers me.

The gist I got from the OP was that you were put on the defensive. I probably misread it.

 

[Hope]

What's unfortunate is that so many have so badly misrepresented Christ throughout the centuries so that so many now can say the world would have been better off without Christianity.

No one who is truly Christlike leaves the world a worse place.

 

[BUDDY]

Perhaps I was a bit over the top. Okay, more than a bit. It happens when I let my frustrations from other threads spill over.

Speculating is fine. I do it too. It's when speculation leads to a belief of fact that bothers me.

The gist I got from the OP was that you were put on the defensive. I probably misread it.

When I started the thread I wasn't feeling that way, but today I was a little bit. Not because of this thread, but another one. We're cool. Happy New Year!!

 

[rojse]

Every experience of mankind is a net gain.

Every?

What about all of the dictators that have come about over the years, for one example? We have not learnt our lessons from them, so how would you classify that as a net gain?

 

[wednesday]

What's unfortunate is that so many have so badly misrepresented Christ throughout the centuries so that so many now can say the world would have been better off without Christianity.

No one who is truly Christlike leaves the world a worse place.

Unfortunately the true "christlike" people are few and far between. The rest who act under "gods name" use it as a sheild from reality and abuse Christianity for all its worth. How else would Christianity have such a bad name through history? Also Christianity has destroyed a significant part of the earth's history with "God's work," thats why i feel they did not make the world a better place.

 

[Francine]

Unfortunately the true "christlike" people are few and far between. The rest who act under "gods name" use it as a sheild from reality and abuse Christianity for all its worth. How else would Christianity have such a bad name through history?

I suppose Jesus is going to demand payment in full someday.

 

[Hope]

Unfortunately the true "christlike" people are few and far between.

It's true.

 

[rojse]

What's unfortunate is that so many have so badly misrepresented Christ throughout the centuries so that so many now can say the world would have been better off without Christianity.

No one who is truly Christlike leaves the world a worse place.

The problem is that many people that are high up in the Church's ministry list have done things that I would not associate with the true ideals of Christianity.

If you cannot trust the official representatives of a religion, who can you trust?