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

[Fluffy]

Very good points, but you have me confused at number 3. Why do you think that "net gain" and "net loss" means the best of any other possible world? Net gain should mean the gain netted by Christianity existing, which could be positive, negative, or indifferent depending on where you stand.

Thanks for taking the time to read them!

What does the "net gain" brought by Christianity mean if we do not compare it to what we would have gained had Christianity not existed? If Christianity brings 5 positives and 2 negatives and we say this is a net gain then is that really meaningful when, had Christianity not existed, we would have had 3 billion positives and 0 negatives? What I was trying to indicate was that it is not a zero sum game and so we cannot base our assessment on merely the positives and negatives brought by Christianity.

 

[ChristineES]

What we have been trying to say this entire time is this: Christianity itself caused no problems. Some of the people who may have called themselves a Christian caused them. If there was no Christianity and the person still existed, the problem would have happened anyway since the person would have found another excuse for his or her hatred.

 

[kmkemp]

I haven't seen anyone mention the ultimate gain of Christianity and utter despair that would have necessarily resulted in its absence... the Lamb of God and countless changed lives.

 

[Smoke]

The Christian church is not a collection of buildings or denominations, but the body of Christ.

Denominations are just groups of Christians.

It is clearly seen in scripture that a disciple of Christ can be recognized by their fruits (love).

Unfortunately, that's about the only place it's clearly seen.

Nonetheless, I can't help but ask you for examples of this hatred that you feel so strongly exists between church congregations and yourself. There are definitely churches that have open doors to everyone (they are probably in the majority), although Bible illiteracy is rampant even amongst churchgoers unfortunately.

Tell me how many churches treat homosexual members just as they treat heterosexual members. Some of the questions you might want to ask:

• Can homosexuals even be members?
• If the church urges its members to be politically active, does it urge them to support equality or inequality under the law for homosexuals?
• Can homosexuals receive Communion?
• Can they serve on church boards and committees?
• Can they be ordained?
• Can they have their unions blessed in the church?

It's often objected that church policies toward homosexuals don't result from bigotry but from sincerely-held religious belief, but I think people are accountable for their beliefs. I've known Christians who sincerely believed that separation of the races was God's will, and supported their position by citing the Bible. There have been Christians who argued that God condoned slavery, the burning of witches, and the slaughter of heretics. The fact that a belief is a religious one doesn't let the believer off the hook ethically.

Also, if church policies toward homosexuals result from the sincerely-held belief that homosexuality is a "sin," then we must look to see if that church treats homosexuals as it treats divorced and remarried heterosexuals, for example, or gluttons, or gossips. Only in the rarest cases do we see that homosexuality is treated in a manner comparable to any other "sin."

Tell me how many churches advocate equality under the law for homosexuals, and how many advocate inequality. You can't truly say that you love homosexuals if you actively support inequality under the law for homosexuals, any more than you can truly say you love black people if you demand that they be barred from white swimming pools and drinking fountains.

In other words, show me the churches that truly treat their homosexual neighbors as they themselves would like to be treated. You can find a few churches, but only a few.
Homosexuality is an easy example, because almost all Christian churches discriminate against homosexuals, and most Christians belong to churches that urge inequality under the law for homosexuals. However, that's just one example.

When Evangelical Christians support George Bush in his decision to invade Iraq, are they treating their Iraqi neighbors as they would be treated? When they support his decision to imprison and torture people who have not been charged with any crime, are they treating their neighbor as they would be treated?

I can tell you that I've been greatly harmed by Christians, and it's true, but other people have suffered much worse treatment at the hands of Christians than I have. For all their high-flying words, there's not much in Christian history that suggests that Christianity conduces to peace or justice or treating others as you'd be treated. And when we find exemplary Christians, who actually do work for peace and justice, like Martin and Coretta King, we have to ask, why is their struggle necessary, if not for the violence and injustice perpetrated by their fellow Christians? And who are their fiercest opponents, but their fellow Christians?

 

[Smoke]

What we have been trying to say this entire time is this: Christianity itself caused no problems. Some of the people who may have called themselves a Christian caused them. If there was no Christianity and the person still existed, the problem would have happened anyway since the person would have found another excuse for his or her hatred.

Not necessarily. All too often, the hatred proceeds directly from Christian belief. Do you really think a Buddhist or a Jain would have launched a Crusade against the Albigenses, or that a pagan would have called for the burning of "witches"?

Even if your contention were true, though, it wouldn't exculpate Christianity for its eagerness to justify violence and hatred. You can speculate that people would have found other excuses for their violence and hatred, but the fact remains that where people believe in Christianity, no other excuse is necessary.

 

[kmkemp]

Denominations are just groups of Christians.

Not according to the Bible, my friend.

Unfortunately, that's about the only place it's clearly seen.

That is just plain prejudice. There are millions of examples of Christians showing love around the world.

Tell me how many churches treat homosexual members just as they treat heterosexual members. Some of the questions you might want to ask:

• Can homosexuals even be members?
• If the church urges its members to be politically active, does it urge them to support equality or inequality under the law for homosexuals?
• Can homosexuals receive Communion?
• Can they serve on church boards and committees?
• Can they be ordained?
• Can they have their unions blessed in the church?

There is a difference between allowing someone to attend a church and accepting them as a member. Someone that leads a lifestyle that is clearly contrary to God's word is probably not a Christian. Sure, there are other lifestyles that can make people equally guilty, but they are not as clearly seen and as easily shown as homosexuality. If someone accused you of being a thief, your simple comeback could be that "I may have stolen in the past, but now I have changed my ways" and that would be perfectly acceptable. By being a homosexual, you are sending a clear message that "I am a homosexual right now and I am in no way convinced that I should have to change to be a Christian" which is blatantly wrong when weighed against scripture.

It's often objected that church policies toward homosexuals don't result from bigotry but from sincerely-held religious belief, but I think people are accountable for their beliefs. I've known Christians who sincerely believed that separation of the races was God's will, and supported their position by citing the Bible. There have been Christians who argued that God condoned slavery, the burning of witches, and the slaughter of heretics. The fact that a belief is a religious one doesn't let the believer off the hook ethically.

Also, if church policies toward homosexuals result from the sincerely-held belief that homosexuality is a "sin," then we must look to see if that church treats homosexuals as it treats divorced and remarried heterosexuals, for example, or gluttons, or gossips. Only in the rarest cases do we see that homosexuality is treated in a manner comparable to any other "sin."

As far as justifying sins with the Bible, it is very easy and convenient for people to justify their behavior by taking the Bible out of context. It is even easier to convince the ignorant that what you are saying is what God said. That is unfortunate, but that is also the case with any other book of significant length.

Again, remarriage is a sin, but it is not a sin that is a constant lifestyle (furthermore, there are justifiable reasons for divorce). A remarried individual could not atone for their mistake by divorcing their new partner, for example since that would only compound the problem.

Tell me how many churches advocate equality under the law for homosexuals, and how many advocate inequality. You can't truly say that you love homosexuals if you actively support inequality under the law for homosexuals, any more than you can truly say you love black people if you demand that they be barred from white swimming pools and drinking fountains.

On the contrary, Christians do not support inequality, if by inequality, you actually mean voting against gay marriage. Marriage is a contract with God between two heterosexual individuals, as clearly defined in scripture. Why should Christians want homosexuals to be able to participate? It is nothing against homosexuals (and I am not against partnerships, for example), but rather me upholding what I believe to be scriptural. And yes, I am accountable for that belief and I do not think that inequality is some horrible injustice in this case.

In other words, show me the churches that truly treat their homosexual neighbors as they themselves would like to be treated. You can find a few churches, but only a few.

That is unfortunately true, but like I said before... the Bible defines the church as the body of Christ which has 100% open arms to homosexuals.

Homosexuality is an easy example, because almost all Christian churches discriminate against homosexuals, and most Christians belong to churches that urge inequality under the law for homosexuals. However, that's just one example.

When Evangelical Christians support George Bush in his decision to invade Iraq, are they treating their Iraqi neighbors as they would be treated? When they support his decision to imprison and torture people who have not been charged with any crime, are they treating their neighbor as they would be treated?

The Bible is not against war. This issue is much too complicated to cover in one thread. You are merely oversimplifying it to make it look like support of those actions are necessarily hateful.

I can tell you that I've been greatly harmed by Christians, and it's true, but other people have suffered much worse treatment at the hands of Christians than I have. For all their high-flying words, there's not much in Christian history that suggests that Christianity conduces to peace or justice or treating others as you'd be treated. And when we find exemplary Christians, who actually do work for peace and justice, like Martin and Coretta King, we have to ask, why is their struggle necessary, if not for the violence and injustice perpetrated by their fellow Christians? And who are their fiercest opponents, but their fellow Christians?

I don't know how much more plainly I can state it, but Christianity is not a title to be thrown around lightly. You are judging a Christian by who someone claims to be, but there is a social stigma in this country against non-Christians that creates, unfortunately, a lot of "fake Christians". The Bible is very explicit on who a Christian is and the ultimate authority on the matter, don't you think?

 

[Hope]

Not necessarily. All too often, the hatred proceeds directly from Christian belief. Do you really think a Buddhist or a Jain would have launched a Crusade against the Albigenses, or that a pagan would have called for the burning of "witches"?

So what you are implying is that a Buddhist could never be violent? Wrong, my friend. This kind of falls under the thread about Christian persecution (and maybe I'll post it there too), but since it mentions Buddhists persecuting Christians, I think this article is very appropriate:

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=19161820&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=623508&rfi=6

Hold on, found some more:

Crisis Magazine

Buddhist Extremists Attack Christian-Run Children’s Home in Sri Lanka

Even if your contention were true, though, it wouldn't exculpate Christianity for its eagerness to justify violence and hatred. You can speculate that people would have found other excuses for their violence and hatred, but the fact remains that where people believe in Christianity, no other excuse is necessary.

Judging by the articles I provided, your premise falls flat, and your conclusion proves wrong. Any religion----not just Christianity----can be violent if its adherents want it to be.

As someone who keeps abreast of the violence and persecution suffered by Christians at the hands of other religions, I think it appears pretty obvious which religion is actually one of the most peaceful, loving, and least aggressive. The facts speak for themselves. Your perception is highly skewed and shows intense prejudice.

 

[Sunstone]

As someone who keeps abreast of the violence and persecution suffered by Christians at the hands of other religions, I think it appears pretty obvious which religion is actually one of the most peaceful, loving, and least aggressive. The facts speak for themselves.

I'm of the opinion that contemporary Christianity sometimes seems to be peaceful, loving and non-aggressive because it has to some extent absorbed the values of the European Enlightenment and other Western cultural developments. Go back before the Enlightenment and Christianity does not appear at all to be a peaceful, loving, non-aggressive religion.

 

[Hope]

I'm of the opinion that contemporary Christianity sometimes seems to be peaceful, loving and non-aggressive because it has to some extent absorbed the values of the European Enlightenment and other Western cultural developments. Go back before the Enlightenment and Christianity does not appear at all to be a peaceful, loving, non-aggressive religion.

Interesting opinion. Thanks.

My opinion is that the most authentic Christianity existed from the time of Pentecost until the emperor Constantine. Once Constantine legalized Christianity and brought worldly power into the Church, it became corrupted. And the Dark Ages then followed.

I believe that Western Christianity today is almost as corrupted, because it has allowed political power, and other forms of power, to infiltrate it. As well as materialism.

In countries where Christians are truly suffering, and where power and wealth have not tainted the faith, there is a more Pentecost-like, purer form of Christianity. And this form is the most Christ-like, the most peaceful, the most loving, the least aggressive, and the standard by which to judge all other forms.

MB has it backwards, and continues to judge all of Christendom by the materialistic, corrupted Western version. It's kind of like a woman who has a bad experience with one man, then coming to the conclusion that all men are therefore evil. She never bothers to find out that she simply experienced an exception to the rule, and that her conclusion about men is false.

 

[Smoke]

There is a difference between allowing someone to attend a church and accepting them as a member. Someone that leads a lifestyle that is clearly contrary to God's word is probably not a Christian. Sure, there are other lifestyles that can make people equally guilty, but they are not as clearly seen and as easily shown as homosexuality. If someone accused you of being a thief, your simple comeback could be that "I may have stolen in the past, but now I have changed my ways" and that would be perfectly acceptable. By being a homosexual, you are sending a clear message that "I am a homosexual right now and I am in no way convinced that I should have to change to be a Christian" which is blatantly wrong when weighed against scripture.

That's why I chose the examples of gluttony and gossip, because they are ongoing habits of behavior that are evident others. However, you chose to switch out those examples and substitute theft so that you could dodge the question. Clearly, the churches don't treat homosexuals as they treat other "sinners," and clearly you know this, or you wouldn't have had to discard my examples.

Again, remarriage is a sin, but it is not a sin that is a constant lifestyle (furthermore, there are justifiable reasons for divorce). A remarried individual could not atone for their mistake by divorcing their new partner, for example since that would only compound the problem.

Remarriage is a constant lifestyle, as long as the adulterous second marriage continues. A remarried person who hasn't ended the adulterous second marriage has not repented of it. This is directly parallel to the case of a homosexual who is in a committed relationship, but you make excuses for the heterosexual while condemning the homosexual.

On the contrary, Christians do not support inequality, if by inequality, you actually mean voting against gay marriage. Marriage is a contract with God between two heterosexual individuals, as clearly defined in scripture. Why should Christians want homosexuals to be able to participate? It is nothing against homosexuals (and I am not against partnerships, for example), but rather me upholding what I believe to be scriptural. And yes, I am accountable for that belief and I do not think that inequality is some horrible injustice in this case.

Of course you don't. Bigots always think think that their bigotry is reasonable; Strom Thurmond, forty years ago, didn't think that keeping black Americans from voting was a horrible injustice, either. Because, of course, "they" don't have the rights that "we" do, and "we" have a duty to uphold god's will. You've just endorsed the same line of reasoning the Christians have always used to justify the persecution and oppression of others.

That is unfortunately true, but like I said before... the Bible defines the church as the body of Christ which has 100% open arms to homosexuals.

Then why do you define the church as a body that cannot accept homosexuals as members? You can't have it both ways.

The Bible is not against war. This issue is much too complicated to cover in one thread. You are merely oversimplifying it to make it look like support of those actions are necessarily hateful.

Would you like to have your city bombed? Would you like to be arbitrarily imprisoned for years without being charged with any crime? Would you like to be tortured? It is simple. Jesus said you must treat your neighbor as you would be treated. He didn't say it would be easy.

country against non-Christians that creates, unfortunately, a lot of "fake Christians". The Bible is very explicit on who a Christian is and the ultimate authority on the matter, don't you think?

Well, fine. You consider yourself the interpreter of the Bible and the judge of who the real Christians are. But you yourself support bigotry, oppression, and violence, so how are your "real" Christians any better than the Christians you think are "fake"?

So what you are implying is that a Buddhist could never be violent?

No, that's not what I said and it's not what I meant. And you didn't answer the question.

Judging by the articles I provided, your premise falls flat, and your conclusion proves wrong. Any religion----not just Christianity----can be violent if its adherents want it to be.

Any religion could be, but not all religions are, and not all those that are violent are as consistently violent as Christianity.

If we asked whether the world would have been better off without Nazism, how would you reply? Would you say that Nazis are no worse than anybody else, and that if there had not been a Nazi party, people would still have found an excuse for the Holocaust?

Your argument is specious. Nevertheless, it concedes -- whether you meant it to or not -- the powerlessness of Christianity to make people kinder or better. If Christianity were true, if it truly had a beneficial effect, it would not be necessary for you to fall back on the tired argument that other religions are just as bad.

As someone who keeps abreast of the violence and persecution suffered by Christians at the hands of other religions, I think it appears pretty obvious which religion is actually one of the most peaceful, loving, and least aggressive. The facts speak for themselves. Your perception is highly skewed and shows intense prejudice.

The fact that Christians are persecuted doesn't show that they are peaceful, loving, or non-aggressive. Maybe you should consider keeping abreast of the violence and persecution suffered at the hands of Christians, too.

You see, Christians are very good at saying they're the most peaceful and loving people in the world, but they're not at all good at making that a reality on the ground. Compounding the violence, oppression and bigotry of Christians with self-righteous hypocrisy only compounds the problem.

I'm of the opinion that contemporary Christianity sometimes seems to be peaceful, loving and non-aggressive because it has to some extent absorbed the values of the European Enlightenment and other Western cultural developments.

Christianity has been somewhat improved by the moderating effect of the Enlightenment. However, there is still a long way to go.

Go back before the Enlightenment and Christianity does not appear at all to be a peaceful, loving, non-aggressive religion.

Not after, either. Look at all the violence and oppression that has been committed in the name of God in the United States alone. Racism, propounded from pulpits across this country, is not just a bad attitude. It has real and tragic results for real people. So do homophobia. So does jingoistic nonsense about America being a Christian country.

 

[Hope]

No, that's not what I said and it's not what I meant. And you didn't answer the question.

Then what did you mean???

What question? The one about Buddhists going on Crusades and pagans burning witches?

I did give an answer, you're just trying to dodge it. Did you read the articles? Are they not answer enough? By asking if Buddhists would go on Crusades you are essentially asking if they would do something atrocious and violent.....I provided clear evidence that they can and do. Thus, your argument holds no water.

As far as pagans go.....well, aren't witches pagan?? Why would they burn their own? If it would satisfy you, though, I could dig up lots of facts about the violence of ancient pagan practices, and compare them with all the violence committed in the name of Christ.

Any religion could be, but not all religions are, and not all those that are violent are as consistently violent as Christianity.

Do you have something to back up this statement with?

Your argument is specious. Nevertheless, it concedes -- whether you meant it to or not -- the powerlessness of Christianity to make people kinder or better. If Christianity were true, if it truly had a beneficial effect, it would not be necessary for you to fall back on the tired argument that other religions are just as bad.

I conceded nothing of the sort. Most of the violence and evil that you associate with Christians were done by people who were Christian in name only. Anyone can call themselves a Christian-----that doesn't necessarily make them one, though. Jesus said we will be known by our fruit. If someone tells me they are a Christian and then goes around stealing, robbing, killing, and plundering, then I have good reason to suspect they are not really a Christian after all. Because no real Christian would do such things.

The fact that Christians are persecuted doesn't show that they are peaceful, loving, or non-aggressive. Maybe you should consider keeping abreast of the violence and persecution suffered at the hands of Christians, too.

No, the fact that many Christians are persecuted doesn't automatically mean they are peaceful, etc. However, if you read about most of the Christian martyrs of the early Church, and modern ones as well, and all those who have truly suffered for their faith, you will find striking similarities in their character: peaceful, loving, forgiving, joyful, etc. These suffering saints are the ones who truly exhibit the fruit that Jesus spoke about, and to me they exemplify what it means to be a true Christian.

And, yes, I am aware of violence done at the hands of Christians. It is despicable and makes me sick. But as I said, more often than not, such people aren't even really Christians.

You see, Christians are very good at saying they're the most peaceful and loving people in the world, but they're not at all good at making that a reality on the ground. Compounding the violence, oppression and bigotry of Christians with self-righteous hypocrisy only compounds the problem.

For the record, I never said Christians were the most peaceful and loving people in the world.

 

[gnomon]

Some general points/rebuttals:

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

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. 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. Why? Because it indicates that they haven't even given the issue sufficient thought to identify any.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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 diverge from this one 2000 years ago. That 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 a good thing or a bad thing.

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.

Excellent. Once again you state what I've been trying to say far better. Especially the part I highlighted.:bow:

 

[rojse]

As I figured, there is no speculation on the welfare of humanity.

All we have is poor attempts at showing why people like or dislike Christianity.

Boring and pathetic. You think someone would bother to study the social sciences once in a while.

Or at least actually present evidence of any sort. This forum is turning into nothing more than a ******* contest of logical fallacies.

I think that a great many people would do community service if it were not for Christianity. I know that I have, for example.

Is it really "community service" if you help other people in order to curry favour with a god, anyway?

 

[gnomon]

I think that a great many people would do community service if it were not for Christianity. I know that I have, for example.

Is it really "community service" if you help other people in order to curry favour with a god, anyway?

To do so in order to please God. Not so much. It's difficult to determine how many people do so for such a reason.

My personal experience has shown me a higher percentage of religious believers, especially Christians, who give their time, money and resources to the community as opposed to the non-religious. However, the area I live in has a very large religious population so I can't consider my personal experience as representative. Nor can I consider the converse to be accurately representative.

 

[rojse]

Some general points/rebuttals:

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

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. 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. Why? Because it indicates that they haven't even given the issue sufficient thought to identify any.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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 diverge from this one 2000 years ago. That 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 a good thing or a bad thing.

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 can easily justify why I think that Christianity has stymied scientific progress. I did not want to turn this thread into an argument about such, but if you insist.

Christianity has long been opposed to scientific ideas that oppose biblical ideas. A quick list of what the church has opposed that has scientific merit:

- evolutionary theory
- sun-centred planetary system
- cloning
- stem cell research

I will be willing to discuss other areas of endeavour, should this be required.

 

[Smoke]

In countries where Christians are truly suffering, and where power and wealth have not tainted the faith, there is a more Pentecost-like, purer form of Christianity. And this form is the most Christ-like, the most peaceful, the most loving, the least aggressive, and the standard by which to judge all other forms.

I'll grant you that Christians often behave admirably when they're being persecuted. It's only when they take up the guns and torches themselves -- usually at the very first opportunity -- that they become a problem.

 

[rojse]

To do so in order to please God. Not so much. It's difficult to determine how many people do so for such a reason.

My personal experience has shown me a higher percentage of religious believers, especially Christians, who give their time, money and resources to the community as opposed to the non-religious. However, the area I live in has a very large religious population so I can't consider my personal experience as representative. Nor can I consider the converse to be accurately representative.

Five things in reply:

Firstly, how many of these people that do community service as Christians would do it should they not believe? (ie have the same moral values about helping people regardless of their faith.)

Secondly, if such an attitude is encouraged as part of the Christian ideal, why don't all followers complete community service? Why is it only a minority?

Thirdly, there are other community-service based organisations that do not base themselves upon religion. In Australia, there are groups such as CWA, Rotary, and so forth. Might this explain their absence in the areas that you examine, as atheists might not work in the community-service based organisations that you have examined?

Fourthly, how much community service is really occuring when the religious denomination in question is advertising the fact that it does community service? To me, community service is completing work without the expectation that you will receive anything in return.

Fifthly, why do you feel the need to link their community service work with their religion?

 

[gnomon]

I can easily justify why I think that Christianity has stymied scientific progress. I did not want to turn this thread into an argument about such, but if you insist.

Christianity has long been opposed to scientific ideas that oppose biblical ideas. A quick list of what the church has opposed that has scientific merit:

- evolutionary theory
- sun-centred planetary system
- cloning
- stem cell research

I will be willing to discuss other areas of endeavour, should this be required.

Well, the ancient Greeks didn't accept a heliocentric view either. Aristarchus' views of the solar system were not accepted and lost out to Aristotle and Ptolemy. Even those same ancient Greeks were guilty of matching their scientific ideas to such concepts of perfection of the sphere, ideal forms and the Pythagoreans music of the spheres.

Moving along the same path up to Kepler, the first European atrologer/astronomer to introduce physics into astronomy, elliptical orbits and a better model of the solar system than Ptolemy and Copernicus. There is supposedly some contention, by well known scientists such as Newton, who claimed that astronomy would have been better off without Ptolemy! I don't know about the veracity of this claim.

Certainly Augustine and many other major theologians might have hindered the progress of scientific views with their ardent views on a flat earth and holding on to Aristotelian views.

Who knows?

Of course, Plato and the bunch didn't have much to say about stem cell research, modern evolutionary theory or cloning.

 

[gnomon]

Five things in reply:

Firstly, how many of these people that do community service as Christians would do it should they not believe? (ie have the same moral values about helping people regardless of their faith.)

Secondly, if such an attitude is encouraged as part of the Christian ideal, why don't all followers complete community service? Why is it only a minority?

Thirdly, there are other community-service based organisations that do not base themselves upon religion. In Australia, there are groups such as CWA, Rotary, and so forth. Might this explain their absence in the areas that you examine, as atheists might not work in the community-service based organisations that you have examined?

Fourthly, how much community service is really occuring when the religious denomination in question is advertising the fact that it does community service? To me, community service is completing work without the expectation that you will receive anything in return.

Fifthly, why do you feel the need to link their community service work with their religion?

I don't know.

That's the point.

 

[rojse]

I don't know.

That's the point.

If you cannot answer even one of the questions I have asked, surely I have some right to question whether it is really the Christian ideal that makes people complete community service, or some other combination of factors.