Which religion do you think has contributed the most good to Humanity?


I believe it is Christianity for the following reasons:


• The Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (yeah I know it aint original to Christianity. But still)

• Separation of Church & State

• Proverbs encouraging the seeking of knowledge. Wise sayings encouraging good relations between people.

• Promotion of love as the greatest of human virtues.

• Multiculturalism & Religious liberty. The hundreds of christian sects taught opposing Christians how to live together in harmony.

• Encourages harmonious family relationships that almost borders on gender equality.

Yes there are a couple bigoted & intolerant teachings in Christianity as well but the good things I mentioned above overcomes those limitations by a long shot.

I think those are the reasons why Christian dominated nations were the first people to achieve complete liberty, racial & gender equality, and technological & economic superiority. The Jews have also contributed many things. And so did other religions. ;)

Which religion do you think has contributed the most good to Humanity?
I believe it is Christianity for the following reasons:

[list]
• The Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (yeah I know it aint original to Christianity. But still)

do you seriously think they all follow/live by this?I certainly know they dont!

• Separation of Church & State

good one now tell that to prez Bush.

• Proverbs encouraging the seeking of knowledge. Wise sayings encouraging good relations between people.
except for Xian enemies,those you can kill,rape,enslave rob and so on
see bible quotes at www.thewaronfaith.com.

• Encourages harmonious family relationships that almost borders on gender equality.
oh really?see the above site again

Christianity has caused more crap then any other religion (IMO)

buhhdism has done alot of good

paganism isnt a religion, but many different pagan religions have done lots of good

do you seriously think they all follow/live by this?I certainly know they dont!

Of course not. Which religion or law has been followed 100%? NONE. My only point is that those items are what I see as the standards by which many Christians strive to live up to.

good one now tell that to prez Bush.

Obviously you don’t understand the implications & limitations of “separation of church & state”.

except for Xian enemies,those you can kill,rape,enslave rob and so on
see bible quotes at www.thewaronfaith.com.

Those are not proverbs and are not even practiced in christianity. I am talking about the practices of Christianity here.


oh really?see the above site again
What are in the bible aren’t necessarily Christian practices. Reality speaks for itself. The Family is the most basic unit of societies. Good families produces good societies. Now look at the great societies of America, Europe & Australia. All Christian dominated nations. :)

Christianity has caused more crap then any other religion (IMO)

Still the craps it cause are outweighed by the good it caused. IMO.


buhhdism has done alot of good

VERY TRUE! It might have done more good than any other religion. The reason I didnt vote for it is because it didnt have much influence on the rest of the world.


paganism isnt a religion, but many different pagan religions have done lots of good
It is a religion but not an "organized religion".

none of the above...

none of the above...

Surely one of them religions performed better than all the rest.

ok...can I rephrase my statement into a question:

None of the above?

Yeah I have to agree with monkey. None of the above. All they have helped contribute to society and to the world in general is a divided society where each group thinks that they are better than the other. They are all corrupt, they are all male dominated in their leadership, they are all based on systems of beliefs that are outdated. Many have contributed to horrible acts such as killings, wars and slavery. Therefore, none of the above.

Still each of those religions were instrumental in giving hope, (false) answers & raising morale. Man needs religion. Only a very few of us are enlightened enough to be above the need for religion.

I wouldn't calling an atheist being enlightened myself.

Dr. No

I agree that the false (non-Biblical) Christianity you've described is a wonderful vision.

However, I would ask you to think twice about attributing what happens at a certain time to the people who were around by default of convenience.

The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule is problematic, even when it's followed. Do unto others licenses invasive behavior. There's a great "Adam and Eve" moment in At Play in the Fields of the Lord, when a missionary starts putting brassieres on tribal girls in South America. The missionaries introduced original sin because--do unto others--they would hate to live without it themselves.

More practical? Hey, I know substance abuse is a problem, but the interventionist period of the 1980s led to shock-therapy and other barbarism given in the name of love. Yeah, it can help you quit smoking to be electrocuted over and over again, but it's not the best way of going about it. And people who didn't have any real problem ... hell, you couldn't stop at the bar after a hard day at work without being accused of alcoholism. And once you were accused, there was no defense.

What was the motivation? Compassion. People did unto others, because, not knowing what substance addiction actually feels like, they decided that they wouldn't want their friends and family to allow them any authority of their own when dealing with the problems of their own lives.

Of Golden Rules, I prefer Hillel's version: Do not do unto others as you would not have done unto yourself.

It puts a bit of stake on one's actions.

Separation of Church & State

The wall of separation came about despite the best efforts of many Christians. As an American, I know that my Christian neighbors have a hard time with the separation of church and state. It is only in the last few decades that "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state" have come to mean anything other than, "The government shall not f@ck with Christians."

Proverbs

Poor Richard's Almanac is worth more, practically, than the Bible's proverbial advice.

Promotion of love as the greatest of human virtues

If only it was as simple as that; otherwise, I do agree.

Multiculturalism & Religious Liberty

I find it odd that you would proclaim as positive in one religion that which you would denounce in another.

And more than anything, it was economy, and not Christian values, that brought those diverse Christians together.

Encourages harmonious family relationships that almost border on gender equality

You're kidding, right?

Leave your family for Christ? Women shut up and cover your heads?

And remember - "Honor thy mother and thy father" says nothing about actually liking them.

What you're celebrating, over the long run, is the decline of Christianity.

How interesting.

As to the question itself

It's hard to say. Christianity is an easy case to make if we restrict ourselves to empirical definitions. But in any objective sense, I would say Buddhism, by its habit of trying to stay the hell out of people's way.

I'm an atheist, but I said Buddhism. It hasn't caused massive wars, international hatred and doesn't breed intolerance in it's members.

Out of those buddhism, as far as im aware they havnt done anything bad, they just seach for enlightenment.
For reference paganism isnt a religion, a pagan is someone who does not acknowledge the god of christianity, judaism or islam, that definition includes 2 options in your pole as paganism.

Wow - They should put a link to this thread in dictionary.com next to the word subjective

Which religion do you think has contributed the most good to Humanity?


• Encourages harmonious family relationships that almost borders on gender equality.
[/list]


Look all religions talk about peace and equality etc etc. so Christinaty is no different, but as for Christinaty practiscing these - thats a complete joke!!!

Feminism is a non Christian movement that got women rights only really after the 1960's. this is nothing to do with Christinaty as countires are now secular and Christinaty didnt relally have any relations with Feminsim anyway.

centuries back, is when people were actually more religion and people followed religion ALOT more strictly and also the Bible was more original and taken more literally so using examples of womens lives centureies back at the time of CHRISTIAN rule is more apprriate.

Christian West grants women the right to own property in 1800's onwards
Islamic Era grants this right to women 1400 years ago

Christian West grants women the right to inheritance 1800 onwards
Islam grants it 1400 years ago

Christians Women are allowed the vote after 1800's
Islamic era, women have a strong say in politics, many women challanged and won arguemenyts against Caliphs

Christian West, The first woman doctors, teachers and other high paid and respectable jobs rarerly from 1800 onwards (they still werent equal pay though!)
Islamic era sees this as women working in jobs such as doctors and teachers as an essential part of Islamic society so it has female workers all over the empire.

Christian West, Womens education is not important
Islamic Era, It is an OBLIGATION of every woman to get an education to the highest degree

i got to go now, ill finish the list tommorow but remember this...
Islamic Era - womans rights given out freely.

Christian west - women protest, chain themselves to ralings,use propaganda, go on hungerstrikes, purposely get arrested, one woman in Britain even threw herslef under the kings horse, and also if it wasn't for the two world wars women would not have rights now.

Look all religions talk about peace and equality etc etc. so Christinaty is no different, but as for Christinaty practiscing these - thats a complete joke!!!


'Mother Theresa'.

Of course there are christians that are just beautiful people. And of course there are christians that practice 'christianity'. Hence the joke is on you. You just earned the disrespect of many people.

Now go and bitch about how tolerant and beautiful islam is.

DoctorNO, after having read through your list of why you think Christianity is good, I have a few pointers to add.

The Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (yeah I know it aint original to Christianity. But still)
Shame what you classify as the 'Golden Rule' is rarely applied on a day to day basis. I think it's more a social wish today, rather one based in religious doctrine.

Separation of Church & State
You're kidding right? There is no separation of Church and State DoctorNO. It doesn't exist. It's a mythical creature that is there to comfort us. How can you state that Christianity is good because of the separation of church and state? They fought like hell to lose their political clout in the past. But unfortunately some aspects of the Church remains, hence why there never was a true separation of Church and State. Here are a few examples:

A prayer recited before each new sitting of the US Supreme Court

The lords Prayer recited before each new sitting of Parliament in Australia

Having to swear on the bible and made to repeat an oath including the words 'so help me God' when giving evidence in Court.

When the Australian Prime Minister is sworn in, they do so on a Bible. The same goes for the US President and it also applies in the majority of States around the world.

The US Pledge of Allegiance contains the words 'one nation under God'.

I mean sheesh, the US Declaration of Independence mentions a 'creator'. How can you even deem that a separation of Church and State exists? And those were just a few examples off the top of my head.

Proverbs encouraging the seeking of knowledge. Wise sayings encouraging good relations between people.
What proverbs? What wise sayings encouraging good relations between people? You mean like the wise sayings that priests say when they refuse to give communion to a gay parishioner? Or the words the priests says when he 'kindly' asks a gay parishioner to leave the church after daring to stand in line for the holy communion?

Promotion of love as the greatest of human virtues.
LOL! Refer to above. And yes, I too heard the promotion of love the last few times I ever went to church. They were spoken as the collection plate was carried around. Yes, I'm sure that all those Christian soldiers in Iraq are promoting love as a human virtue. I'm sure that in all the wars of the past and present, those religious pious people were promoting love as they were killing each other. Hell, a lot of Germans were Christians in WWII, I'm sure they were really spreading the words of love there.

Multiculturalism & Religious liberty. The hundreds of christian sects taught opposing Christians how to live together in harmony.
Shame such teachings did not extend to letting those of other religions live together amongst them in harmony.

Encourages harmonious family relationships that almost borders on gender equality.
Hmm yes. Encouraging harmonious family relationships? Would this be included in the Catholic Church's stance on divorce? And the gender equality? Would this also apply to all the women who are refused to enter the priesthood because of the fact that they are women?

I think those are the reasons why Christian dominated nations were the first people to achieve complete liberty, racial & gender equality, and technological & economic superiority.
Yes. Liberty and gender and racial equality while dominating nations. Hmm lets see now, I guess you mean all this after the emancipation of slaves in the West? You remember learning about that don't you? How the religious elite owned slaves shipped over from Africa, to build their nations so that they became the Christian dominated nations that you are boasting so much about. Now there was a case of liberty and racial equality. :rolleyes:

All religions are guilty for what I've said above. But for you DoctorNO to boast so much about Christianity when it is so full of flaws astounds me. What you're so proud of in Christianity is still keeping many of the people down, so to speak. There is no equality in Christianity. You go on about how unequal Islam is, but you fail to look at Christianity as a comparison. They too deem women to be second (ie, look at the women priest issues facing Christianity), they wont even acknowledge the equality of homosexuals. Christianity has nothing to be proud of. Actually, I can't really think of one religion who should be boasting about being better than any other, because all are guilty of the same things under different banners.

"It is a religion but not an "organized religion"."

paganism is not a religion, it is a term used by medievil Christians, Jews and Muslims to invoke anger against anyone not of one of those three faiths. It just means anyone who isnt a Christian, Muslim or Jew

therefore

Hindus are pagans
Buhhdists are pagans
witches and wiccans are pagans

I think that there is a satanist church in holland.


Maybe satanism contributed most to society?

Buddhist monasteries in medieval Japan were just as corrupt and full of shit as their Christian European counterparts.

I agree that the false (non-Biblical) Christianity you've described is a wonderful vision.

Easy for you to say but each & every one of those items are the common denominators in almost every christian sect. That makes them the elements of true Christianity whether you like it or not.

And each one except for religious liberty is biblical. Wanna bet? ;)


However, I would ask you to think twice about attributing what happens at a certain time to the people who were around by default of convenience.

I don’t understand. Please elaborate. Thanks.


The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule is problematic, even when it's followed. Do unto others licenses invasive behavior. There's a great "Adam and Eve" moment in At Play in the Fields of the Lord, when a missionary starts putting brassieres on tribal girls in South America. The missionaries introduced original sin because--do unto others--they would hate to live without it themselves.

People don’t call it the Golden Rule for nothing. Doing unto others doesn’t necessarily require actual invasiveness. Sometimes the best thing to do is to leave people alone. Which is why Hillel’s version is not so different: “What I will NOT DO is NOT advise you NOT to say the F word in front of 3 year olds”.

And the concept of original sin was introduced as a theological explanation to make sense of the bible, not for convenience.


Separation of Church & State

The wall of separation came about despite the best efforts of many Christians. As an American, I know that my Christian neighbors have a hard time with the separation of church and state. It is only in the last few decades that "freedom of religion" and "separation of church and state" have come to mean anything other than, "The government shall not f@ck with Christians."

That is true but the bible verse “give to ceasar what is to ceasar and give to god what is to god” was what convinced these Christians that separation of church & state was the right path to go. Is there any other religion that gives a more effective advise than that?


Proverbs

Poor Richard's Almanac is worth more, practically, than the Bible's proverbial advice.

We are talking about religion here. Richard’s Almanac is not a religious book and that Richard guy had probably been raised proverbs reading Christian for all you know. And the guy was probably born more than a thousand years after Proverbs & Ecclesiastes was written down.


Promotion of love as the greatest of human virtues

If only it was as simple as that; otherwise, I do agree.

Thanks. Some things are really easier said than done.


Multiculturalism & Religious Liberty

I find it odd that you would proclaim as positive in one religion that which you would denounce in another.

Are you referring to Islam? Islam has limited religious tolerance (for abrahamic religions alone). Religious liberty is way above religious tolerance. But I do not deny that for hundreds of years the limited religious tolerance in Islam was one of the best qualities of Islam. It is unfortunate that Islam could not evolve beyond that level.


And more than anything, it was economy, and not Christian values, that brought those diverse Christians together.

I agree. But no matter the cause it still developed into Christianic values. But I do think that Hinduism surpasses Christianity on this issue.


Encourages harmonious family relationships that almost border on gender equality

You're kidding, right?

Leave your family for Christ? Women shut up and cover your heads?

That’s why I said “almost”. 99% of Christians interpret the former as a metaphor, not to be followed literally. The latter merely involves the woman’s position within church gatherings. My point is founded on Paul’s advise that husbands should love their wives as they love their own body. I have yet to see a religious advise that equates or surpasses that.


What you're celebrating, over the long run, is the decline of Christianity.

Christianity is a changing religion. Whether or not it is declining does not change any of my points.


As to the question itself

It's hard to say. Christianity is an easy case to make if we restrict ourselves to empirical definitions. But in any objective sense, I would say Buddhism, by its habit of trying to stay the hell out of people's way.

I almost voted for Buddhism too but as good as that religion is, it still didn’t make as much influence. If only a great empire made that as the state religion. Yeah Christianity made much because it was globalized.

Shame what you classify as the 'Golden Rule' is rarely applied on a day to day basis. I think it's more a social wish today, rather one based in religious doctrine.

The Golden Rule in the bible was just a reminder. Otherwise the golden rule is inherent to humans.


You're kidding right? There is no separation of Church and State DoctorNO. It doesn't exist. It's a mythical creature that is there to comfort us. How can you state that Christianity is good because of the separation of church and state? They fought like hell to lose their political clout in the past. But unfortunately some aspects of the Church remains, hence why there never was a true separation of Church and State. Here are a few examples:

A prayer recited before each new sitting of the US Supreme Court

The lords Prayer recited before each new sitting of Parliament in Australia

Having to swear on the bible and made to repeat an oath including the words 'so help me God' when giving evidence in Court.

When the Australian Prime Minister is sworn in, they do so on a Bible. The same goes for the US President and it also applies in the majority of States around the world.

The US Pledge of Allegiance contains the words 'one nation under God'.

Bells I don’t think you understand the meaning of this. It means that the state would not patronize any specific religion. Each of the examples you mention does not patronize anything. The God mentioned on coins does not refer to any specific god. The prayers are not addressed to any specific god. The swearing on bibles was based on the swearer’s faith. If it’s a muslim it would be the quran. If it’s a mormon it would be the book of mormons. If its an atheist then its just a swear.


What proverbs? What wise sayings encouraging good relations between people? You mean like the wise sayings that priests say when they refuse to give communion to a gay parishioner? Or the words the priests says when he 'kindly' asks a gay parishioner to leave the church after daring to stand in line for the holy communion?

Try reading the book of Proverbs & Ecclesiastes in the bible. Try reading the sayings of Jesus.


LOL! Refer to above. And yes, I too heard the promotion of love the last few times I ever went to church. They were spoken as the collection plate was carried around. Yes, I'm sure that all those Christian soldiers in Iraq are promoting love as a human virtue. I'm sure that in all the wars of the past and present, those religious pious people were promoting love as they were killing each other. Hell, a lot of Germans were Christians in WWII, I'm sure they were really spreading the words of love there.

Ethical STANDARDS are just guides, not shackles. You see the evils committed by Christians but do you see what the good Christians are doing or have done about it? Christians killed jews in WWII but it was also Christians who fought against them and liberated the jews.


Hmm yes. Encouraging harmonious family relationships? Would this be included in the Catholic Church's stance on divorce? And the gender equality? Would this also apply to all the women who are refused to enter the priesthood because of the fact that they are women?

I said “almost”. The priesthood is a job and malehood is one of its prerequisites. The same as femalehood is the prerequisite for becoming a nun.



Yes. Liberty and gender and racial equality while dominating nations. Hmm lets see now, I guess you mean all this after the emancipation of slaves in the West? You remember learning about that don't you? How the religious elite owned slaves shipped over from Africa, to build their nations so that they became the Christian dominated nations that you are boasting so much about. Now there was a case of liberty and racial equality. :rolleyes:

Christianity is a changing religion. Liberty still came from the Christians.


All religions are guilty for what I've said above. But for you DoctorNO to boast so much about Christianity when it is so full of flaws astounds me. What you're so proud of in Christianity is still keeping many of the people down, so to speak. There is no equality in Christianity. You go on about how unequal Islam is, but you fail to look at Christianity as a comparison. They too deem women to be second (ie, look at the women priest issues facing Christianity), they wont even acknowledge the equality of homosexuals. Christianity has nothing to be proud of. Actually, I can't really think of one religion who should be boasting about being better than any other, because all are guilty of the same things under different banners.

I don’t think that religions are equal. I think some are better and some are worst. I voted for Christianity and I gave my reasons. What did you vote for? “I don’t know”?

I didn't vote. There wasn't an option for 'none of the above'.

I didn't vote either for the same reason.

Feminism is a non Christian movement that got women rights only really after the 1960's. this is nothing to do with Christinaty as countires are now secular and Christinaty didnt relally have any relations with Feminsim anyway.

You mentioned feminism, not I.



Christian West grants women the right to own property in 1800's onwards
Islamic Era grants this right to women 1400 years ago

My great great great grandmother in the mid 1700s was a Christian and she inherited much property from her father.


Christians Women are allowed the vote after 1800's
Islamic era, women have a strong say in politics, many women challanged and won arguemenyts against Caliphs

LOL! That is because voting was only invented in the 1800s. Today the muslims in Saudi Arabia cant even vote. Hehehe. But even before 1800 some of the greatest state leaders were christian women, Queens & Emperesses of great power and fame.


Christian West, The first woman doctors, teachers and other high paid and respectable jobs rarerly from 1800 onwards (they still werent equal pay though!)
Islamic era sees this as women working in jobs such as doctors and teachers as an essential part of Islamic society so it has female workers all over the empire.

You are just guessing.


Christian West, Womens education is not important
Islamic Era, It is an OBLIGATION of every woman to get an education to the highest degree

Then how come the Islamic history has nothing to show for it? Name some goods thing that came out of female education in Islam. Name some famous educated women in Islam. Can you? I don’t think so.

We are talking about REALITY here. Not of wishful fantasies & theories.

I didn't vote. There wasn't an option for 'none of the above'.
If only I could add another option. Hey just vote for "I dont know", guys so you could see the results. :)

I've seen the results and Buddhism is in front. :p

I can see the results also without voting.

Gasp.. so can I.:eek:

What devilry is this? :eek:

Oh wait... it's just the 'show poll results' link. :p

It doesn't matter bells, god sees everything.

I reckon religion is a 'way' - that is it's function. How can a path contribute to the traveller unless he choose to walk it? Having done so, would you then say the path has done good, no the person has chosen - the path fulfilled it's purpose in aiding his choice. The most good has been contributed by 'good' people.

'Mother Theresa'.

Of course there are christians that are just beautiful people. And of course there are christians that practice 'christianity'. Hence the joke is on you. You just earned the disrespect of many people.

Now go and bitch about how tolerant and beautiful islam is.

Now, go and bitch about HITLER and how tolerant and beautiful christian he was !! :rolleyes:

Can people not Justify why they voted for Hinduism, Buddhism & Islam?

Now, go and bitch about HITLER and how tolerant and beautiful christian he was !! :rolleyes:
Are you serious? You make a comment about how you think the holocoaust was a holohoax and then you actually have the nerve to make that kind of comment out of sarcasm? Why don't YOU go and tell everyone about how tolerant and beautiful Christian Hitler was PM. After all, it is you who appears to disbelieve that he actually slaughtered millions of people.

This is hypocrisy of a dimension I've rarely seen.

What? The Holocaust never happened? Then Hitler was just the more humane version of the muslim Saddam Hussein. :D

Anyone remembers the Muslim Idi Amin?

Are you serious? You make a comment about how you think the holocoaust was a holohoax and then you actually have the nerve to make that kind of comment out of sarcasm? Why don't YOU go and tell everyone about how tolerant and beautiful Christian Hitler was PM. After all, it is you who appears to disbelieve that he actually slaughtered millions of people.

This is hypocrisy of a dimension I've rarely seen.

My comments about the HOLOHOAX was about the JEWISH HOLOHOAX ( and yes, it seems it was holohoax ) I dont dispute that some jews were killed but not as much they would like the world to believe.

Hitler was an evil man not because he killed jews only, he killed more non jews than jews.

why you dont admit he was christian ?? who is the HYPOCRITE HERE ?

What? The Holocaust never happened? Then Hitler was just the more humane version of the muslim Saddam Hussein. :D

Anyone remembers the Muslim Idi Amin?

Or anyone remembers the CHRISTIAN Franco in Spain ?? :rolleyes:

My comments about the HOLOHOAX was about the JEWISH HOLOHOAX ( and yes, it seems it was holohoax ) I dont dispute that some jews were killed but not as much they would like the world to believe.

Hitler was an evil man not because he killed jews only, he killed more non jews than jews.

why you dont admit he was christian ?? who is the HYPOCRITE HERE ?
My God, you are unbelievable. Do you salute the swastika in your spare moments? And I never denied that Hitler was a Christian. He was as much a Christian as Bin Laden was a Muslim.

My God, you are unbelievable.

Aha PM has at least succeeded in making Bells believe in God agian. :D

Or anyone remembers the CHRISTIAN Franco in Spain ?? :rolleyes:

LOL! This is becoming a remembrance tournament.

The Jewish Ariel Sharon
The Christian Mussolini
The Muslim Bin Laden
The Athiest Stalin
The Shintoist ... I forgot the name.

There are monsters in every group. So its quite silly to point out your neighbor's monster when you have monsters in your own backyard.

My God, you are unbelievable. Do you salute the swastika in your spare moments? And I never denied that Hitler was a Christian. He was as much a Christian as Bin Laden was a Muslim.

Look bells !! I dont give a SHIT about Hitler nor about the Nazis, time to expose the HOLOHOAX scam and move on, hitler was evil bastard and he did terrible thing, but exploiting this tragedy by the jews has to stop...hell even famous JEW wrote a book about that:

THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY

A new, expanded edition of The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id44.htm

Aha PM has at least succeeded in making Bells believe in God agian. :D

Never give up !! :D

Can you quite spamming this forum PM. You posted now your holohoax crap in almost every thread.

where in every thread ? can you show me where ?? you are very confused !! may god help you.

I wouldn't say hitler was as big a christian as bin laden is muslim.
No where even close.
If asked hitler might say he is a christian, but I doubt he prayed, he believed in evolution, he was just a person who when pressed would say he's a christian. Bin laden is a muslim and nothing more. A brainwashed zombie muslim. He doesn't even need a name, he is muslim. Another one of the locusts. Muslim is all bin laden is. Hitler was a person, christianity being 0.0000003% of that person.
Not saying one is better than the other. But no christian in history is as christian as the average muslim is muslim. Especially not hitler.

Bin laden is an 'extreme muslim', mother theresa is an 'extreme christian', that says it all doesn't it.

"hell even famous JEW wrote a book about that:"

so what, are you saying that every single person in a religion has to be indentical?

"hell even famous JEW wrote a book about that:"

so what, are you saying that every single person in a religion has to be indentical?

No, I am not saying that, I am just wondering what people will call this jew ? jews hater ? or maybe self hating jew ? :rolleyes:

I'm an atheist, but I said Buddhism. It hasn't caused massive wars, international hatred and doesn't breed intolerance in it's members.

Yeah... do you mean to say that Buddhists have, historically, done good for humanity?

Let's consider Japanese history.

After the Heiji Rising (1159), a struggle for power between the two families, Taira Kiyomori evolved as the leader of Japan and ruled the country from 1168 to 1178 through the emperor. The major threats with which he was confronted were not only the rivalling Minamoto but also the increasingly militant Buddhist monasteries which frequently led wars between each other and disturbed public order.
Source (http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2132.html)

Now, go and bitch about HITLER and how tolerant and beautiful christian he was !!

I'm afraid it's you that does that.

Projection, perhaps?

"I am just wondering what people will call this jew ? jews hater ? or maybe self hating jew ?"

i would call him openminded, maybe you could learn something from him...

LOL! This is becoming a remembrance tournament.

The Jewish Ariel Sharon
The Christian Mussolini
The Muslim Bin Laden
The Athiest Stalin
The Shintoist ... I forgot the name.

There are monsters in every group. So its quite silly to point out your neighbor's monster when you have monsters in your own backyard.

The Mormon Brigham Young.

Sorry.

The LDS Brigham Young.

Also, Doctor ... you mentioned Christ's advice to "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" as the basis for the separation of church of state. However, given it was originally in references to taxes, and given that religion is tax-free in the States, how seriously have they taken that advice?

"when you have monsters in your own backyard."

theres monsters in my back yard???

*screams, runs to a cupboard and pulls out a gun*

Dr. No

A little out of order, but I'll get to the first at the end.

I don’t understand. Please elaborate. Thanks.

The original issue: However, I would ask you to think twice about attributing what happens at a certain time to the people who were around by default of convenience.

A very simple analogy is to watch politicians inconsistently argue who is responsible for what. When it's convenient to assign a history to a figure, they do. When it's inconvenient, they find a way around it. Watch them fight over who's responsible for good or bad economy, or whose administration failed. The rule for determining who is responsible for what is how your determination will affect your own Q-rating.

Thus, some things attributed to Christianity came about despite the institutions and faith. Take Newton, for instance. Yeah, he made some invaluable calculations about the Universe, and all in pursuit of God, but in order to do so he had to redefine God to the degree that there is even a "Newtonian (http://www.google.com/search?q=newtonian+god&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8)" theology. In the twentieth century, of course, the Pope retracted bits about medieval scientists and decided that Darwin wasn't a threat to Biblical inerrancy. Now, think for a moment of the occasional propaganda site where you can find a creationist listing "scientists who believe in God." Well, most of their work is accomplished despite the existence of the theology of the creationist. Very little, comparatively--if any at all--is accomplished in pursuit of a creationist science.

It may be a post-Christian society that owes much to its historical Christian mores that accomplishes a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's, but right now that research is taking place over the objections of many Christians.

The development of the separation between church and state may find its seeds in the Bible, but in the end, what we know in its positive form as a wall of separation took place over the objections of Christianity. Now, this might say more about Christians than it does about Biblical Christianity, but it's not so simple as "render unto Caesar" = "separation of church & state". It's more a matter of recognition and acknowledgment of reality, and a political denial of the divine right of the emperor.

People don’t call it the Golden Rule for nothing. Doing unto others doesn’t necessarily require actual invasiveness. Sometimes the best thing to do is to leave people alone. Which is why Hillel’s version is not so different: “ What I will NOT DO is NOT advise you NOT to say the F word in front of 3 year olds ”.

I find your end example a little odd. It would speak strangely of your personal priorities.

No, the Golden Rule as it is commonly recited doesn't require invasiveness. However, as I noted, it does license invasiveness. Ask yourself, How did the Inquisitions come about? Or What happened at Salem?

In both cases, there is evidence of economic motivations; Salem reads like a property fight carried into the next world. Similarly to a tough twentieth-century debate in which some German Christians asked themselves how they missed, allowed, or failed to resist the Holocaust, one might pause to wonder how it is that things got so out of hand during the Inquisitions that more than one village in the Bishopric of Trier was left with only a single childbearing female inhabitant apiece.

But think of a time when the Devil was as "real" to people as a Toyota might be to you or me. How does the "Golden Rule" factor into torture, theft, and murder?

Quite simply:

• The Devil is real
• People's souls are endangered
• We would want others to save us from damnation, therefore we will save others in order to do unto Him (see Matthew 25)

One must choose to acknowledge Matthew 25 as well as other Biblical verses in some form either distorted or not in order to follow that chain. But phrased with the rule of "do not do unto others," the process looks a little different:

• The Devil is real
• People's souls are endangered
• We would want ... well ... what happens if we call a legitimate act of the Lord's will by other terms? Would I want someone committing the unforgivable sin in order to intrude on what might be my glorious epiphany and steal the Word of God from my heart?

In the modern equivalent, I'm a fan of knocking the "interventionist 80s." I'm quite serious about the result I noted in my prior post.

We would want others to save us from our errors; thus we save others from theirs. But we don't actually know that certain things are errors. That's a problem.

Not knowing that certain things are errors is still a problem if we do not do unto others, but the condition of not doing unto others allows more apparent alternatives than what history has shown for the process of doing unto others.

Your italicized example, drawn unfortunately from irrationality, does serve to illustrate the problems of leaving things to people's interpretations.

I would not want others to teach my child to cuss, so I shouldn't teach others' children to cuss. The common Golden Rule encourages proactivity; the inverse encourages reflection prior to action. I admit it's a small difference, but sometimes the little things make all the difference in the world.

We are talking about religion here. Richard’s Almanac is not a religious book and that Richard guy had probably been raised proverbs reading Christian for all you know. And the guy was probably born more than a thousand years after Proverbs & Ecclesiastes was written down.

It's a matter of commonsense and functionality. Poor Richard's Almanac (http://pbskids.org/libertyskids/arch_what_pooralm.html) is heavily-influenced by Christianity. But it's more applicable in day-to-day practice. Of course, that depends on what one's goals are. But PRA's aphorisms read a bit like Proverbs By The Pint (http://pages.prodigy.net/jmiller.cb/prs10.html). (And, of course, beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.)

Are you referring to Islam? Islam has limited religious tolerance (for abrahamic religions alone). Religious liberty is way above religious tolerance.

Tolerance/liberty is a distinction learned by Christians at great cost. And the idea still doesn't run through and through. Take away the superficial sparkling veneer of America--that is, strip away so many of the things that we take for granted that others around the world don't have--and suddenly Americans of all stripes (not just Christian or Muslim) will be ready to take up arms in order to solve their problems. Compared to the demands of life, civility is a luxury.

In 1649, the Maryland colony passed a religious tolerance act. The Maryland Toleration Act of 1649 (http://religionanddemocracy.lib.virginia.edu/library/tocs/MarTole.html) . . . well, strangely, this just-over-500-word-rant (http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0620almanac.htm) by a writer I've never heard of or paid attention to before actually explains the situation quite nicely.

We might well have hit the twenty-first century with anti-witchcraft laws on the books in the United States. I'm trying to find a later article than August, 1999, but at that time, at least, it was illegal to read tarot cards, among other things, in ... get this ... two-thirds of North Carolina. Seriously, have a chuckle at the article (http://members.aol.com/oldenwilde/gen_info/blk_rib/nclaw_fortune.html), but we don't have religious freedom in this country. In fact, there are places in the US where you must profess faith in God before you can hold public office.

99% of Christians interpret the former as a metaphor, not to be followed literally.

How interesting. I wouldn't know where to begin .... Well, how about this: try me. I'd love to hear one of these metaphors. I have a few, myself, but I doubt they're agreeable because they largely equal removed degrees of literalism. At some point, your faith in God must come before your family, or something like that. It's something interesting about Americans and Christianity--in the US Christians identified against Communism, yet both Communism and the Bible recognize the obstacles posed by the sentiments of family.

Christianity is a changing religion. Whether or not it is declining does not change any of my points.

Fair enough. But the dynamism and flexibility does undermine the timelessness. You're right on the border where Christianity becomes inane enough that I stop paying attention to it because it ceases being threatening. For instance, I doubt you're looking forward to the end of the world. Of course, I could be wrong about that.

If only a great empire made that as the state religion

Well ... I'm of the opinion that being the state or predominant religion of any mighty empire pretty much screws any religion. I know Buddhist students who have something against the Dalai Lama. He's too political, don'tchaknow?

Hell, one of them even went on to start his own freaking religion.

I suppose it's one of those occasions that we're best to say, "No matter the cause." After all, his mind is brought to us by one of the many branches of Christianity. And a whacked one, at that.

Easy for you to say but each & every one of those items are the common denominators in almost every christian sect. That makes them the elements of true Christianity whether you like it or not.

Obviously I disagree as to what makes it true Christianity. I've known Southern Baptists to whom gender equality looks much more like what we criticize in other cultures.

At the core of Christianity is a defusing of a human being's presumed inherent right to judge another on a moral basis. That's the element of true Christianity that nearly, if not outright every, sect lacks.

I'm not really sure where you're getting your these ideas on what Christianity has contributed to society, but......

• The Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (yeah I know it aint original to Christianity. But still)

If you know that it didn't originate with Christianity, how can you claim it as a contribution from Christianity? Furthermore, in my opinion it isn't even the best rendition of the "golden rule". The Christian version encourages egotism. For how could you treat someone well without first loving yourself greatly (see Neitzche's "On Love")

• Separation of Church & State

Christianity really didn't contribute this one. I don't think I need to explain.

• Proverbs encouraging the seeking of knowledge. Wise sayings encouraging good relations between people.

Proverbs encouraging knowledge seeking? Even if you could show me these proverbs, I don't think that Christianity as a whole has ever encouraged any seeking of knowledge that didn't fit its agenda. Furthermore, once again, Christianity didn't contribute this to society since it was already there. Ditto for wise sayings.

• Promotion of love as the greatest of human virtues.

This one is interesting. What is love? What is Christian love? I find Christian love to be very demeaning. Extremely so. Love becomes a duty and a saving grace. We are so evil, but god loves us. You are a sinner, but I love you. Not the kind of love I want to buy into. Christian love makes me want to puke to be quite honest.

• Multiculturalism & Religious liberty. The hundreds of christian sects taught opposing Christians how to live together in harmony.

There are so many different Christian sects this becomes hard to talk about. But, for the most part, I have seen and read about hate between different Christian sects. In fact, there have been a few wars between Christian sects, and people fled their nation because they were an unacceptable christian sect. I don't see much harmony there. Especially when I talk to people who tell me, "OH! Well those people aren't Christians." over and over again. Pretty harminous when they can't even accept each others views.

• Encourages harmonious family relationships that almost borders on gender equality.

Harmonious families with a dominant husband and a subordinate wife. From the start of the Catholic church onwards everything female went out of the liturgy, which still pervades today. I will grant that there have been some steps forward recently. However, Christianity has not contributed an egalitarian family unit to society, in any sense.

Bin laden is an 'extreme muslim', mother theresa is an 'extreme christian', that says it all doesn't it.



I would venture to say that the KKK would be better examples of extreme christians(PM doesnt represent all muslims please remember that)