What good had Christianity done to the world since 2000 years ago?

In regard to the atheists who seek to lead us away from God, I found these quotes to resonate with me.

John 1,
4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are correct in some respect. The problem is that these conflicts are like onion layers you peel one religious conflict layer you find an earthly reason, you peal another you find ethnicity feeding the above conflict. You peel again then you see religion again. In reality these are all meshed. But as you go to the core, you see the human soul in action. He is just confusing the survival game with the animalistic brutality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

already explained why that is not the case ... I can understand what you are saying but apparently you can't understand me ... hence the suggestion you might be surprised ..
:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't share your pessimistic view of human nature. I think when people live together in societies they have lots incentive to get along and work together. To start hating each other something has to dvide them: an ideology or belief system that teaches them that all outsiders are evil or inferior. Religion is precisely that kind of mindset. Doesn't really matter what the disagreement is over. Could be about the nature of Christ, or reincarnation, or whatever. But history shows that ANY difference in belief is enough to make people who normally get along enemies of each other.

 

I would really like to believe you (I have four kids), but nations arming to teeth (military industrial complex), even with nuclear weapons, and with the human history, I can see it coming. I am from the ME, to me the so called Arab-Israeli is now not just about land, it has created such a conflict with added element of the scarce oil, that I think it will engulf the whole world sooner or later. Prophecy fulfilled.

 

No, see- I disagree. I think these are inherent traits- a product of living in the wild that simply remains within us. Religion may have been used to explain the traits, rationalize or justify them. But they are present. This is why it's found in many religions. Not just one or two.

It's our nature to be mistrusting of outsiders. Outsiders can bring illness, invasion, etc. It developed as a trait and remains. People use their religion to vindicate their natural behavior. If we did away, right now, with all religion, these traits would remain and people would find some other way of vindicating them.

 

Some people are soldiers by nature.

I see here at the forums that many posters don't relate to that, and think that people must be forced or manipulated into becoming soldiers, and that otherwise, nobody would be a soldier.

Sure, some people are forced and manipulated into becoming soldiers, for a number of reasons, in a number of ways.

But that doesn't change the fact that some people really are soldiers by nature, and their religion seems to play no role in that.
Some people who are soldiers by nature are religious, some are not.

 

I disagree with this. Mistrust is a learned behavior, which is why we have to teach our kids not to talk to strangers. I also disagree with the idea that religion teaches that outsiders are evil. There's an element of that, but as a general statement I don't think it's true.

The reason we do see justification for violence in the texts--and concocted by its practitioners even when it isn't--is because eternity is at stake, and the authority behind the orders--again, whether the warrant is from the text or not--is absolute. That kind of thinking only exists in religion.

 

Glad to see you're not destroyed by the storm. Hope the damages aren't bad where you are.
You can disagree and your reasons appear valid, but think about it- is it really that simple? I don't think it is. I once was a child believe it or not.
You must teach a kid not to talk to strangers because most strangers a kid comes across looks like what they are familiar with. However, should a stranger approach a child that is not what they are familiar with, and they will feel fearful, mistrust and maybe go so far as to believe something is terribly wrong with that stranger.
For example, as a child, I once saw a man, normal looking guy - with one exception. He was missing one arm from the elbow down. I remember being afraid of him because he was different. I remember asking what happened to his arm in an attempt to appear unafraid. I was only a few years old, mind you. The simple bluntness of a child. He didn't answer- I imagine it was not something he wanted to discuss.
I became convinced that he was missing an arm because he had chewed it off in a fit of hunger. Another thing I had little familiarity with as a small child was fat people. I'd not really seen any- but this guy was quite fat. I also was convinced that arm did not satisfy and he'd eat me next. Ah, from the mouths of babes...
In hindsight, being older now, I do remember his easy going genial manner. He was probably an 'ok' guy. But to a child, he was a fright.

It's quite normal for a child to be more trusting of those strangers that are much like those known acquaintances in the "Village," but different strangers, from some far away "village" invoke fear in a child and to them- -they are no where near so trusting.

You said it there: "concocted even when not in the text."

 

Thanks. We really didn't get diddly-squat up here. The higher elevations got some damage, but living in a valley has its benefits.

It seems to me that your example is more one of fear rather than mistrust, and of strangeness rather than strangers, or am I way off base? I remember this thing on 20/20 or something when I was a little kid about a guy with no arms and no legs, and how he got around really well in spite of it. They showed him getting around his kitchen, and I screamed my face off. I had never been more put off by anything in my short life. But I wouldn't call that a mistrust, I'd call it a fear of the extraordinary, or fear of the strange.

I don't know what you mean "much like those." You mean in appearance?

Yes, but you don't see large groups of Libertarians converting Republicans at gunpoint, do you?

 

See, I would have thought a valley would become a puddle in a big storm...

I realize word definitions can apply, however, in this case, these descriptions are accurate enough. A child's emotional state is not exactly fully developed, even if their instincts tell them to avoid a strange person. You may call it fear or you may call it mistrust and perhaps the child will call it "weirdo funny looking man." In any case, not all children need to be taught to avoid strangers, but they do need to be taught to avoid trusting unknown people to the point it's dangerous.
Many children will be wary, for example, of a stranger that fits in with the familiar accepted appearance of normal people they know, until that stranger offers candy, overcoming the mistrust with a tasty treat. The child isn't taught to mistrust- they are taught to totally mistrust and to not allow temptation to cloud their judgment.
However, a really strange or different person may have less luck even with candy, as the child shakes her little curly haired head and calls him, "Creepy."

Yes, and we're all different. While you perceived it differently than I had, as a kid, you still were put off by it. You didn't know what to make of it. This is where the parent comes in to explain matters as best they can and often times, the child nods his head but doesn't necessarily comprehend it all.
Due to this, a child can often receive conflicting messages.
Instinct says: "Avoid strange one."
Teaching says, "Avoid strangers but don't judge people who are different."
I spent my childhood sometime before the P.C. crowd really rallied. I cannot imagine what some of todays kids go through with such conflict of teaching.

Yes, mannerisms and appearance. For example, a child that grew up in a rural white area might be totally unprepared to deal with someone from India bounding up with a funny hat asking, "Salutations and greetings my little friend! Are you wanting a delicious Ice Cream Sandwich?"
He'd likely "mistrust" and be uncertain of himself.
There is a great deal more to human development than just Learned Behaviors. There are a great many inherent traits that society now tries to 'teach out' of young people as well. It is a benefit for a modern society to do so now. But it wasn't always this way as an unusual interloper was probably in search of a resource lost and liable to want what you have, in days past.

Nope. But that's not really relevant. What is relevant is that the Leaders that sought to pillage, invade, chastise or make others submit needed a justification and if one was not in scripture- a little artistic license would do. After-all, in days past the average person was not permitted to read the bible as it was said the Holy Word was beyond the common man and it must be interpreted for him by Men of God.

 

I know what you're saying and don't disagree that it is also a big factor. I just think those kind of things comprise a smaller part in the way war in the world gets started. The things you've mentioned do a lot to keep it going, I'll say that. Thanks.

 

I can agree with that. I've heard of atheists in the military.

 

I can see other differences playing a role in distrust and intolerance where physical traits or culture is different. For instance division between christians and muslims. But there are many times in history where persecution occurred of others solely on the basis of their religious beliefs. Christians lived in the same communities as pagans and other sects and had no other reason to hate them besides their religious practices. In the middle ages just being a heretic was enough to get you thrown into prison. Catholics persecuted Protestants and vice versa around the time of the Reformation. Where would these people get the idea that their fellow citizens were bad or inferior were it not for religion?

 

I think both outcomes are possible. Contrast the idyllic peace of a cloister, a kibbutz, or an Amish, Mennonite or Quaker commune or a madras, Jainist, Hindu or Buddhist monastery or temple community to, say, the European theaters of WWI and II in which modern civilized culture unleashed Christian-on-Christian, and Christian-on-Jewish carnage on an unprecedented scale.

Today you might see a similar disparity in Middle America by experiencing community on a field on a Saturday morning as a soccer mom, then falling victim in the afternoon to a berserker on rampage, spraying a mall or theater with bullets. The same policeman that rescues an elderly couple from that attack, only to be wounded and later decorated, and who himself enjoys a sports club or weekend campouts with family and neighbors, turns out later to shoot a handcuffed prisoner in the head. The judge that sentences him to death is an activist for the humane society. And so on.

Our capacity seems to be unbounded in either direction, with a strong tendency to avoid the worst of possible outcomes, despite the huge consequences for victims.

 

This is true. But I can also think of how racism was justified using passages of the bible by many people. Since brave people stood up against racism, it did not end racism, But it silenced it. No longer easy to justify in our culture, there was a decline in expressed views and segregation. Yet, that doesn't mean that people stopped being racist. I believe that there are less active racists, less likelihood of developing racism, but it's not eliminated by any means- it's just quiet.

You make a good argument as to how some doctrine or beliefs can encourage poor judgment and behavior. And I agree with that idea, that it can bring out the lesser desired traits in humanity. But I do not find the claim it causes it plausible, at all. Like Joepistole, I'd ask for evidence for that kind of claim.

Put it this way:
The Bible: This collection contains a series of letters, books and the like, compiled into one volume named "the Bible."
Within this are many ideas from different people, many of those ideas differing. Some ideas justified violence from some guys. Other writers advocated peace.
So like minded people will align with the scriptures they most agree with and downplay the ones they don't.
Some violent* people will find justification in the bible for what they believe should be done (Quote Leviticus) "It's in the Bible!"
Some pacifist* people will find justification in the bible for what they believe should be done (Quote John) "It's in the Bible!"



* Extreme example for clarity.

 

It can be, and was last year after Irene, but we got more wind than rain this time.

So the one thing they all do need to be taught is how to mistrust.

I feel like we're in agreement.

But if an offer of candy is enough to get over concerns, then trust isn't the issue. At least it seems to me. Anyway, candy is a familiar trope, but in most cases where the abductor isn't a family member, the person just claims to know the child's parents.

I don't agree that instinct says this. We developed these instincts at a time when "stranger" didn't exist as a concept, and you probably spent your whole life around relatives and tribemates. It's only after we began building large towns and cities that we began to live alongside people who could be called strangers.

 

Neverfly..Yes. Certain prejudices preexist their moral justification by religion. But the question remains as to what effect justifying your personal prejudice as the will of God has on your behavior. I say it CAUSES discrimination and intolerance that would otherwise not be acted on. Furthermore, demonizing the particular person you now can rightfully persecute as say a heretic or devil worshipper or infidel or sodomite or jewish viper identifies them with absolute evil. They are on the devil's side, and this gives you even more incentive to strike out against them. You are afterall fighting for team God, and so it becomes your sacred duty to take away their rights and disempower the person you originally only had a prejudice against. Religion is to prejudice what gasoline is to flame, and when released on a mass hysterical scale it becomes a wildfire that nobody can control anymore.

 

No, because that is not what I said, at all. Changing my words does not put us in agreement.
I will get to the rest later, including magical realists post, I'm currently surrounded by monsters.

 

Here we go again. Whenever you get called out on a mistake or put in a position to admit you were wrong, you accuse the other of twisting your words. It's getting very tiresome.

What did I twist around? You just said that they need to be taught to avoid trusting people. Your whole point earlier was that mistrust of strangers is innate, that it doesn't need to be taught.