Has organised Christianity been detrimental?

[Strike For The South]

Is organized Christianity on the whole a good or a bad thing? This was recently brought up in another thread and I think it deserves its own. I'm not going to sit here and tell you alll christians are good and the groups that run said religon are exactly they need becuase there are wicked people and groups that prevert christianty for there own purposes. However I will maintian organized rligon had hdone more good than harm no only directly with numerous charity groups but indirectly with the message they have spread and thus cuasing people to become better on the whole. Not to mention the community and tolerance a church builds in the varouis towns and cities its in.

Thoughts?

The title is not meant to be meanicing or attacking I just though it would be a cool title.

[CountArach]

A question - how far back in history are we taking this? If we go right back to the Crusades then I would say it has done FAR more harm than good.

[Strike For The South]

A question - how far back in history are we taking this? If we go right back to the Crusades then I would say it has done FAR more harm than good.

Try to keep it in the here and now but it is probably an inveitabilty that we will end up that far back.

[CountArach]

Alright, in that case, trying to put aside my own atheistic prejudices I would claim that it has done some good, for example a lot of charity work (I have Evangelical Grandparents who work with the Samaritans and some of the stuff they have done when they travel in the Third World is amazing). That said, I believe that non-believers can still do this charity work - it is just that religion gives people a cause to mobilise to, for better or worse. However, I think that they have encouraged discrimination against Homosexuals and they have set back scientific progress a fair way (For example by taking a stance against stem-cell research). Ultimately I would say that, as with many things, it is a matter of perspective. I have no great love for Organised Religion, but I can accept it has done some good.

[Lemur]

Organized religion, on the whole, is a good thing. I'll take a Jonestown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones) and a John Geoghan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Geoghan) in exchange for a Bach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bach) and a Notre Dame de Paris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre_Dame_de_Paris) any day of the week.

[Spartan198]

I just don't like Christianity because their moral teachings are contradictory.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

My opinion is that organised religion is a symptom of human nature. It was sparked by the innate curiosity of humanity and the need that we have to understand the unexplainable. To early cultures and even now, death, morality, the mere existance of life was unexplainable. Religion is a way of explaining these things in such a way that it cannot be refuted.

On the moral front I believe that religions themselves have done a good job of spreading their message of morality. Most people in the world are what you would call morally decent people, and abide by a moral code. Whether the people involved in the religion have actually done any good is another question.

Another point to raise is that organised religion, whether delibrately or not, breeds fanaticism. As I have noted before, fanaticism is probably the most negative thing that has impacted on our society over the centuries. Religious fanaticism has led to the Crusades, the Holocaust, Pogroms, expulsions, the Inquisition, and 9/11, and the London Bombing among other events. As such, unwittingly orgnised religion has caused much suffering to the collective people of the globe.

Due to the widespread following that organised religions have, religious leaders have a tremendous influence over events. Provided that they stay in their religious sphere, there is no issue with this, however many religious leaders have strayed into the tangled world of politics. This was more of an issue in the distant past, with the Crusades being a notable example, but also the Borgia Popes (again a long time ago), and more recently in Iraq with Moktadah Al-Sadr (apologies if this is spelt wrongly), and his control over the Shi'ite militias. On the other hand Pope John Paul II was a great man, who did what he could to help people across the globe, and the Dalai-Lama, whilst advocating the freedom of Tibet, is also one who tries his best to help all those in the world. Mother Teresa is another example.

A criticism that many organised religions have come in for is that they oppose progress with their stance on ethical grey areas. For example abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, and captial punishment have all been strongly opposed by the Catholic Church, as has the recognition of homosexual rights. Their stance has been criticised by some as backward and as blocking progress, but in fact organised religions are just standing up for their belief system.

While I personally am an atheist and am pro-choice on many aspects of life. I believe that religion itself isn't so bad. Indeed many religious moral codes are admirable. Its the fanatical followers of relgions and, on some rare occaisions, the leaders of religions that are the problem.

[Strike For The South]

I just don't like Christianity because their moral teachings are contradictory.

How so? I would wager to bet most of you simply dont understand what the church is about.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Who's 'most of you' ?

Just confused and would like clarification, not trying to attack you. I'm guessing from other threads and your posts so far that you are religious

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

the Holocaust
Was the Final Solution really the result of religious fervor? Certainly mainy Christians failed to question their leaders and - horrifically - some even supported it. However, some of the people who hid Jews and opposed Hitler were Christians themselves.

[m52nickerson]

Organized religion, even today, can do more harm then good. Religion is the base on which we deny right the right to marry to Homosexuals. It is the base on which we slow scientific research such as stem cell research. Religion can breed hate towards Homosexuals, Scientists, Atheists, members of other faiths. It can cause people to make unintelligent decisions that can cost people their lives, like not taking a sick daughter to the doctor because they think prayer will fix her. I could go on.

Not all people carry their beliefs this far, but those seeds are still there.

[Lemur]

But nickerson, why do you believe the tribalism you're observing is exclusive to religion? Do you really think that if religion were to go away, anything would change? People are people, and that means they'll find a reason to hate, despise, belittle, exclude and kill each other no matter what. Blaming all of those ills on organized religion seems unrealistic, not to mention a free pass for our petty and bloody nature.

The vast majority of religions teach positive values, such as love, compassion, humility, charity, etc. Don't blame religion for the fact that people twist that into hate thy neighbor.

[LittleGrizzly]

I would say it has had an overall bad effect on the world, of course it has done alot of good along the way, but the crazy people it inspires to greater crazyness....

If the world is ever to end in a nuclear war or some similar huge exchange of weaponary one or more of the instigators will happily let it continue safe in the knowledge they will merely pass onto heaven

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

If the world is ever to end in a nuclear war or some similar huge exchange of weaponary one or more of the instigators will happily let it continue safe in the knowledge they will merely pass onto heaven
Couldn't the same be said for a nihilist?

[Strike For The South]

Who's 'most of you' ?

Just confused and would like clarification, not trying to attack you. I'm guessing from other threads and your posts so far that you are religious


Spartan198 and many other atheists. I am religous not very but lately it seems like I am taking more conservitive postions here. and Nickerson people hate all the time for diffrent reasons to say they it is vvery simplistic.

[m52nickerson]

Ok. I will admit that post was a bit over the top.....just a bit.

All most every argument against homosexuality stem from religious beliefs. You will also have conflicts between other faiths.

Then you have the people who think scientific theory such as evolution should not be taught in school.

One of the reason I left the Roman Catholic Church was because it seemed that every week I heard about how people who did not live in a certain way are sinners.

All in all religion is only good if the believer tempers their beliefs with understanding that their faith is not an absolute authority.

[Strike For The South]

First off everyone is a sinner not just the evil people who have no religon. Secondly there are plenty of athesits who hold prejuduces agianst gays and plenty of religous people who dont. You are cofusing the gay marrige arguement into a simple prejuduce vs non prejudeced thing when there is so much more to it. The whack jobs on tv do not compromise Christianity.

[LittleGrizzly]

Couldn't the same be said for a nihilist?

I remember the discussion and from what i gathered they don't nessecarily see life as not worth living but without actually having a meaning/point, I think what you were getting at is someone who doesn't value thiers and everyone else lives, well i think this is possible most world leaders value thier own lives greatly, i think it would much more likely be the leader with good intentions secure in his passage to heaven that would be willing to start armageddon.

Of course thats not to say it couldn't happen due to some crazy atheist with a death wish and a problem with the rest of the world, i think the main point for me is, someone who believes in god and believes he on his side has very little to stop them, Im sure OBL would feel perfectly justified launching nukes at quite aot of countries, he wouldn't feel concerned for killing a good muslim (one by his standards) because said muslim will be with god, whereas the crazy atheist could not provide any such justification, he could of course call it collateral damage and continue regardless but thats where i feel the main difference is...

[m52nickerson]

So what other arguments are there against Gay marriage? Not allowing me to marry another man is a simple case of sexually discrimination.

Look at the violence that is taking place in the middle east. Most of that is religious driven.

[Strike For The South]

So what other arguments are there against Gay marriage? Not allowing me to marry another man is a simple case of sexually discrimination.

Look at the violence that is taking place in the middle east. Most of that is religious driven.


The fact that they want to be married in churches and those goes agianst the churches rights

The violence in the middle has negligble Christian influnce. Not to mention religon is only the catylast take away that and there will be another.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The title is not meant to be meanicing or attacking I just though it would be a cool title.

I think the title stepped somewhat over the line that separates critical opinion from religion bashing. I have changed it to something less stark.

May I remind contributing posters that evidenced criticism of religious practice and/or ethics is fine, whereas prejudiced generalisations designed to insult or provoke are not.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[HoreTore]

Organized christianity bad?

Well... Isn't that why so many people split from one christian organisation and ound their own? Luther founded his own because the pope sucked, the FLDS founded their own because the mormons sucked, etc etc...

[m52nickerson]

The fact that they want to be married in churches and those goes agianst the churches rights

The violence in the middle has negligble Christian influnce. Not to mention religon is only the catylast take away that and there will be another.

That is another issue, and I would say that Churches should have the rights to protect there values, even if I don't agree with them.

...but, that does not answer my original question. What is a good non-faith based argument against the government not allowing gay marriage?

[Somebody Else]

Kinda like a diaper - when humanity was young, and everything scared the ... out of us, we needed it. Now that we're all (mostly) grown up, we can afford to move on without it.

SE

[PBI]

As a scientist, I regard science as being the most powerful force for good in the history of humanity. The ways in which it has tangibly changed our lives for the better are countless, and the qualities of open-mindedness, rationality and curiosity about the world around us that it promotes are in my opinion very healthy qualities for a free-thinking member of a democratic society to have.

Therefore, I must regard organised Christianity as a negative force. The simple fact is, whenever the scientific evidence appears to contradict scripture, the instinct of at least some in religious circles seems to be to condemn, discredit or otherwise silence the dangerous heretics by whatever means necessary, from the persecution of Galileo, through the condemnation of Darwin's Origin of Species, up to the present day so-called "Intelligent Design" theories and restrictions on stem cell research. Whereas science is constantly evolving and improving and rejecting ideas which are proven to be false, organised religion takes a simple set of ideas about the universe and refuses to change no matter how strong the evidence and no matter how much harm it does.

The same applies for any kind of progressive social reform: Religion simply unthinkingly enforces the same set of rigid rules that it has for thousands of years, without stopping to think whether they still make sense or not. So while banning contraception actually makes some sense in a small, newly-founded religious sect struggling for survival in order to make your numbers skyrocket until you outnumber the unbelievers, in a modern society struggling with overpopulation it does not.

These two reasons are why I believe organised Christianity to be a harmful influence on society; firstly, it is too often willing to stand in the path of scientific progress despite the fact that the latter has proven a far more effective tool for interpreting and understanding the universe. Secondly, it seems far too eager to try to impose its values upon others who do not share those values, safe in the knowledge that no matter how wrong-headed it seems and how much suffering it causes, it is all for a greater good.

So long as people keep to themselves, they are free to worship whatever weird and wonderful nonsensical ancient cult they want to. Just 1) Don't try to claim your rigid moral code has anything sensible to say about modern cosmology, and
2) Don't try force your values upon me if I want to live my life in a way you don't approve of.

In my book, organised Christianity has failed on both these counts.

[HoreTore]

...but, that does not answer my original question. What is a good non-faith based argument against the government not allowing gay marriage?

Well plenty of people believe the gays should be discriminated because seeing two guys kissing disgusts them.

But then, it's not a good argument... :clown:

[Geoffrey S]

Organized Christianity was extremely important after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. It played a huge role in preserving administrative units, valuable information, and provided cohesion. It was, and is, no more detrimental than any organization is - point me out one without internal contradictions and inefficient bureaucracy. It's had the added misfortune that other forms of organization arose, in particular the nation state and more explicitly the communist state, demanding a monopoly of power which frown upon the rights the Church accorded itself and have dominated the political scene since.

Nowadays, how can it be detrimental? Only those who are a member could possibly think so, and they're free to leave.

[Odin]

Yes it has been. Others have given historical references to physical crimes against humanity under the guise of christianity so I wont go down that road. Its foundations is based on a criminal act, assuming the same theories of gods will applies to practioners as well as infidels (you know being homosexual is a crime, well never mind).

So I will keep it real simple:

exodus 20:2-20:17

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3you shall have no other gods before"

Yet, a human (jesus christ) has been elevated to an equal if not greater status. I dont know how many times I have heard "Christ is the lord", well no he isnt based on the gods law. This is still in practice today, so every christian is in violation of gods 1st law hence the reason I have no problem calling them criminals.

Lets not stop there though....

"You shall not murder"

"You shall not steal"

Yet at the Council of Claremont Pope Urban says "Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights." So now a christian leader has allowed those who have broken one of gods laws ascend to a higher position? Why? To go on crusade and retake the holy land, which just happened to result in the death of thousands of innocents. Wonder if the christians that were doing the slicing and dicing got the "thous shall not kill" memo?

Exodus 20.18-26

"The Lord said to Moses: Thus you shall say to the Israelites: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I spoke with you from heaven. 23You shall not make gods of silver alongside me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold."

I like this one a lot, because throughout history (even now) Christ (you know that human who was made a god in violation of the 1st law of god?) has been made from gold multiple times.

Sure we can sit here and say "well what about now" but that absolves the practioner responsibility for their choice dosent it? Ignorance isnt an excuse even though those of faith like to attempt to trump it with their romantic notions of just knowing better.

So of course its been detrimental, its very origin is based on a violation of gods fist law. Whom do you think is burning more in purgatory Peter or Paul? When you start from crap, you can sprinkle as much rose water on the heep as you want, from time to time the stink still rises and you catch a wiff.

And even after thousands of years, at its core its still crap.


Sources


http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9024350/Council-of-Clermont

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=exodus+20:2-20:17&version=nrsvae

[drone]

As a scientist, I regard science as being the most powerful force for good in the history of humanity. The ways in which it has tangibly changed our lives for the better are countless, and the qualities of open-mindedness, rationality and curiosity about the world around us that it promotes are in my opinion very healthy qualities for a free-thinking member of a democratic society to have.

Therefore, I must regard organised Christianity as a negative force. The simple fact is, whenever the scientific evidence appears to contradict scripture, the instinct of at least some in religious circles seems to be to condemn, discredit or otherwise silence the dangerous heretics by whatever means necessary, from the persecution of Galileo, through the condemnation of Darwin's Origin of Species, up to the present day so-called "Intelligent Design" theories and restrictions on stem cell research. Whereas science is constantly evolving and improving and rejecting ideas which are proven to be false, organised religion takes a simple set of ideas about the universe and refuses to change no matter how strong the evidence and no matter how much harm it does.

This is definitely a big problem. I've stated in an earlier thread that organized religion is the worst thing to happen to humanity, it's all about money and power over the congregation. But religion also stunts intellectual growth by trying to shoehorn scientific observations into a belief structure. Findings that contradict dogma are a threat, and thus decried as heresy. Scripture (in whatever form) is supposed to be treated as the be-all-end-all. How limiting. :shrug:

[Geoffrey S]

This is definitely a big problem. I've stated in an earlier thread that organized religion is the worst thing to happen to humanity, it's all about money and power over the congregation. But religion also stunts intellectual growth by trying to shoehorn scientific observations into a belief structure. Findings that contradict dogma are a threat, and thus decried as heresy. Scripture (in whatever form) is supposed to be treated as the be-all-end-all. How limiting. :shrug:
Organized religion certainly doesn't have a monopoly on those faults.

[atheotes]

If only people could practice the right things (charity, humility etc...) for the right reasons (not because their religion tells them to) :wall:
Even though i am an atheist, i think organised christianity has brought more good than harm (I am considering only the last 60 years)... the amount of charity work they do is awesome and the no of people who do it only because of religion is high... but i just wish we didnt need thousand year old texts dictating lives...:no:

[Don Corleone]

Religion is an institution of man, and as such, it has the failings of man. Organized religion therefore is no better, no worse than the humanity of which it is comprised.

In this regard, it is very similar to the quasi-institution of "Science". Joseph Mengele performed all sorts of inhuman experiments on thousands of innocent victims, all in the name of science. Most of the horrors of the modern world, and most of the benefits, have all come from science. So science, like religion, is neither 'good' nor 'bad' in and of themselves. They are tools. If you use a screwdriver to stab somebody in the back, or if you use it to open a door that was stuck shut to allow somebody shelter out of the rain, the tool itself never changes.

I am a scientist (well, an engineer, which is the bastard of science and industry). I am also a man of faith. Religion is a construct by which I can grow in my faith, but it is also a crutch by which I can actually disconnect my faith and confuse the scenery for the show. It's all up to me. Or you.

[Don Corleone]

The Crusades are frequently raised as evidence of how negative religion, namely Christianity can be. But the Crusades were not particularly different than any other war of expansion in which religion was used as a rallying cry, including the seizure of portions of the Anatolian peninsula by the Seljuk Turks, in the name of religion, for the preceeding 100 years, as well as the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the persecution of Christians in Jersualem in 1006. Why was it okay for the Islamic Seljuks to seize Anatolia and the Islamic Fatimids to destroy Christianity in Jersualem, but not okay for the Christians to respond?

[LittleGrizzly]

why the particular derision for the Crusades themselves?

Well for starters they went to re-claim the holy land, wars started based on holy scriptures are a bad idea, we took islam back a few hundred years by these crusades, from what i have read of the time (not much admittedly) Islam was the more advanced peaceful and accepting religion, now partly because of the crusades and incidents since islam has gone backwards a few hundred years (of course other influences but crusades was major starting point) i think the crusades also gave islam the idea of a clash of cultures which seems to continue to the modern day.

[Lemur]

So it's Christianity's fault that so many Islamic nations are now xenophobic, anti-science, anti-learning backwaters? That's giving the Christians quite a lot of credit ...

[Don Corleone]

why the particular derision for the Crusades themselves?

Well for starters they went to re-claim the holy land, wars started based on holy scriptures are a bad idea, we took islam back a few hundred years by these crusades, from what i have read of the time (not much admittedly) Islam was the more advanced peaceful and accepting religion, now partly because of the crusades and incidents since islam has gone backwards a few hundred years (of course other influences but crusades was major starting point) i think the crusades also gave islam the idea of a clash of cultures which seems to continue to the modern day.

Then you should read more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulcher). I know it's become fashionable to claim that Islam was a religion of peace until it had the misfortune to cross paths with Christians, but simply saying that doesn't make it so. In reality, both sides have a long history of violence, towards each other and towards themselves.

[Odin]

The Crusades are frequently raised as evidence of how negative religion, namely Christianity can be. But the Crusades were not particularly different than any other war of expansion in which religion was used as a rallying cry, including the seizure of portions of the Anatolian peninsula by the Seljuk Turks, in the name of religion, for the preceeding 100 years, as well as the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the persecution of Christians in Jersualem in 1006. Why was it okay for the Islamic Seljuks to seize Anatolia and the Islamic Fatimids to destroy Christianity in Jersualem, but not okay for the Christians to respond?

No one is saying it isnt okay Don, however I have yet to see one of the Christians come out and acknowledge that the crusades were in fact a violation of the laws given to moses by god. Am I incorrect in assuming that Christians have adopted Moses proclomations as God's laws? I dont think I am and have yet to have a christian refute this.

Thats part of the reason why the continued critique of the practice of christianity because at its core is repeated violations of their adopted laws of god. Of course this isnt to say other religions arent guilty of the same violations against mankind but since most of us are from a western culture we have grown up with christianity as a backdrop of moral authority and are more familiar with its teaching and tenets.

Not only that but most of us are blessed to live in societies that allow us these questions. Your point about Faith in your prior post is the kicker Don because thats still the saving grace of organized religion. In most cases it does help people attain and refine their faith, however ignorance of the institutions flagrant disregard for their own adaption of gods law dosent absolve the practioner.

On the contrary, its makes them just as culpable.

Im sorry old friend, but I think you and I will just always be at odds on this. I know it bothers you when I lump the whole lot of you into one big bucket, but you also know Im a sensationalist its done mostly for effect, however I do understand it can be offensive.

[Geoffrey S]

The Crusades are frequently raised as evidence of how negative religion, namely Christianity can be. But the Crusades were not particularly different than any other war of expansion in which religion was used as a rallying cry, including the seizure of portions of the Anatolian peninsula by the Seljuk Turks, in the name of religion, for the preceeding 100 years, as well as the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the persecution of Christians in Jersualem in 1006. Why was it okay for the Islamic Seljuks to seize Anatolia and the Islamic Fatimids to destroy Christianity in Jersualem, but not okay for the Christians to respond?
That, and they were quite possibly a very useful outlet for violence from Europe. Not that it stopped it, not by any means, but having previously bellicose leaders marching to the Holy Land together not only diverted their attentions to areas outside of Europe, but it also stimulated a sense of being in this religion and continent together. Crusades were also important in the development of organizational and financial structures necessary to facilitate the movement of so many people overseas - and in the process a boon to southern European merchant states, who expanded their markets significantly.

[Samurai Waki]

Religion changes, R. Catholicism isn't the same as it was 800 years ago, and Islam isn't the same as it was 800 years ago. Messages change all the time, and religion is very efficient at echoing a particular message to a broad base of believers.
The Crusades seems a far cry for Christianity when you compare to today's Christians who by and large donate to Amnesty International, Red Cross, and a plethora of Domestic and International Charities, without the Organization of religion, such great and wonderful social interactions would not be possible.
Islam, still has a huuuuuuuuggggggeeeee amount of potential, Islam has changed it's stance on worldly views many times, and across a very large region. However, Islam is relatively decentralized, so different Imams have different messages, some of hate, more of peace and acceptance for no Muslims. There isn't central Muslim headquarters, the Muslims don't have a Vatican, so change occurs either very slowly, or very quickly.

[PBI]

So violence at home is bad, but it's OK to kill as many Middle Eastern people as you like? Hmm, where have I heard that before?

On the point of benefits of the Crusades, I would say that one of the more major ones was the bringing back of many aspects of Islamic science and philosophy to Europe, much of which of course was regarded as "Moorish devilry" by the religious authorities. That said, I fail to see why this could only be achieved through violent invasion.



In this regard, it is very similar to the quasi-institution of "Science". Joseph Mengele performed all sorts of inhuman experiments on thousands of innocent victims, all in the name of science. Most of the horrors of the modern world, and most of the benefits, have all come from science. So science, like religion, is neither 'good' nor 'bad' in and of themselves. They are tools. If you use a screwdriver to stab somebody in the back, or if you use it to open a door that was stuck shut to allow somebody shelter out of the rain, the tool itself never changes.

Yes, I often hear this "science is simply another religion" argument. However, I feel they are fundamentally different, for a number of reasons.

Most importantly, science can change. The very reason why science is so successful in explaining natural phenomena is that if it doesn't do it well, it is changed until it does do so. Hence, you don't see too many scientists defending the existence of the Aether or the idea of phlogiston. We accept that no scientific theory is perfect, simply the best explanation we happen to have at the time, which while it isn't as satisfying as saying "this is how things are, no shadow of a doubt" it does mean we can accept that we were wrong if the theory is found deficient and we can replace it a better one.

Religion meanwhile is static, "eternal" I believe is the term preferred by Christians. It sets out a simple explanation for how the world is and asks us to accept that explanation for all time without justification and no matter how flawed it is found to be.

Secondly, science requires open-mindedness and free thinking, since it is always necessary to seek new explanations and novel approaches and to question orthodoxy. Religion by contrast encourages closed-mindedness, since it requires that one accept the dogma unthinkingly and reject alternative explanations without considering the merits.

Thirdly, science requires that for every assertion it makes, we must give a reason. You cannot simply assert something without proof and expect it to be accepted; if we state that something is true, it is because we have a reason to think so. On the other hand, the only reason religion ever gives for anything is "because God says so", which is really a command not to try looking for a reason rather than a reason in it's own right.

As to the question of whether science is a force for good, I would say in my mind it most certainly is. True, it has provided some new ways of killing people, but people have been doing that perfectly well for millennia without fancy modern weapons. However, many of the benefits brought to society by science are unprecedented. Why is it that our society is no longer regularly decimated by deadly and recurring plagues? Is it because of the power of prayer, or did penicillin have something to do with it? We live in a society of luxury, safety and prosperity unimaginable to our ancestors, and science can take sole responsibility for that. Most of the horrors meanwhile would be all too familiar to them. However, a great deal of the suffering endured by our ancestors is gone forever thanks to modern science.

[Geoffrey S]

On the point of benefits of the Crusades, I would say that one of the more major ones was the bringing back of many aspects of Islamic science and philosophy to Europe, much of which of course was regarded as "Moorish devilry" by the religious authorities. That said, I fail to see why this could only be achieved through violent invasion.
More recent research tends to refute that myth. While the Islamic world did a good job of preserving and expanding classical science, most of the same texts were to be found inside European monasteries. Small gains may have been made through Islamic Iberia, but not significant amounts, and through Constantinople, but almost certainly not through the Crusades.

Funnily enough, they were often incomplete - on the subject of this topic, the organized Church was instrumental in bringing various versions and many different texts together and of great value to later classical scholars.

Regardless, many of the technological advances made in European during the Middle Ages and later were made locally, regardless of classical texts, or developments outside Europe. Access to both was very limited, those who were genuinely inquisitive often had to do their own work.

[LittleGrizzly]

Then you should read more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulcher). I know it's become fashionable to claim that Islam was a religion of peace until it had the misfortune to cross paths with Christians, but simply saying that doesn't make it so. In reality, both sides have a long history of violence, towards each other and towards themselves.

Still calling such a thing as the crusades is changing the warfare from nation states to a war of religions is a bit of an escalation, people usually feel more strongly for thier religion than thier country, i think the atittudes from that period has partially persisted in Islam (with helping influences since)

So it's Christianity's fault that so many Islamic nations are now xenophobic, anti-science, anti-learning backwaters? That's giving the Christians quite a lot of credit ...

I wasn't putting it all on christians you misread my post, i just think the crusades really didn't help...

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

This is going to be a very long post replying to various aspects of what has been said before, rather than introducing any new ideas. Sorry.


Religion changes, R. Catholicism isn't the same as it was 800 years ago, and Islam isn't the same as it was 800 years ago. Messages change all the time, and religion is very efficient at echoing a particular message to a broad base of believers.

I beg to differ. While some parts of Religious ideologies have altered over (a very long period of) time, the basic doctrine has not, and cannot, be altered. Religion is, or at least was, a good way of communicating beliefs and ideals to the wider community. However with the good ('thou shalt not kill' etc.) comes the bad (homosexuality equals a crime against God). Also moving into this new, cynical age, the Christian churches in particular, are losing ifluence with the population at large.


Islam, still has a huuuuuuuuggggggeeeee amount of potential, Islam has changed it's stance on worldly views many times, and across a very large region. However, Islam is relatively decentralized, so different Imams have different messages, some of hate, more of peace and acceptance for no Muslims. There isn't central Muslim headquarters, the Muslims don't have a Vatican, so change occurs either very slowly, or very quickly.

Islam is more changeable than Christianity, it is true, however the Qu'ran cannot be altered or updated, thus Islamic doctrine remains similar to that which Mohammed handed down to his followers in the 7th Century. With decentralisation, different messages can be preached, but, and this is my main point, doctrine and the basis of many major religions cannot be altered significantly, in this day and age.


That, and they were quite possibly a very useful outlet for violence from Europe. Not that it stopped it, not by any means, but having previously bellicose leaders marching to the Holy Land together not only diverted their attentions to areas outside of Europe, but it also stimulated a sense of being in this religion and continent together. Crusades were also important in the development of organizational and financial structures necessary to facilitate the movement of so many people overseas - and in the process a boon to southern European merchant states, who expanded their markets significantly.

Now to the Crusades and the debate that has sprung up around them. The first Crusade's aim was to retake the city of Jerusalem from the Muslims who had taken it (I'm fairly sure... either that or they'd always (relatively speaking) held it and just dened pilgrims the right to travel there... someone can correct me). The Islamic movement only came into existance in the 7th Century, and was warlike and aggressive, seizing vast swathes of terrority across Africa and the Middle East. (No offence intended to any Muslims, I may be wrong) I'm fairly sure that Mohammed himself was a war leader, and having fled from Medina to Mecca (and en route had his divine encounter), returned with their army to take Medina. My point is that the Muslims of the late 11th Century, while technologically advanced, and fairly liberal in thought (especially compared to their Wstern European counterparts, those paragons of Chivalry that they were:laugh4:), they were certainly no angels when it came to war and peace. I believe that the period of 'enlightenment' that Little Grizz was talking about came later, with Suleiman the Magnificent, who allowed total religious freedom (except for some Islamic 'heresys') within his borders. But he still waged war on Christian rulers.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to apologise for seemingly insinuating that the Christian Church may have been partially responsible for the Holocaust. That was not my intention. At the time the title of the thread suggested that all organised religions were under discussion. What I meant was that the Jewish Faith was targeted due to their religous beliefs. Again my apologies.


Religion is an institution of man, and as such, it has the failings of man. Organized religion therefore is no better, no worse than the humanity of which it is comprised.

And that is perhaps the crux of the argument, and personally what believe (but I could never express it with such eloquence).


Yes, I often hear this "science is simply another religion" argument. However, I feel they are fundamentally different, for a number of reasons.

Science is almost another religion, and is pursued with equal fervour by its adherents.


Most importantly, science can change. The very reason why science is so successful in explaining natural phenomena is that if it doesn't do it well, it is changed until it does do so. Hence, you don't see too many scientists defending the existence of the Aether or the idea of phlogiston. We accept that no scientific theory is perfect, simply the best explanation we happen to have at the time, which while it isn't as satisfying as saying "this is how things are, no shadow of a doubt" it does mean we can accept that we were wrong if the theory is found deficient and we can replace it a better one.

...Secondly, science requires open-mindedness and free thinking, since it is always necessary to seek new explanations and novel approaches and to question orthodoxy. Religion by contrast encourages closed-mindedness, since it requires that one accept the dogma unthinkingly and reject alternative explanations without considering the merits.

...Thirdly, science requires that for every assertion it makes, we must give a reason. You cannot simply assert something without proof and expect it to be accepted; if we state that something is true, it is because we have a reason to think so. On the other hand, the only reason religion ever gives for anything is "because God says so", which is really a command not to try looking for a reason rather than a reason in it's own right.

So Science's doctrine is one that accepts that there is always room for improvement, that change is inevitable, and that perfection is unattainable. Furthermore boundaries must be pushed and everything must be reasoned or its untrue. It's still pretty similar, but I'd call science a quasi-religion rather than a religion in itself, and a very unorganised one at that.

[m52nickerson]

Science is not religion. Science requires method, logic and evidence. Religion requires blind faith.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Nothing requires blind faith. That some adherents of religion have blind faith, doesn't mean that it is a requirement.

Religion requires faith in God, Allah or Karma (Or any other God, or Gods).

Science requires faith in results and your own eyes.

Humanity is not infallible, and also nothing is impossible, given the right conditions. As such a requirement of science is faith in the results and the person who got them, no matter how many times it has been 'proven'. There are always intangibles.

[m52nickerson]

Nothing requires blind faith. That some adherents of religion have blind faith, doesn't mean that it is a requirement.

Religion requires faith in God, Allah or Karma (Or any other God, or Gods).

Science requires faith in results and your own eyes.

Humanity is not infallible, and also nothing is impossible, given the right conditions. As such a requirement of science is faith in the results and the person who got them, no matter how many times it has been 'proven'. There are always intangibles.

Unless you have seen God, or proven Karma it is blind faith.

You do not need faith when you and others have proven a theory.

Science and religion are two very different beasts. Science for the most part is the search for understanding on how the natural world works. Religion tells people how the world works, but offers no evidence that to support that claim.

Believing something with no evidence what so ever is blind faith.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Ah but if someone has faith in the church and the church tells them that there is evidence of Gods existence and they believe that I wouldn't call that blind faith. As I know from my Catholic schooling, 'evidence of God's love is all around us'. If there is evidence then it isn't blind faith. That evidence of a higher power doesn't seem obvious, or compelling to you, then its your right to believe that there is no higher power.

Again nothing can be proved. Is reality even real? So far nobody has come up with a definitive answer to this basic question. AFAIK, there is no way of proving this. I remember vaguely reading some paradox, and I'll try and lay out the basics of it... Its probably wrong, or out dated and I would like correction on this if possible:

An experiment is performed to record the happening of a quantum event. This is subject to quantum uncertainty, so an observer has to be present to confirm that the event indeed occurs. However, the observers mere presence is another quantum event, and subject to quantum uncertainty, thus another observer, or friend, must be present. Bt this 'friend is also subject to quantum uncertainty, and so on and so forth. In other words there is no way you can definitively prove anything happened or even that anything exists.

I'm not going to say unequivocaly that this is correct, I'm not well-informed enough to know. I believe it was postulated by a famous Quantum theorist however.

This said the existance of God/s is still in question, however now our own existence is also just as questionable. You have no way of proving definitively that God/s do not exist (in fact you have no way of doing this even if we do, in fact exist).

I didn't say that Science is a religion, I said that it had elements that make it similar. Religion is evidence of humanity's search for answers, this is what science, in essence, is.

[Lemur]

Most amusing quote I've read on this subject: "Jesus sounds like a cool guy, but his fanclub sucks."

[CountArach]

Ah but if someone has faith in the church and the church tells them that there is evidence of Gods existence and they believe that I wouldn't call that blind faith.
This is where your argument breaks down. You are having Blind Faith in the church, because you have no reason to believe them, except through your own belief they are correct - the very definition of blind faith.

[PanzerJaeger]

Christianity today is a force for good in the world through its message and charitable efforts, for the most part. islam is where the problem is. :skull:

[ajaxfetish]

Well for starters they went to re-claim the holy land, wars started based on holy scriptures are a bad idea, we took islam back a few hundred years by these crusades, from what i have read of the time (not much admittedly) Islam was the more advanced peaceful and accepting religion, now partly because of the crusades and incidents since islam has gone backwards a few hundred years (of course other influences but crusades was major starting point) i think the crusades also gave islam the idea of a clash of cultures which seems to continue to the modern day.

Not to stray too far into Monastery waters, but as I recall the crusades made only a small dent in Islamic culture compared to the Mongol invasions that came soon afterward. I think it would be unwise to argue that Christianity is responsible for any backwardness in Islam. Today it is fashionable to demonize the crusades categorically. They were a complex mixture of good and evil intentions, and of good and evil practice, that we too readily simplify and view in black and white terms.

Ajax

[Sigurd]

What is organized Christianity compared to Christianity in general?

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Ok then, in order...


This is where your argument breaks down. You are having Blind Faith in the church, because you have no reason to believe them, except through your own belief they are correct - the very definition of blind faith.

In that case look at the sentence immediately following that one... :wall: Plus I'd like to point out, as I said in my original post, I'm actually an atheist, I just have no issue with churches and people believing in what they wish. (Plus its no fun if nobody stands up for them...)


Christianity today is a force for good in the world through its message and charitable efforts, for the most part. islam is where the problem is. :skull:

Confused by the italics, but if you actually mean that Islam is more detrimental to society than Christianity, then I'd argue that point. What I think you mean is that Islamic Fanatics are detrimental to society. If so you have to look at the less palatable aspects of the Christian world. Ku Klux Klan, cults etc. etc. I don't mean to offend but the view that Islam is any more harmful to society than Christianity is very narrow-minded.


What is organized Christianity compared to Christianity in general?

I take it to mean the Church/ those to attend church regularly/ those who are very orthodox and doctrinal in their thinking. Not your average, couldn't care less/ actually agnostic member of society. Again its down to your own particular view.

[CountArach]

In that case look at the sentence immediately following that one... :wall: Plus I'd like to point out, as I said in my original post, I'm actually an atheist, I just have no issue with churches and people believing in what they wish. (Plus its no fun if nobody stands up for them...)
Still, no evidence can properly be cited as evidence of God's love.

[Sigurd]

I take it to mean the Church/ those to attend church regularly/ those who are very orthodox and doctrinal in their thinking. Not your average, couldn't care less/ actually agnostic member of society. Again its down to your own particular view.
At what point were Christians not organised?

[LittleGrizzly]

Not to stray too far into Monastery waters, but as I recall the crusades made only a small dent in Islamic culture compared to the Mongol invasions that came soon afterward. I think it would be unwise to argue that Christianity is responsible for any backwardness in Islam.

Maybe it wasn't such a bad influence on Islamic culture i do think it is one of the starting points for the clash of cultures we have still going today between Islam and Christianity....

[macsen rufus]

Most amusing quote I've read on this subject: "Jesus sounds like a cool guy, but his fanclub sucks."


:laugh4:

That would make a great bumper sticker.... erm, no wait.... :creep:

[atheotes]

:laugh4:

That would make a great bumper sticker.... erm, no wait.... :creep:

Do you want your car to be stoned? :inquisitive:

:creep:

[Lemur]

Actually I think macsen rufus was playing off this thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=104839) ...

[ajaxfetish]

Still, no evidence can properly be cited as evidence of God's love.
No physical evidence. And I expect you'd be likely not to accept metaphysical evidence as meaningful, which of course is fine.


At what point were Christians not organised?
I think comments about organized versus 'unorganized' Christianity are not so much about Christianity at different times, but about different groups of Christians. Some form of organized Christianity has existed since the time of the apostles, but not all Christians are members of an organized Christian body.


Maybe it wasn't such a bad influence on Islamic culture i do think it is one of the starting points for the clash of cultures we have still going today between Islam and Christianity....
That I can agree with. They're certainly cited repeatedly by advocates of radical Islam and jihad. The concept that always feels a little jarring to me is that of the crusader-zionist alliance. Considering the treatment of Jews during especially the first crusade the idea seems pretty ridiculous, though of course the Islamic world has a very different viewpoint, where such trivialities as age-old massacres of Jews are less important.

Ajax

[CountArach]

No physical evidence. And I expect you'd be likely not to accept metaphysical evidence as meaningful, which of course is fine.
By all means feel free to post it, you are right that I won't believe it, but different perspectives are refreshing.

[Sigurd]

I agree with the Don about man having a negative impact on Christianity. If I were a believer in the Christian God, I would recognise that Christianity is inseparable from the church, meaning that Christianity was organised from the onset. If I was a believer in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and that Jesus Christ was his only begotten in the flesh, I would believe the Bible being a true record of how God told his people to live and worship.
I would recognise that Jesus brought a new model for worship that included an organised church. I would recognise that God used spokes persons or prophet to reveal His will. And there you have it; a hierarchy or organisation with God on top directing his people calling an elected few to do his will and conduct His kingdom on earth. An organisation that reaches into the heavens with angels and other heavenly beings doing the Lord’s will.
At the onset a perfect organisation that could give us intelligence from the most intelligent being in cosmos, the one that created it.
There would be no need for Science, because God could tell us how things are. If we wondered about black holes and travelling through space in a blink of an eye, He could tell us, because he governs those laws.

I would recognise man killing the spokesmen of God. That man corrupted this organisation bringing in the ideas of men; power-hungry and evil men taking advantage of the faith of the pious to gain pleasures of the flesh and the mind. Other men, maybe not evil, using the church to gain a nation. I would recognise that not all men think that following the simple steps outlined by His prophets are enough, that the grace of God might not be sufficient to gain that which is promised in the hereafter. That faith without actions are dead. To show God their worthiness, they must do something more, walk the extra mile. They must atone like their saviour did for any sin they might have committed and thereby putting aside the very core of their religion. They become the extra believer, the faith wavering extr(a)emist. I would recognise that man closed the heavens by murdering the doors and are left stumbling in the dark with a closed canon containing nothing but a story of how it used to be. I would recognise that man tries to figure out the nature of God and his creation using nothing but logic and argument.

But I am not a believer and what should I think of all this?
I know three faiths that puts Abraham as a forefather, have a common culprit called Gabriel. Who is this person that engulfed the world in so much grief and strife? Why promise to the Jews that the Messiah would crush the King that would destroy the holy people and then give glad tidings to the priest of Abia of a son to be borne and then strike him dumb, then give a young maiden the news that she will be the mother of a God, and later spend 23 years with a merchant whispering revelations that the merchant’s companions wrote down.

[TevashSzat]

I agree with the Don about man having a negative impact on Christianity. If I were a believer in the Christian God, I would recognise that Christianity is inseparable from the church, meaning that Christianity was organised from the onset. If I was a believer in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and that Jesus Christ was his only begotten in the flesh, I would believe the Bible being a true record of how God told his people to live and worship.


My memory of world history might be a bit rusty, but didn't Jesus not formally organize Christianity? Isn't it his disciples who did it after his death so in a sense, Christianity would be a religion created by man. Its principles may be based off of (supposedly) divine principles, but Jesus was considered a Jew until his death.

Thus, in a sense, Man can't have a negative impact on Christianity if it was first created by man

[Don Corleone]

My memory of world history might be a bit rusty, but didn't Jesus not formally organize Christianity? Isn't it his disciples who did it after his death so in a sense, Christianity would be a religion created by man. Its principles may be based off of (supposedly) divine principles, but Jesus was considered a Jew until his death.

Thus, in a sense, Man can't have a negative impact on Christianity if it was first created by man

I think the jury is out. Jesus did ordain a church. He speaks of it several times as his bride. When he changed Simon's name, it was to Peter (Aramaic for 'rock') to be the rock upon which he would build the church.

That being said, even reading the Acts of the Apostles, it's clear that an organized practice, even among the disciples themselves, didn't happen until the Holy Spirit descended upon them when they congregated in the upper room, after Jesus had ascended. So whether "the Church" Jesus spoke of has ever existed upon this earth remains debatable. I would say no, but much as a parabola approaches an asymptote, we can approach the goal.

Now, when you add in the Trinity, that the Holy Spirit doesn't act alone, but is one in nature with Jesus Christ, :dizzy2:

The point I was trying to make is that regardless of whether Jesus instituted the Church directly or indirectly, the moment he left it alone, it was corrupt, because it was comprised of men, thoroughly corrupt beings who cannot maintain the perfection Jesus instituted. But that's okay. It's all part of God's plan, and if nothing else, the Bible is meant as an extended volume of anecdotal evidence of how God can and does use man, even in his weakened and imperfect state, to bring about His Will.

Think about it. The most reviled human being who ever lived, the betrayer of the savior, the evil one, Judas Iscariot, did God's will in doing what he did. Almost like God knows a few things we don't. :juggle2:

[Lemur]

Almost like God knows a few things we don't.
That, good sir, will get you a loud and hearty "AMEN!"

[ajaxfetish]

By all means feel free to post it, you are right that I won't believe it, but different perspectives are refreshing.

It generally comes down to the actions of the Holy Spirit, which means it's a matter of feeling, rather than sense perception in the traditional sense. As such, it's difficult if not impossible to test from with scientific methodology, and probably impossible to respect from a solely scientific perspective. It's not necessarily easy to manage and process even for a believer, with the difficulty of sorting spiritual communication from personal emotion and whatnot (and for a non-believer, it's easy to conclude there's no need for such distinction and that it's all just personal emotion, but some misinterpreted). There's a reason it's faith instead of knowledge, and a parallel reason that religious fanaticism (like pretty much all fanaticism) is very dangerous.

But in spite of the haziness, the indefinite nature of such a source, these feelings exist, and cause me and others to trust in the existence and concern of a benevolent deity.

As to what to do about them on a social level, that brings in whole different questions. I think religious fervor should be kept to the metaphysical realm in its application as it is with its source. Using religion to argue against evolution, genetic research, or a round earth is the height of silliness. Using it to argue for humane treatment of others and the pursuit of a happy life is much more compatible with its nature.

Ajax