Has organised Christianity been detrimental?

[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.

[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.

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)
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...

[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. 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.

[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

[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.

[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,

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.

[Lemur]

Almost like God knows a few things we don't.

That, good sir, will get you a loud and hearty "AMEN!"