Has organised Christianity been detrimental?

[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.

[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. 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), 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.

[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... 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.

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... 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."

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

[atheotes]

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

Do you want your car to be stoned?

[Lemur]

Actually I think macsen rufus was playing off this thread ...

[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