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 and a John Geoghan in exchange for a Bach and a 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.

[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...

[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...il-of-Clermont

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=exo...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.

[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.