Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Steve H on February 21, 2020, 01:28:25 PM
-
As an antidote to another poster's habit of starting threads about all the things she thinks are wrong about Christianity, let's look on the postive side.
Christians:
invented the nursing profession. The first nurses were monks and nuns, and the modern, secular nursing profession was founded by committed Christians.
invented modern, representative democracy. It arose entirely within Christendom, and is still largely confined to traditionally Christian countries.
were the first religion to abolish slavery. Most of the 18th- and 19th-Century campaigners against slavery were active Christians, and were inspired in their campaign by their faith.
Give to, and volunteer with, charities and good causes more generously than the gerneral public.
Any other examples? (If anyone disagrees, and I'm sure some will, could I ask that they say why, rather than just sayimg that they think Christianity has done more harm than good "imo"?)
-
All I would say is that human beings started these things. It so happens that the ones to whom you refer had a particular faith belief, but people have been caring for others since the human species evolved, haven't they, and our survival has depended on plants for instance to ease or cure disease.
-
As an antidote to another poster's habit of starting threads about all the things she thinks are wrong about Christianity, let's look on the postive side.
Christians:
See, this explicitly says Christians, not Christianity. Some of these people may have been motivated by their interpretation of Christianity, some of them by their inherent decency which didn't abide or conflict with their Christianity, and some even in spite of what the church (or, at least, their church) at the time was saying, but it's difficult to extricate the Christianity from people and give the credit to that particular element of their character without their explicit expression to that effect.
invented the nursing profession. The first nurses were monks and nuns, and the modern, secular nursing profession was founded by committed Christians.
Nursing existed in ancient Greece, ancient China, pre-Christian Northern Europe and the Americas in various guises - Christianity took it on, in some instances suppressed the older traditions, arguably acquired it as another element of social power it wanted to control, and then modern secular society 'reclaimed it'. There have been any number of highly worthy Christians who followed nursing traditions, who developed nursing traditions, but Christianity definitively did not 'invent' nursing.
invented modern, representative democracy. It arose entirely within Christendom, and is still largely confined to traditionally Christian countries.
Christians invented modern, representative democracy as a reaction to the autocratic right of kings that the institutional Christianity of the times was in favour of... again, might have been Christians, but institutional Christianity was on the other side, and individual Christians went either way.
were the first religion to abolish slavery. Most of the 18th- and 19th-Century campaigners against slavery were active Christians, and were inspired in their campaign by their faith.
The slave trade had existed for millenia, pre-Christian and for centuries withe explicit Christian and church backing. Some Christians, at the same time as well-meaning people throughout Christendom were exploring enlightenment values, were indeed at the forefront of abolishing slavery, but they weren't alone, and only some of them claimed to be motivated by their faith, whilst a significant number of those fighting to keep slavery were doing so for explicitly Christian motivations.
Give to, and volunteer with, charities and good causes more generously than the gerneral public.
I've seen figures both ways on this, but I suspect it does fall in favour of the religious slightly on total numbers. I'm not sure what it would be 'per capita' as it were.
O.
-
Christians:
invented the nursing profession. The first nurses were monks and nuns, and the modern, secular nursing profession was founded by committed Christians.
No they didn't.
Nursing is mentioned hundreds of years before Jesus was even born - e.g. 'About 100 B.C.E. the Charaka Samhita was written in India, stating that good medical practice requires a patient, physician, nurse, and medicines, with the nurse required to be knowledgeable, skilled at preparing formulations and dosage, sympathetic towards everyone, and clean.' - taken from Wikepedia
invented modern, representative democracy. It arose entirely within Christendom, and is still largely confined to traditionally Christian countries.
Wrong again - democracy existed well before Christians - for example in ancient Greece and also parts of India some 700BC
were the first religion to abolish slavery. Most of the 18th- and 19th-Century campaigners against slavery were active Christians, and were inspired in their campaign by their faith.
But most of the pro-slavery campaigners were also active Christians - not surprisingly since most people in those countries were themselves Christian - the pro vs anti slavery debate (whether in USA or UK as examples) was very much Christian on Christian.
Give to, and volunteer with, charities and good causes more generously than the gerneral public.
Wrong again - given that churches in the UK are charities a simple assessment of amount given to charity is non-sensical as one of the groups self defines as being active in a charity that requires their donations to support an activity those people want to partake in (religious worship). It would be the same if you compared amateur sports club members (that are charities) with the general public or amateur dramatics group members (that are charities) with the general public.
However once you strip out donations to the church (to provide the religious worship services that directly benefit the giver) then charitable donations are no different between christians and non christians.
Also there was research on volunteering done a couple of years ago - which looked at both formal volunteering (e.g. an organised role in an organised group) and informal volunteering (e.g. helping an elderly neighbour). There was no difference in the rate of volunteering between christians and non christians, even for formal volunteering which is odd as active christians are self defined by being members of a formal group that requires formal volunteering help.
-
It would be interesting to have an example of good deed Christianity has encouraged the poster of the OP to perform, which he wouldn't have done if he was an unbeliever?
-
invented modern, representative democracy. It arose entirely within Christendom, and is still largely confined to traditionally Christian countries.
I think it is better to suggest that representative democracy has arisen in many nominally christian countries in spite of christianity as organised churches have often acted as a roadblock to democracy.
And, of course, you have to practice what you preach. If christian denominations are so pro-democracy how come they aren't representate democratic organisations themselves. Certainly the two largest denominations in the UK (CofE and RCC) aren't democratic at all - rank and file members have no say in the selection of pope or bishops etc.
-
How about organisations like, 'Medecins Sans Frontieres', the humanitarian organisation that all it wants to do is help people regardless of who or what religion wherever they are and they do this just because they want to help make the world a little bit of a better place to live in for all of us.
'M S F' do this work without looking for imaginary brownie points from unsupported delusional beliefs which in my estimation is a far more selfless and good hearted way of life than any religious believer doing their very best would be able to achieve.
ippy.
-
How about organisations like, 'Medecins Sans Frontieres', the humanitarian organisation that all it wants to do is help people regardless of who or what religion wherever they are and they do this just because they want to help make the world a little bit of a better place to live in for all of us.
'M S F' do this work without looking for imaginary brownie points from unsupported delusional beliefs which in my estimation is a far more selfless and good hearted way of life than any religious believer doing their very best would be able to achieve.
ippy.
Indeed - so for every christian charity there is a secular equivalent Shelter vs Salvation Army; Oxfam vs Christian Aid etc etc. And there is always the nagging doubt that the christian charities there is a part of their work that is proselytising - effectively trying to convert people rather than just to help them with no underlying agenda. There is no concern of that nature for the secular charities.
-
Any other examples? (If anyone disagrees, and I'm sure some will, could I ask that they say why, rather than just sayimg that they think Christianity has done more harm than good "imo"?)
The harm/good balance for any ideology and society that is based around that ideology is always a challenge. All ideologies have good and bad points and often are themselves influenced by other traditions and cultures.
However if we look a judeo-christian culture, tradition and society perhaps the most corrosive element is the notion of collective, inherited guilt, which is fundamental to judaism and christianity (right from the off) and (in my opinion) is just about the most damaging ideology that has ever been developed for the simply reason that it never can be reconciled.
-
I note PVJ hasn't replied to this thread. :D
In my opinion, it is not the faith itself, which is responsible for anything good but members of the faith who would probably have done the same even if they were non-believers.
-
All I would say is that human beings started these things. It so happens that the ones to whom you refer had a particular faith belief, but people have been caring for others since the human species evolved, haven't they, and our survival has depended on plants for instance to ease or cure disease.
How early was the cannibal part of mans history? We hear what you say but is cannibalism a part of man natural nature or is it just in neglected areas of the world where time has not caught up?
We can choose to be blind to the other things we rely on for medicine and healing. But the only cures without plants and medicines have come from the power of faith in God.
WHY? is it because we choose what we believe in? Turn a blind eye to what cannot be explained like God healing his children and those who are prayed for?
Whatever excuse we turn to for healing we cannot deny that faith in God and his word have brought healing of those things which cannot be healed by a persons will power and wishes alone.
In all things then healing of any kind has come from God.
-
I note PVJ hasn't replied to this thread. :D
In my opinion, it is not the faith itself, which is responsible for anything good but members of the faith who would probably have done the same even if they were non-believers.
Ask God or don't ask God. No it is not a reasonable or logical reply. erm!
-
Indeed - so for every christian charity there is a secular equivalent Shelter vs Salvation Army; Oxfam vs Christian Aid etc etc. And there is always the nagging doubt that the christian charities there is a part of their work that is proselytising - effectively trying to convert people rather than just to help them with no underlying agenda. There is no concern of that nature for the secular charities.
Many of those 'secular' charities were founded by Christians.
As for a hidden agenda?
Most Christian agencies will never discriminate on grounds of race or creed, nor will the more reputable seek to force their faith on anyone.
Niether will, or should, we hide our faith from anyone either.
If someone asks why we do what we do, I'd like to think we'd answer honestly.
Ther only group with which I was involved was the Iona Community Rehab project.In the early eighties we ran several rehab houses in Scotland to try and break addiction (under strict NHS medical supervision)
Our houses were in council estates, has nothing to show what they were, and inside had no religious iconography.
We accepted whomever the NHS and Social Work sent us in a non discriminatory, non-judgemental basis - but did not hide who we are and in whom we trusted when asked.
Yes, there are dubious charities out there - such as Shepherd's Purse - which have more than one motive for their work.
Most others, however, don't.
-
How early was the cannibal part of mans history? We hear what you say but is cannibalism a part of man natural nature or is it just in neglected areas of the world where time has not caught up?
We can choose to be blind to the other things we rely on for medicine and healing. But the only cures without plants and medicines have come from the power of faith in God.
WHY? is it because we choose what we believe in? Turn a blind eye to what cannot be explained like God healing his children and those who are prayed for?
Whatever excuse we turn to for healing we cannot deny that faith in God and his word have brought healing of those things which cannot be healed by a persons will power and wishes alone.
In all things then healing of any kind has come from God.
In your opinion, for which you haven't the slightest shred of evidence.
-
In your opinion, for which you haven't the slightest shred of evidence.
Wrong== I have the evidence because I chose to look for it.
Why don't you?
Stop making sweeping statements which facts have proved you wrong many times over. Oh and don't ask me to show you.
Stop being lazy and happy with your own unlearned way of thinking and go search for the truth yourself.
It is no us sticking your fingers in your ears and singing tra la la la lah.
-
Anchs,
Many of those 'secular' charities were founded by Christians.
Careful - most of anything founded in the UK was founded by Christians because most people were Christians. There's no reason though to think that had they been primarily of other faiths or of no faiths at all they'd have done something else instead. More relevant is that most of these organisations came about post Enlightenment, after centuries of "God's in his heaven so all's right with the world" Christian indifference to the suffering of the great majority who were outside the religious power structures of the time.
Indeed you might well ask why, in the centuries preceding the 17th to 19th centuries when the Christian church had a much firmer grip of civil society, they didn't think to start these institutions when they could.
-
Wrong== I have the evidence because I chose to look for it.
Why don't you?
Stop making sweeping statements which facts have proved you wrong many times over. Oh and don't ask me to show you.
Stop being lazy and happy with your own unlearned way of thinking and go search for the truth yourself.
It is no us sticking your fingers in your ears and singing tra la la la lah.
Don't tell porkies you have no evidence.
-
Don't tell porkies you have no evidence.
Your ignorance is showing.
-
Your ignorance is showing.
Yours you mean. :D
-
Yours you mean. :D
You wish. :)
-
In your opinion, for which you haven't the slightest shred of evidence.
As I've said many, many times beofre but you just don't seem to get it, you never produce a shred of evidence or logical arguments for your many tiresome "imo" posts. Talk about irony!
-
As I've said many, many times beofre but you just don't seem to get it, you never produce a shred of evidence or logical arguments for your many tiresome "imo" posts. Talk about irony!
Talk about irony indeed, you haven't produced any proper evidence support most of your posts, nor have you answered the questions put to you on this thread. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
-
Talk about irony indeed, you haven't produced any proper evidence support most of your posts, nor have you answered the questions put to you on this thread. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
My first three assertions in the OP were backed up by facts. As for the fourth: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-people-more-likely-give-charity-study/
-
My first three assertions in the OP were backed up by facts. As for the fourth: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-people-more-likely-give-charity-study/
People seem to disagree with your 'facts'. You still haven't answered my question about what good deed/s your faith has encouraged to do that you wouldn't have done if you weren't a theist?
-
People seem to disagree with your 'facts'. You still haven't answered my question about what good deed/s your faith has encouraged to do that you wouldn't have done if you weren't a theist?
How should I know? How would you have lived your life differently if you had been a believer? It's an impossible question to answer, because you only know about the life you've lived, not another life that you might have lived, but didn't.
-
Many of those 'secular' charities were founded by Christians.
Why do you put "secular" in scare quotes? "Secular" doesn't mean that the people in it are all atheists, it just means they don't let religion get in the way.
Most Christian agencies will never discriminate on grounds of race or creed
And many do, and it's not just race or creed, it's sexuality too.
-
Most Christian agencies will never discriminate on grounds of race or creed
And many do, and it's not just race or creed, it's sexuality too.
I think you'll find that they're not allowed to.
-
How should I know? How would you have lived your life differently if you had been a believer? It's an impossible question to answer, because you only know about the life you've lived, not another life that you might have lived, but didn't.
Therefore it isn't possible to say that a person's faith has encouraged them to do good, they might have done so anyway.
-
Therefore it isn't possible to say that a person's faith has encouraged them to do good, they might have done so anyway.
But it is undoubtedly the case, as has been shown more than once, that religious believers (not just Christians, admittedly) are more generous with their time and money than average, so at the very least naturally generous people are attracted to religion more than average, which itself says something good about religion.
-
And many do, and it's not just race or creed, it's sexuality too.
I think you'll find that they're not allowed to.
Because it’s against a secular law put n place by a secular government.
-
'The good that Christianity has done', just taking in to consideration how many people there are that have been taken in by christian belief, on odds alone there has to be a lot of them doing good works, nothing special about that or anything special about them being religious believers.
I dare say when looking at the general run of percentages of the overall population that are either good or bad people including those in between, I'd take a bet there's not much of a difference when looking at the overall figures compared to the good and bad people that profess to have a religious belief of one kind or another, they would more than likely mirror each other.
ippy.
-
But it is undoubtedly the case, as has been shown more than once, that religious believers (not just Christians, admittedly) are more generous with their time and money than average
Rubbish.
The is no difference in giving time through volunteering between christians and non religious people. From a recent survey of volunteering in the UK the results demonstrating the following rates of volunteering:
Christian
Formal 39%
Informal 68%
Non religious
Formal 39%
Informal 68%
Yup - exactly the same.
On giving, once donations to the church that active christians directly benefit from are removed there is no difference in giving either. Again from a recent report:
'Across all denominations, those respondents actively practising a religion were significantly more likely to have given than those who said that they had a religion but were not active. This finding is due to the fact that those actively practising were more likely to have given to charity via donations at their place of worship; once we exclude religious giving, those actively practising were no more likely than other respondents to have donated in the last four weeks.'
I could just as well claim that amateur choir members are more generous in their charitable donations than average - and I could point to incontrovertible evidence that I can be certain that every single member of my choir gives more to charity than average. Why - well because average charitable donation per annum is about £150 and our choir subscription (which is classified as a charitable donation) is £190 per annum.
But of course this donation provides a direct benefit to those people making that donation, just as donations to a church do. In most people's minds a real charitable donation is one that benefits others not yourself.
-
How early was the cannibal part of mans history? We hear what you say but is cannibalism a part of man natural nature or is it just in neglected areas of the world where time has not caught up?
On the contrary, humans it appears are fairly distinct in the animal kingdom for uncommon cannibalism is. https://www.sciencealert.com/why-is-cannibalism-the-so-taboo-when-it-s-so-common-in-animals (https://www.sciencealert.com/why-is-cannibalism-the-so-taboo-when-it-s-so-common-in-animals)
We can choose to be blind to the other things we rely on for medicine and healing. But the only cures without plants and medicines have come from the power of faith in God.
On the contrary, there are any number of synthetic drugs, purely mechanical treatments and mechanisms, artificial limbs and the like. What there isn't is any reliable evidence that 'faith' has any curative power at all.
WHY? is it because we choose what we believe in?
If only we could blame believers for their poor choices rather than having to accept that they've fallen prey to a con that's been running for centuries.
Turn a blind eye to what cannot be explained like God healing his children and those who are prayed for?
Except the we haven't turned a blind eye, we've exhaustively investigated, and where there isn't blatant deception or deceit there's actually most often no actual improvement at all. We're all still waiting on someone's prayer for their child's replacement leg to come true, of course...
Whatever excuse we turn to for healing we cannot deny that faith in God and his word have brought healing of those things which cannot be healed by a persons will power and wishes alone.
Which we is this that can't deny that? I'll go out on exactly no limb here and say I don't accept anybody's claim that a god has healed them.
In all things then healing of any kind has come from God.
Except in any meaningful way of actually contributing or existing... apart from that, yay, good job Yahweh...
O.
-
And many do, and it's not just race or creed, it's sexuality too.
I think you'll find that they're not allowed to.
In the UK, or in the world in general? In the UK they can, under very limited circumstances, where either there's an explicit exemptions (churches being permitted to turn away gay marriages, for instance) or if there is considered to be a biological effect, cultural sensitivity or an attempt to redress extant discrimination (i.e. all-women shortlists for positions, different toilet facility provisions etc.).
In the broader world, it depends on the particular nation - in the US, for instance, there still isn't any formal commitment from the state towards protections against discrimination for gay people, and the Equal Rights Amendment formalising that men and women deserve equal treatment still hasn't been fully ratified.
Go to, say, sub-Saharan Africa and see the implementation of violent Christian-led oppression of women's and gay rights movements and then come and tell us about Christianity's civilising effects.
O.
-
Rubbish.
The is no difference in giving time through volunteering between christians and non religious people. From a recent survey of volunteering in the UK the results demonstrating the following rates of volunteering:
Christian
Formal 39%
Informal 68%
Non religious
Formal 39%
Informal 68%
Yup - exactly the same.
On giving, once donations to the church that active christians directly benefit from are removed there is no difference in giving either. Again from a recent report:
'Across all denominations, those respondents actively practising a religion were significantly more likely to have given than those who said that they had a religion but were not active. This finding is due to the fact that those actively practising were more likely to have given to charity via donations at their place of worship; once we exclude religious giving, those actively practising were no more likely than other respondents to have donated in the last four weeks.'
I could just as well claim that amateur choir members are more generous in their charitable donations than average - and I could point to incontrovertible evidence that I can be certain that every single member of my choir gives more to charity than average. Why - well because average charitable donation per annum is about £150 and our choir subscription (which is classified as a charitable donation) is £190 per annum.
But of course this donation provides a direct benefit to those people making that donation, just as donations to a church do. In most people's minds a real charitable donation is one that benefits others not yourself.
My wife has no time for belief in religions and at the same time loves gospel singing, even so the local choir my wife sings with is being run by a few religious believers that have spread their brand name of the choirs quiet widely over the country and they're registered as a charity.
There are few towns around where we live and my wife likes to sing with some of the other towns choirs from time to time dependent on where they're going to perform, in the process she mixes with lots of the other members where they all share this love of the gospel sound and the most often feeling that's conveyed from all of these choirs is, love the singing but not interested in the content, i e most members seem to not be the least interested in the religious content.
So even though the choir is a registered as a christian charity the majority of the members don't give a fig or a stuff about christianity nor any other religious belief but the money they raise goes to religious charities which in turn makes me wonder if this is much the same as many other charities headed supposedly as christian charities where they're not anywhere near as christian based as they are painted yet we no doubt get to look at the money as money the religious give to charity.
This in turn reminds me of how the church gives figures out based on how many baptism certificates it dispenses to babies when they're still only babies in arms and then uses these figures in various efforts where they think the figures may gain them an advantage.
The religious authorities soon got upset by what at first glance looks odd, the 'debaptism certificates' idea of Barbara Smoker's, it was cutting down on their baptism figures and all that they thought they could gain with them.
ippy.