Has Christianity made people more civilized?

[tango]

Ahem, some historiansw have compared, on the basis of contemporary accounts, field yields in Huronia and France in the early 17th century. Guess who has the best one?

So no, there were no pigs, no cows, no chickens. But more than a few First nations in the Americas knew agriculture.

As for the "it was just the epidemics" idea, it conviniently forgets was launched by settlers

Not by settlers ... but over the 100 years before the settlers ... by explorers, military/private militia, missionaries and traders.

100 years of 'conquest' of the Americas occurred before the settlers came.

Otherwise, right on.

And cybercoma ... (another thread in the op maybe?) somebody said DeSoto's pigs brought the disease, and it was all 'an accident'.

Specifically, it was said "disease not racism"

Edited April 22, 2009 by tango

[kuzadd]

christianity has made our world more nasty then ever.

civilized this world? how deluded pompous people can be?

so full of self-righteousness arrogance.

[Michael Hardner]

Some points:

* Civilization pre-dates Christianity. The biggest leap in civilization occurred in Sumaria.

* Christianity may have made people nicer to each other, but it sort of rode on the back of European technological and military superiority. It arrived through the back door after various peoples were conquered.

* I believe it was the book 'Guns Germs and Steel' that pointed out how merchant banking evolved from the notion of private property, and the Catholic church's permission to allow investment. In China, all was considered owned by the emperor, and he disagreed with exploration and the development of ships. As such, it was the Europeans that went forward and conquered the world.

* The smallpox-blankets story is over-stated. From what I've read there may have been one incident of infection from Lord Amherst but it wasn't widespread: link

Lots of good stuff in this thread - thanks everyone !

[ToadBrother]

Some points:

* Christianity may have made people nicer to each other, but it sort of rode on the back of European technological and military superiority. It arrived through the back door after various peoples were conquered.

I'm not sure Christianity did. My opinion is that the "niceness" was a reaction to the horrors following the Reformation (and in particular, the Thirty Years War). I don't think it's any coincidence that the Enlightment followed soon after, and in particular, John Locke, who was the major inspiration from the American and French Revolutionaries in their notion of the supremacy of liberty.

Christianity prior to the Enlightenment was distinctly *less* tolerant than the Classical religion (Greco-Romanism). Polytheistic religions seem, by their nature, much more willing to tolerate, if not outright absorb other religions. The Greek religion inherited some of their gods from Semitic sources, and its sister faiths; Hinduism and the Hittite religion, were equally capable of absorbing elements from earlier religions.

Heck, the Romans didn't really care what you believed, providing you gave proper homage to the Emperors, and in the case of the Jews, was even willing to make exceptions as far as the Imperial cult was concerned. Their were numerous religions in the Roman Empire; though many became heavily Latinized, as happened in Gaul and Britain, at least so far as the upper classes were concerned.

Then comes Constantine's conversion of the Empire into a Christian state. Within a few generations, the other religions, for the most part, began to be systematically wiped out. By the time of the Western Empire's collapse, the Jews probably represented the only substantial non-Christian minority within the former and extant boundaries of Rome, and they were already suffering not insubstantial persecution. Admittedly, it took until about the 15th or 16th centuries for the final bastions of European paganism; the Baltic countries, to be converted, but still, wherever Christianity could, it wiped out other faiths.

Even after Europe had become fully Christianized, the lack of tolerance for other sects was notorious. Whether it was the deep intolerance between Byzantium and the Catholic Church, or the forceful destruction of heretics, and the ultimate expressions of hatred between Christians; the Fourth Crusade and the Thirty Years War, Christianity was simply not a tolerant faith. It was only after the Thirty Years War that the two great factions of Christianity seemed to have exhausted any will they had to stamp each other out, and it's after that that we get the notions of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, as formal and, ultimately, *political* expressions.

* The smallpox-blankets story is over-stated. From what I've read there may have been one incident of infection from Lord Amherst but it wasn't widespread

From my readings, in particular from the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire (read about that for some absolutely horrific acts of savagery by Christians), smallpox had beat the Europeans there, and was possibly an important reason that the conquest was so easy.

Edited April 22, 2009 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

The Resurrection answers the problem of the Fall. Humanity sinned in the garden and inherits that sin through the carnal act of conception. We are all deserving of God's punishment, which was death. How then is God benevolent? He offers His son to humanity. Our sins are put onto the sacrificial lamb that is tortured and put to death in our place. In order to be saved by God's benevolence, we need only to believe that Jesus was sacrificed for us. We deserve our punishment from God for sinning against Him, but God loves us so He allows Jesus to accept our punishment. The Resurrection is not only a metaphor for forgiveness, it is the forgiveness.

It is also one of the more ridiculous aspects of Christian theology. The Fall was unnecessary, the blood sacrifice unnecessary. We're talking about an omnipotent being that could do anything. He could just as easily ragged everyone concerned out and that would have been that.

[ToadBrother]

Oh Jesus.. First of all, they had no idea what smallpox was and like jbg said, 95% of the natives died without even knowing 'whitey' was on the shores. They died because they had no agrictulture. As a result they had no built in immunity to diseases of cow, pigs, birds etc.

Um, many native peoples had agriculture. The Inca, the Aztecs, many groups along the Mississippi, the Iriquois, as well as many in the American Southwest. You're right that didn't raise cows, pigs or chickens, but those were Old World animals, so exposure to the small pox virus would have been impossible.

Where do some of you guys get your history from?

Edited April 22, 2009 by ToadBrother

[cybercoma]

It is also one of the more ridiculous aspects of Christian theology. The Fall was unnecessary, the blood sacrifice unnecessary. We're talking about an omnipotent being that could do anything. He could just as easily ragged everyone concerned out and that would have been that.

Wrong. That would have made him unjust. He told Adam that the punishment for eating from the Tree of Knowledge would be death. Had he turned around and said, "bad Adam! THAT'S A BAD ADAM!" It would have not only made God wrong, it would make him unjust for not following through.

[cybercoma]

Don't get me wrong. I think the entire thing is absurd, given that we know the earth isn't a few thousand years old and man wasn't put on the earth at the same time as dinosaurs. If the original Fall of man is false, then everything that follows from that, including the Resurrection, is ridiculous as well, since it's an answer to a hypothetical. If the Fall and the entire story of Adam and Eve is not real, the Resurrection is unnecessary. The entire theory of Resurrection is a reconciliation to an event that had never occurred. Kinda makes the whole thing moot.

[ToadBrother]

Wrong. That would have made him unjust. He told Adam that the punishment for eating from the Tree of Knowledge would be death. Had he turned around and said, "bad Adam! THAT'S A BAD ADAM!" It would have not only made God wrong, it would make him unjust for not following through.

Hey look, the nature of evil is your problem, not mine. Your God is a vile, repugnant monster who visits infinite punishments on finite crimes.

God could do anything He wanted. He didn't have to set up those terms, or any terms.

[cybercoma]

Hey look, the nature of evil is your problem, not mine. Your God is a vile, repugnant monster who visits infinite punishments on finite crimes.

God could do anything He wanted. He didn't have to set up those terms, or any terms.

God couldn't do anything he wanted because that would make him a lying God, or perhaps it brings into question His capability of punishing for the crime. Either way, if He sets a punishment for a crime, punishment is following through. The point is that He made a single rule, "do not doubt me"; they doubted Him, so they forced His hand. Saying later, "I know I told you what the punishment was for that, but I'm gonna go easy on you this time" is not just. Don't blame me, I didn't make the philosophy.

[CANADIEN]

Not by settlers ... but over the 100 years before the settlers ... by explorers, military/private militia, missionaries and traders.

100 years of 'conquest' of the Americas occurred before the settlers came.

Otherwise, right on.

And cybercoma ... (another thread in the op maybe?) somebody said DeSoto's pigs brought the disease, and it was all 'an accident'.

Specifically, it was said "disease not racism"

Remember always... you're talking to the typo king. I meant wars started by settlers, not was started by settlers.

And yess, some of the settlers started wars in order to grab land

[sharkman]

Some have mentioned how in the name of God some awful wars and campaigns have started. But that ignores those such as Stalin who didn't need a god to do the awful things he did. It's what's in a leader's heart that is the determining factor for many of the things they do. If they are truly Christian, and not just using it to manipulate their citizens(as the Iranian leader does with Islam), the net result is a blessing to the nations.

[betsy]

Remember Pol Pot?

Just to get a clearer perspective, numerous atrocities were commited not too long ago by people who don't believe in Christ (and religion), and some are still happening as we speak.

Communist Body Count

Scott Manning

December 4, 2006

The following estimates represent citizens killed or starved to death by their own Communist governments since 1918. These numbers do not include war dead. The governments are sorted by body count (highest to lowest).

All numbers are mid-estimates.

While this list is as complete as I have been able to determine, it is evolving. Some numbers are incomplete and there are still five Communist countries that have the potential to kill more of their citizens. Over the next year, each government will be profiled in detail on this website.

http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/c...stbodycount.php

Edited April 25, 2009 by betsy

[eyeball]

Just to get a clearer perspective, numerous atrocities were commited not too long ago by people who don't believe in Christ (and religion), and some are still happening as we speak.

So just to be perfectly clear, you're saying the fact Pol Pot and others didn't believe in Christ is all that caused them to kill millions of people?

That's all there was too it? That one little fact?

Edited April 25, 2009 by eyeball

[betsy]

So just to be perfectly clear, you're saying the fact Pol Pot and others didn't believe in Christ is all that caused them to kill millions of people?

You call that perfectly clear? Your response is no more clear than your understanding.

I include Pol Pot along with Stalin and Hitler and others in response to the accusation, sometimes absolute and sometimes qualified, that religion is responsible for violence and war (Dawkins et al.) It seems to me that "warriors" (usually nations today) are responsible for wars regardless of whether they are religious. NOT BELIEVING in something as the cause of an action is a little difficult to argue. BELIEVING in something as a cause of an action can often be proven or disproven, or shown to be possible or probable or otherwise debated. Negatives are a different kettle of fish. No? In other words, it's reasonable - or at least logical - to argue that believing in Christ caused a certain action, but not NOT believing in Him.

That's all there was too it? That one little fact?

So, no.

Edited April 25, 2009 by betsy

[eyeball]

NOT BELIEVING in something as the cause of an action is a little difficult to argue. BELIEVING in something as a cause of an action can often be proven or disproven, or shown to be possible or probable or otherwise debated. Negatives are a different kettle of fish. No? In other words, it's reasonable - or at least logical - to argue that believing in Christ caused a certain action, but not NOT believing in Him.

Not really, the one thing that Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, their regimes and those of most religions have in common, is their capacity to suspend disbelief. Their lack of skepticism, objectivity, critical thinking or self-doubt is a deeply rooted propensity they all share. The fallacy of misplaced concreteness is no more or less potentially damaging in the hands of atheists than it is theists. A belief is just a thing, its whats done with them that counts.

So, no.

So, maybe. Not disbelieving is the real problem.

[betsy]

Not really, the one thing that Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, their regimes and those of most religions have in common, is their capacity to suspend disbelief. Their lack of skepticism, objectivity, critical thinking or self-doubt is a deeply rooted propensity they all share. The fallacy of misplaced concreteness is no more or less potentially damaging in the hands of atheists than it is theists. A belief is just a thing, its whats done with them that counts.

So, maybe. Not disbelieving is the real problem.

It's a logic thing. I'm not talking about your opinion as to what characterizes any regime...peaceable or bellicose. I'm talking about the inability to logically support the argument that not having a characteristic

can be argued to be the cause of an action, such as not being a Christian...or not being an Atheist...as the cause of a behaviour. It can be speculated upon but it can't be productively debated, let alone proven. Further there's no indication that any of those individuals that you've listed suspended disbelief, or belief, or anything else! They pursued a goal.

What's this suspension of disbelief? What makes you say that the one thing they have in common is their capacity to suspend (dis)belief? Who says so? Where did you get that idea?

What do you mean by suspending disbelief? Become a believer? And if you mean suspending belief, what evidence do you have that these men suspended belief in - I assume you mean - God , and then returned to it?

Explain yourself and expose your sources.

[August1991]

It's a logic thing. I'm not talking about your opinion as to what characterizes any regime...peaceable or bellicose. I'm talking about the inability to logically support the argument that not having a characteristic an be argued to be the cause of an action, such as not being a Christian...or not being an Atheist...as the cause of a behaviour.

Betsy, while I often disagree with Eyeball and and I often agree with you, in this case, I think you miss the point.

If one psychopathic serial killer claims that his dog made him do it, and another claims that his cat made him do it, then should a cat-lover point out that cats are no more guilty than dogs?

Pol Pot was not a Christian but does that mean that Christians were not killers or that Christianity has made the world more civilized?

Betsy, your lack of logic is astounding.

[cybercoma]

Betsy, your lack of logic is astounding.

Is this your first day reading her posts?

[WIP]

Not really, the one thing that Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, their regimes and those of most religions have in common, is their capacity to suspend disbelief. Their lack of skepticism, objectivity, critical thinking or self-doubt is a deeply rooted propensity they all share. The fallacy of misplaced concreteness is no more or less potentially damaging in the hands of atheists than it is theists. A belief is just a thing, its whats done with them that counts.

Any time a Christian, or a Muslim too I suppose, is confronted with the evil committed by devout zealots of their faith, expect the "what about the atheist communists" card to be played rather than any acknowledgment of the dangers of dividing people by their beliefs.

The problem is that the arguments over which religion is most dangerous and whether atheism is more dangerous than religion -- are trying to compare doctrines and scriptural texts. To get to the root of the issue, you have to first determine if a group has beliefs or doctrines that are not open to alteration or whether the members are allowed to question basic doctrine. On this basis, the other thing that Pol Pot and Stalin had in common was Marxist ideology that was declared to be ultimate truth. On the other hand, Secular Humanism has had three major revisions since the movement began, and has no doctrines that are declared unalterable. So atheism only describes what is not believed; a little more information is needed to determine whether an atheist movement is dangerous or harmless, since there is a big difference between a Marxist and a humanist.

Another feature that needs to be determined is whether the group promotes parochial altruism - which encourages members to make sharp distinction between those inside the group and those outside. Nationalism certainly promotes in-group/out-group behaviour, and so can political ideologies, racial and ethnic identification.

As far as religions go, Buddhism doesn't turn up as a catalyst of religious wars or genocides. Not that Buddhist nations haven't been involved in either - the difference is that the religion's dogma is concerned solely with personal development, and not with salvation or establishing rules of government.

Among Christian sects, Unitarian/Universalism does not seem to be a likely candidate for harm, not just because modern U/U's have adopted a lot of pacifist ideology -- the main reason is because they are one of the few Christian sects that doesn't divide the world into sheep and goats -- those who are saved, and those who are damned.

Once a religion makes that distinction, even efforts they consider to be helpful can cause conflict -- like all of the problems created by missionaries using deception, intimidation and forced conversions to "save" heathen souls destined for hell. And the division between saved and unsaved made the persecutions and attempts at eradication of Jews in Europe a continual threat, since they were labeled as obstinate "Christ killers" who were headed to hell anyway. How big of a step is it to convince someone to take part in killing people who are going to hell anyway?

The attitude towards the unsaved can range from benign indifference to outright efforts of eradication, but the first step is to make the religion the in-group, and encourage separation from those outside of the group.

[cybercoma]

Bertrand Russell considered Communism and Capitalism religions like any other. Hitler's Fascism could also be considered religion for all the reasons eyeball brought up about the complete lack of critical thinking and objectivity.

And hey, why not say mustaches are the reason? Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, so why not blame it on that? No. They didn't commit their atrocities because of atheism or mustaches, they did it in spite of those things, whereas the Conquistadors and Crusaders most certainly did destroy entire civilizations, and modern day Jihadists are attempting to, because of religion.

Edited April 29, 2009 by cybercoma

[sharkman]

Betsy, while I often disagree with Eyeball and and I often agree with you, in this case, I think you miss the point.

If one psychopathic serial killer claims that his dog made him do it, and another claims that his cat made him do it, then should a cat-lover point out that cats are no more guilty than dogs?

Pol Pot was not a Christian but does that mean that Christians were not killers or that Christianity has made the world more civilized?

Betsy, your lack of logic is astounding.

You are oversimplifying Betsy's thoughts.

Many times Christianity is blamed for wars and the awful things committed against mankind, as as been touched on above. It is logical to start off responding to such a claim to point out that there are many nonbelievers who committed these acts and this shows the 'blame christianity' theory is faulty.

But one can not show Christian leaders to be blameless. What I mentioned in my previous post, I suppose, is hard to quantify or prove. That it is what's in a person's heart that makes the difference. Were good things in Hitler's heart? We can all agree on that one, but one of the main ideas behind Christianity is that your heart is changed for the better, you become a new person. So of those dictators who claimed the banner of faith as they committed genocide or some such thing, I say we know whether they are Christians by their love.

And of course many have used the mantle of Christianity to manipulate their citizens and do all manner of evil in the name of God, when God didn't have anything to do with it.

But to the larger question this thread poses, I think it is more civilized to love than to hate, and since Christianity places love as one of the most desirable traits that God has for us, I would submit that Christianity has made the world more civilized.

But there is more. What about those who use Christianity or religions for their own purposes instead of God's? Here lies, hate, lust for power and all of the darkness of man can bear fruit. Does this make us more civilized? Sadly, no. I find myself coming back to the intent of the heart. An evil person who does not embrace their faith and allow it to change them is no better, and maybe worse than the one who does evil in his own name instead of God's.

But at the end of the day, I think love is more powerful than hate, and has given more to our civilization than hate.

[cybercoma]

I think Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg said it best: "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion."

[WIP]

Many times Christianity is blamed for wars and the awful things committed against mankind, as as been touched on above. It is logical to start off responding to such a claim to point out that there are many nonbelievers who committed these acts and this shows the 'blame christianity' theory is faulty.

I'd like to ignore this drivel, but I have to interject that orthodox christianity puts high emphasis on conformity and obedience to authority, and that's why political leaders love to have the high priest along to offer his blessings to the troops as they march off to war to fight the holy battle for the good of the nation. A clear example of Christians unquestioning obedience to authority, is their blind acceptance of torture as a tool to extract information and confessions (or in the case of the Bush Administration - false confessions) Churchgoers more likely to back torture, survey finds

So, if Christian dogma makes people more moral than us heathens, why did that Pew survey find that churchgoers were more accepting of torture? Simple: obedience to authority, and surprisingly - MORAL RELATIVISM! That's right, instead of teaching timeless values, the teaching is "the ends justify the means," and since these were bad people, it was okay to do things to them that would otherwise be declared as "unchristian."

And of course many have used the mantle of Christianity to manipulate their citizens and do all manner of evil in the name of God, when God didn't have anything to do with it.

This must be the Christian version of the "Islam means peace" argument! It couldn't possibly be the fault of the angry deity that demands worship. And the one who destroys all life on earth when he gets mad at the sins of the human race, or orders them to commit genocide to take the land of Canaan...that couldn't possibly be the cause, even though any Christian leader with the intention of committing genocide could easily look up chapter and verse to find scriptural justification for his intentions.

[betsy]

Betsy, while I often disagree with Eyeball and and I often agree with you, in this case, I think you miss the point.

If one psychopathic serial killer claims that his dog made him do it, and another claims that his cat made him do it, then should a cat-lover point out that cats are no more guilty than dogs?

So many threads, so little time! So you thought I'd fogotten you. Never, August...never.

If you’re planning to initiate a discussion on whether certain elements of society are responsible for certain events, then do it.

State your idea. (e.g. “Religion is the cause of war.”)

Refine it for rational discussion. (e.g. “Religion is the cause of all war”, or “Religion is the cause of some war”, or “All religion is the cause of some war” or “Some religion is the cause of some war”, or…well, you get the idea…I hope.)

Define your terms. (e.g. “By religion I mean any belief system”, “By religion I mean a community that believes in an all-powerful god”, “By religion I mean Christianity”…whatever; “By war I mean… a confrontation between modern nations…between religious groups…between primitive tribes, or maybe just any armed confrontation…”, it’s your call)

Present your arguments as to the definitions of your terms and LISTEN to those of the other guy. Agree on the terms and you’re ready to debate the truth of your proposition.

Voila, a basic discourse. Remember the listening part.

“WHENEVER YOU SET OUT TO PROVE SOMETHING, IF YOU’RE HONEST, YOU RISK DISPROVING IT. THE HONESTY IS THE HARD PART.”

Now, I’m not sure what all these killers represent, August, but let’s try to work through this analogy. Please correct me if I’m misrepresenting you. Killer 1 and Killer 2 must be analogous to Christianity (or maybe religion in general) and atheism respectively. The dog and cat must, as causal (i.e. whispering in lunatics’ ears) agents, represent Christians and atheists respectively.

So,

Christians (dogs) are the cause of killings by Christianity or religion (Killer 1).

Atheists (cats) are the cause of killings by atheism (killer 2).

So if I’ve got it right, Christians – a community of people – are the cause of killings by Christianity (a concept).

And if I’ve got it right again, atheists – a community of people – are the cause of killings by atheism (a concept).

Or is it,

Christianity (dogs) is the cause of killings by Christians (Killer 1).

Atheism (cats) is the cause of killings by atheists (Killer 2).

That’s a little like saying “Delusions are the cause of killings by the delusional.”

The meaning of your original statement is up in the air. It doesn’t make sense either way. That’s the point, which I haven't missed, and that's the problem. Now, at least, the statement is structured so that it can be discussed, the rationality of its content notwithstanding. It’s ironic, but not surprising, that you picked, probably subconsciously, a subject that has been “defined” by science (psychiatry) as an irrational agent.

Anyway, the point is that your statement needs to be constructed in such a way that rational debate is possible. Now don’t misunderstand. I’m all for bar room discussions over a few beers or whatever, but if we’re settling for less than productive discourse, we should (all) at least get the bar room ambience. Actually, you can pick up some pretty profound insights in the pub. And the beauty is you don’t have to feel guilty about not crediting your source because the donor probably wasn’t even aware of his brilliant observation. But I digress!

Maybe your idea would be better stated,

“Delusions are the cause of some/all killings by psychopaths”.

I don’t think its true – I think psychopaths are not delusional from a medical perspective at least, but that’s not the point. At least now you have a well structured and valid (even if not true) proposition for debate.

It would also be enlightening for you to read back on this and other related threads. Many contributors use a similar logic. For example, Christians burned-at-the-stake witches, therefore Christianity perpetrated violence. Christians as inquisitors tortured and executed heretics, therefore Christianity perpetrated violence. That is a lot like saying that day care workers abused and molested children, therefore the day care system perpetrated violence on the children. I know, I know. In our litigious society, I’m sure this approach works well – sometimes for the victims but by no means always – but the logic is lacking nevertheless.

As for the cat-lover. Where did she come from? Is she an atheist that nonetheless believes that cats feel anthropomorphic guilt – a very post-modern liberal view (“Cat’s have feelings too, ya know”). I think, personally, that we should all be grateful if she said nothing at all – her contribution, as you state it, would be irrelevant to say the least.

“Pol Pot was not a Christian but does that mean that Christians were not killers or that Christianity has made the world more civilized?”

No. Shake your head. Pol Pot not being a Christian has nothing to do with whether Christians were killers. What are you on about? It’s hard not to be rude. His beliefs, or lack thereof, are IRRELEVENT in respect of whether Christians killed. His not believing in Christianity HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH whether Christians were killers or whether Christianity has made the world more civilized. He has nothing to do with anything regarding the discussion on this board other than to be a subject of AN OBSERVATION that non-Christian (non-religious) people have perpetrated atrocities as have Christian (religious) people. Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin, to name just a few, are examples of agents who have caused death and mayhem. The inquisitors, witch burners and Jimmy Jones are a few other examples of agents who have caused death and mayhem. Only simplistic reasoning allows you to pick and choose those that suit your contentions.

So, if you’re planning to initiate discussion, then do it. If you plan to only present your opinion as fact without argument or references, please spare us. After re-reading your posts especially, and the posts here in general, it’s apparent that rational discussion is probably impossible. It’s the inability of many to read, concentrate, remember, and respond logically that is irritating. Statements are made as declarations that are seen by their posters as flawless and not open to discussion. This only serves to demonstrate a shallowness and lack of understanding of the issues. It also implies a fear of being wrong. You can be wrong. It’s okay. Sometimes you will be and sometimes you won’t be. Either way, take it like a man…I mean, person.

Le Fin.

Edited May 3, 2009 by betsy