What's happening in the Methodist Church?

[Gatorubet 30239]

3 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

Are there people on this thread who truly believe Christianity is the source of evil against humanity in the name of religion?

As opposed to people simply being people? 

The fossil record shows evidence for any number of settlements/cultures wiped out purposefully. Neanderthals almost certainly became extinct in part because of their encounters with homo sapiens. Same thing with homo erectus and home heidelbergensis. The Neanderthal DNA in Europeans almost certainly doesn't exist because of friendly relations and interspecies swapping. It's from raping and the destruction of rival tribes. 

The Maoris weren't Christian. They took a great deal of pride in finding isolated island communities and wiping them from the face of the earth, taking their women and girls with them. Ghengis Khan wasn't a Christian as he wiped out 10% of the human population on the planet. I've always found his perspective interesting when he told the Muslims "if you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you."

The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas weren't Christians. Neither were the Comanches. Alexander the Great wasn't Christian when he wiped the Thebans from the face of the planet. Rome wasn't Christian when they ended the Carthaginian culture for good. Neither Stalin nor Mao were Christians. The Japanese weren't Christian. The Turkish Kemalists weren't Christian when they wiped out the 500,000 Greeks at Smyrna, and kicked out all the Greeks out of Anatolia. The Hutus weren't massacring Tutsis because Jesus told them to.

People are people. They're going to use the tools at hand to create tribal associations, and then eventually someone is going to come along to convince people in those tribal associations it's either them or us. 

The only real defense for it over the long term is complete assimilation so that tribal distinctions become practically nonexistent, like with the Mongols ruling China. Or some way of creating a tradition so rich in allowing peaceful transitions of power that differing tribes get their turn at fucking things up only to peacefully hand it over to another tribe for their chance to screw up. But that's extremely fragile and always vulnerable to a charismatic leader and our natural instinct for various forms of repression and elimination.

But that happens whether Christianity exists or not. 

The good thing about Christianity is that the historical religious leader is not also the political and/or military leader. So we have "rend unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and instead of leading an army, we have the image of Jesus dying on a cross. The other good thing about Christianity is that the reformation movement, including Luther but also other sects, successfully led a shift in mindset where according to this new belief people were capable of their own relationship with Jesus Christ and God, and therefore no longer needed a central authority to tell them what to think, or dictate to them whether they were going to heaven or not. Whether you believe Christianity is a good thing or not, or believe in somewhat wacky versions of the religion where being prosperous is a sign of your faith (you know, from the biblical stories of requiring apostles to give up all their wealth, or the meek shall inherit the earth, or overturning the moneychangers' tables because they took advantage of the requirement to only donate in the local currency), the truth is there's precedence in the faith for a wide variety of belief structures.

Hence, this thread. Where, sure, a lot of people in the church feel like you're going to hell for engaging in sexual acts with your same gender, and deserve condemnation and judgement for doing so. But there are a whole lot of people looking for a revisionist interpretation where people who engage in sodomy and a reach around on Saturday night can now lead a congregation with a sermon about the love of God the next day. 

I don't see that as evidence of the evils of Christianity. People are going to do people things, and Christianity in many ways is simply going to reflect that. 

 

You make excellent points, and I certainly agree with the historical accuracy of everything you say. That said, Mongols, Hutus, Maoris, etc. we’re not exterminating those people in the name of the God of Love under a commandment to follow the Golden Rule.  

An argument that people are shitty hypocrites and would be doing shitty hypocritical people things in the name of whatever religion is espoused has a ton of merit. One could argue that religion is just another one of a long list of differences that people use to justify hating and treating other people differently, be it religion, race, skin color, language, ethnicity, or nationality.

In that case, the real question is whether the deletion of Christianity itself (let alone any religion) as one more reason to hate other different flavor religious people is outweighed by the pacifying and morality aspects of Christianity….or any other religion.

Put another way, are shitty hypocritical people better off in sum with the presence or absence of Christianity- or any religion?

I think more beer volcanoes and strippers would make for a less violent society. But I don’t want this to turn into a theology discussion.

[Gatorubet 30239]

4 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

I try to live by the iridium rule:

Don't ever, for any reason, do anything to anyone for any reason ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been - ever, for any reason whatsoever.

Well, celibacy did not work out well for the Shakers.  Shame.  Nice furniture. 

['stache 21815]

19 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

You make excellent points, and I certainly agree with the historical accuracy of everything you say. That said, Mongols, Hutus, Maoris, etc. we’re not exterminating those people in the name of the God of Love under a commandment to follow the Golden Rule.  

An argument that people are shitty hypocrites and would be doing shitty hypocritical people things in the name of whatever religion is espoused has a ton of merit. One could argue that religion is just another one of a long list of differences that people use to justify hating and treating other people differently, be it religion, race, skin color, language, ethnicity, or nationality.

In that case, the real question is whether the deletion of Christianity itself (let alone any religion) as one more reason to hate other different flavor religious people is outweighed by the pacifying and morality aspects of Christianity….or any other religion.

Put another way, are shitty hypocritical people better off in sum with the presence or absence of Christianity- or any religion?

I think more beer volcanoes and strippers would make for a less violent society. But I don’t want this to turn into a theology discussion.

I my opinion, way more people have gone along with shitty things when told by preachers its okay (slavery, Jim Crow, nearly exterminating the Native Americans, making life hell for gay and trans people) than there are people who avoid bad things because of religion. Are there really hoards of people who would rape, kill, rob, etc., and only hold back for fear of Christian hell? I just don't see that as a real possibility. I also think that truly evil people have found religion useful to assist in their crimes (i.e., pedophiles using the priesthood to get close to little boys and use hell to scare them into not telling anyone). We also focus on Christianity here because it predominates in this country, but most of them are similarly terrible, for example, the Middle East being a literal hellhole for millions of people because of an election dispute 1500 years ago (a bit tongue in cheek but you get my point). I could go on forever about why I am absolutely certain that religion as a whole has been a massive net negative to humanity.

Edited May 24, 2023 by 'stache

[Degenerate Gardner 4085]

27 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I my opinion, way more people have gone along with shitty things when told by preachers its okay (slavery, Jim Crow, nearly exterminating the Native Americans, making life hell for gay and trans people) than there are people who avoid bad things because of religion. Are there really hoards of people who would rape, kill, rob, etc., and only hold back for fear of Christian hell? I just don't see that as a real possibility. I also think that truly evil people have found religion useful to assist in their crimes (i.e., pedophiles using the priesthood to get close to little boys and use hell to scare them into not telling anyone). We also focus on Christianity here because it predominates in this country, but most of them are similarly terrible, for example, the Middle East being a literal hellhole for millions of people because of an election dispute 1500 years ago (a bit tongue in cheek but you get my point). I could go on forever about why I am absolutely certain that religion as a whole has been a massive net negative to humanity.

You’re not wrong that some religious figures have green lit abhorrent acts. And then there’s MLK, Bonhoffer, and hordes of others trying to lead humanity in the right direction.

in my view, religious figures are just one of many authorities to whom people abdicate their personal duty for rational thought and decency. You can substitute Trump, or Tucker Carlson for that matter. The problem is not religion per se- that’s just the means for control that holds sway for many in our history. The problem is humanity’s innate willingness, even desire, to do terrible things and abdicate personal responsibility for their choices while kneeling at the altar, be it Jeebus’ or a secular one.
 

Remove religion tomorrow and you still have that chronic human malignancy. It seems to find a way to express itself because it seeks out those willing to lead humans to terrible things, of which there are many. 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Degenerate Gardner

[Brisketexan 105142]

34 minutes ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

You’re not wrong that some religious figures have green lit abhorrent acts. And then there’s MLK, Bonhoffer, and hordes of others trying to lead humanity in the right direction.

Yeah...and it tells us a lot about humanity that MLK was assassinated and Bonhoeffer was executed.

The religious leaders who actually live long lives, accumulate wealth and power, and are "rewarded" for their leadership?

Osteen....

Falwell....

Copeland.....

 

"Religion used to be shitty" is beating "Religion used to do good" by 10 touchdowns.

[Guest]

Hospitals, modern science (i.e. mathematical empirical based science), and universities are progeny of the Christian worldview.  Compare what the spread of Christianity has achieved in regions with competing worldviews:

In this study, we examine the educational progress across faiths throughout postcolonial Africa, home to some of the world’s largest Christian and Muslim communities. We construct comprehensive religion-specific measures of intergenerational mobility in education using census data from 2,286 districts in 21 countries and document the following. First, Christians have better mobility outcomes than Traditionalists [animists, traditional religions] and Muslims. Second, differences in intergenerational mobility between Christians and Muslims persist among those residing in the same district, in households with comparable economic and family backgrounds. 

 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06051-2 

Its a 2,000 year old worldview spread across the globe.  There's more to it than 21st century evangelicals voting Republican.  

[Brisketexan 105142]

9 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

There's more to it than 21st century evangelicals voting Republican.  

You're right, of course.  There's the targeted extermination of most of the indigenous population of the Americas.  There's also the complicity of the church (most all organized Christian sects), save and except a few notable dissenters, with the anti-semitism culminating in the Final Solution.  You know, since we're going to talk about how the Christians bring "civilization and progress" and all that.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Brisketexan

[Guadaloopy 10971]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Hurting gay and trans people?  That's shitty.  Doing it under the banner of "God is love" is unforgivable and sick.

I won't go as far as you in saying it's unforgiveable.  If someone can realize the error of their understanding and resultant behaviors and make positive steps to change both, then there is a path to forgiveness.  

I keep space and grace for those who have grabbed on to the traditional interpretation of Romans 1 and Leviticus 20 as a condemnation of homosexuality.  It seems really clear.

I hold space and grace for those who have used "God's design" as an argument against the acceptance of transgender people.  Genesis 1 says that God created mankind "male and female" and Jesus repeats it in Matthew 19.  Again, it seems clear.

This doesn't mean I approve of their understanding and behavior.  It frustrates me to no end.  But I understand how someone seeking to serve God can get tied up in this way of thinking.

It's hard to break away from the desire for clarity and certainty.  People hate ambiguity and uncertainty.  The problem is that scripture is actually full of ambiguity, uncertainty, and nuance.

 

You can read Romans 1 and Leviticus 20 and consider what they say, but you also have to bounce that off of other scripture that:

a) tells us how Jonathan's and David's (a man after God's own heart) souls were "knit together" - a phrase commonly used to indicate a romantic relationship

b) tells the story of the Roman Centurion who asks Jesus to heal his "pais" - a Greek word commonly used to refer to the younger partner in a homosexual relationship - a request that Jesus honors while proclaiming the Centurion's faith to be the greatest He had seen

 

You can read Genesis 1 and Matthew 19 to interpret what appears to be "God's design" but then what do you do with the fact that:

a) Penguins and Ostriches exist when "God's design" in Genesis 1 says that birds fly in the sky

b) the first Gentile to be baptized and enter into the new covenant with God in Acts 8 was a non-binary Ethiopian eunuch

 

Scripture is full of ambiguity, which I believe gives us space to seek constant guidance from the Holy Spirit and the example of Jesus.  This world is just too incredibly complex and diverse to approach with a rulebook. 

Which brings us back to the two greatest commands - Love God.  Love Others.  Seems simple, but there is a ton of ambiguity in those two commands. 

How do you best love God?  How do you best love others?  <shrug>  Best I can do is follow the example of Jesus who sure seemed to be accepting, welcoming, and loving to people that the religious elite did not approve of.

All I know for sure is that if my way of loving God and loving others alienates and separates some people and keeps them from coming into a restorative relationship with God, I am definitely doing it wrong.

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You're right, of course.  There's the targeted extermination of most of the indigenous population of the Americas.  You know, since we're going to talk about how the Christians bring "civilization and progress" and all that.

Non Christian and non religious people have done targeted exterminations as well.  It's more useful to judge every group by the same standard.

[Brisketexan 105142]

1 minute ago, axiom of foundation said:

Non Christian and non religious people have done targeted exterminations as well.  It's more useful to judge every group by the same standard.

Of course they have.

But by and large, they didn't do it in the name of God and love.  So, yeah, I judge those fuckers more harshly.

Nevermind that what you point to as the relative "success" of the "Christian world" can also be explained by "Guns, Germs, and Steel."  Geography is a large part of destiny.

And finally, the point you make does a pretty damned good job of ignoring the far east.  The Chinese had a lot of shit figured out, too.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Of course they have.

But by and large, they didn't do it in the name of God and love.  So, yeah, I judge those fuckers more harshly.

Nevermind that what you point to as the relative "success" of the "Christian world" can also be explained by "Guns, Germs, and Steel."  Geography is a large part of destiny.

And finally, the point you make does a pretty damned good job of ignoring the far east.  The Chinese had a lot of shit figured out, too.

It doesn't ignore the far east.  It states what happened.  

Modern hospitals:

In-patient medical care in the sense of what we today consider a hospital was an invention driven by Christian mercy, starting with the Byzantines in the fourth century A.D.  Some hospitals maintained libraries and training programs, and doctors compiled their medical and pharmacological studies in manuscripts. Byzantine hospital staff included the Chief Physician, professional nurses, and the orderlies.  

During these centuries [4th through 14th] the Christian faith . . . permeated all aspects of life in the West. The very conception of medicine, as well as its practice, was deeply touched by the doctrine and discipline of the Church. This theological and ecclesiastical influence manifestly shaped the ethics of medicine, but it even indirectly affected its science since, as its missionaries evangelized the peoples of Western and Northern Europe, the Church found itself in a constant battle against the use of magic and superstition in the work of healing. It championed rational medicine, along with prayer, to counter superstition.   - Albert Jonsen, University of Washington historian of medicine
 

Degree Granting Universities:

Various academies and places of learning existed in ancient China, India, and Greece, but the modern degree-granting university where research was conducted began around the 12th century and was the product of Christian monasteries.
Many of the medieval universities in Western Europe were born under the aegis of the Catholic Church, usually as cathedral schools or by papal bull as Studia Generali. In the early medieval period, most new universities were founded from pre-existing schools, usually when these schools were deemed to have become primarily sites of higher education. Many historians state that universities and cathedral schools were a continuation of the interest in learning promoted by monasteries. - https://www.la.utexas.edu/users/bump/OriginUniversities.html

Modern Science:

It was Christians, driven by their Christian beliefs in a rational Author of creation, who were the pioneers in the scientific revolution.  They believed that God created the world through perfect reason and order, therefore the world was governed by logical rules.  He also made us with the ability to reason (Image of God).  Therefore, the laws that govern the world were able to be understood, and it was our duty to know these laws. 

Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.  -Johannes Kepler

To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power, to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful working of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more gratifying than knowledge.  -Nicholas Copernicus

It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. - Newton
God created everything by number, weight and measure. - Newton

I am a Christian, that is, I believe in the divinity of Christ, as did Tycho Brahe, Copernicus, Descartes, Newton, Fermat, Leibniz, Pascal, Grimaldi, Euler, Guldin; Boscovich, Gerdil, as did all the great astronomers, physicists and geometricians of past ages. - Augustin-Louis Cauchy

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by axiom of foundation

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Why does God need our love?

Christianity is baffling.

[Gatorubet 30239]

1 hour ago, Guadaloopy said:

I won't go as far as you in saying it's unforgiveable.  If someone can realize the error of their understanding and resultant behaviors and make positive steps to change both, then there is a path to forgiveness.  

I keep space and grace for those who have grabbed on to the traditional interpretation of Romans 1 and Leviticus 20 as a condemnation of homosexuality.  It seems really clear.

I hold space and grace for those who have used "God's design" as an argument against the acceptance of transgender people.  Genesis 1 says that God created mankind "male and female" and Jesus repeats it in Matthew 19.  Again, it seems clear.

Counterpoint:

[SydneyCarton 48106]

27 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Counterpoint:

Personally, I'm cheering for the words of the esteemed prophet Michael Crichton. Because if someone will listen to fucking Paul, Crichton is at least as credible.

[Mole 4333]

4 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

What would happen if axiom got hit with the number six?

 

[HornOnTheBayou 8924]

1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

Modern Science:

It was Christians, driven by their Christian beliefs in a rational Author of creation, who were the pioneers in the scientific revolution.  They believed that God created the world through perfect reason and order, therefore the world was governed by logical rules.  He also made us with the ability to reason (Image of God).  Therefore, the laws that govern the world were able to be understood, and it was our duty to know these laws. 

Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God.  -Johannes Kepler

To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power, to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful working of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more gratifying than knowledge.  -Nicholas Copernicus

It is the perfection of God's works that they are all done with the greatest simplicity. He is the God of order and not of confusion. - Newton
God created everything by number, weight and measure. - Newton

I am a Christian, that is, I believe in the divinity of Christ, as did Tycho Brahe, Copernicus, Descartes, Newton, Fermat, Leibniz, Pascal, Grimaldi, Euler, Guldin; Boscovich, Gerdil, as did all the great astronomers, physicists and geometricians of past ages. - Augustin-Louis Cauchy

 

And what happened when these astronomers dared to question traditional church teaching about the solar system? Also, let's not forget that the European scientific revolution was mainly based on knowledge and technology from the Middle East and East Asia, where there were *checks notes* not that many Christians.

As to institutionalizing medical care and higher education, thanks for the medical debt and school loans.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Mole said:

 

“That’s kind of a weird thing to be selling”.  Agreed.  Ernie must be a platonist. 

[SL Xpress 7515]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

You make excellent points, and I certainly agree with the historical accuracy of everything you say. That said, Mongols, Hutus, Maoris, etc. we’re not exterminating those people in the name of the God of Love under a commandment to follow the Golden Rule.  

An argument that people are shitty hypocrites and would be doing shitty hypocritical people things in the name of whatever religion is espoused has a ton of merit. One could argue that religion is just another one of a long list of differences that people use to justify hating and treating other people differently, be it religion, race, skin color, language, ethnicity, or nationality.

In that case, the real question is whether the deletion of Christianity itself (let alone any religion) as one more reason to hate other different flavor religious people is outweighed by the pacifying and morality aspects of Christianity….or any other religion.

Put another way, are shitty hypocritical people better off in sum with the presence or absence of Christianity- or any religion?

I think more beer volcanoes and strippers would make for a less violent society. But I don’t want this to turn into a theology discussion.

Christianity talks about original sin.

I talk about the evolutionary process. Our brains are remarkably similar to what they were 70,000 years ago. If you think of our genetic makeup and instincts as a sort of hardware, and religion as one of the many software layers we overlay on top of the hardware, then to me it becomes unreasonable to think the hardware won't exist any more, especially when the software has to be reset with every birth.

Instinctually our brains don't do well with unknowing. We want to feel like we have answers to things, so oftentimes we'll give our brains an answer for why things happened the way they did, and whether that's the reality of it is less important than simply having an answer that gives us some sort of solace so we can move on to the next problem. 

We don't have an eternity to spend contemplating things, and some people end up having more leisure time in their existence than others. Religion provides answers to complicated subjects for us that we no longer have to provide ourselves. But it's not really feasible to simply "do away" with religion, or even to do away with organized religion. We tend to substitute it for something else regardless.

I cannot tell you how many people I know who genuinely invest themselves in the concept that how bodies of mass outside the Earth's orbit have an actual influence on our personalities and behaviors. The industry is massive and is growing. They tend to be very judgmental of other organized religions, and yet here they are organizing themselves into their own communities and casting their own levels of judgement on people outside of their community. This is what we do. I'm not saying astrologists are about to call for acts of various kinds of repression over people who don't believe the way they do. I am saying if at some point we have a powerful nation state of crystal loving zodiac obsessed worshippers we'll see various forms of repression in the same way we would any belief system. 

The key similarity between Mongols, Hutus, Maoris, and whoever else we want to identify - and Christians we want to vilify, is that we're talking about communities with power. Inherently communities who don't hold power don't commit horrific acts...because they're powerless. It's inherent in their dynamic. The people who do commit horrific acts are the ones who hold power. Because they can, and there's an evolutionary tribal impulse of "them or us." As a species we don't always act on that impulse. It doesn't have to be inevitable. But it cannot occur unless a community holds power. There is a pattern of that behavior occurring throughout history. It's occurring right now. It will continue to occur. We're not suddenly wiping out that aspect of our species out of the genome. I would argue there would be unintended consequences if we did. To point to Christianity with a specific animus because of the hypocrisy between the religion's beliefs and its actions doesn't make sense to me personally, although I acknowledge it does to you. Those horrific acts are going to continue to occur around the world where a specific community holds power, and for whatever reason the dynamic of "them or us" has reached a stage where the community in power has become convinced it's an existential fact. Almost invariably with the help of a leadership that is parlaying our instinctual tribal affiliations into a bid for control and/or an extension of it. 

One of the things that is rarely discussed is the outsized impact Christianity made on the cessation and enforcement of the Atlantic slave trade, the influence over the ending of slavery in the United States, and how rare such a movement exists in either degree or effectiveness throughout the history of mankind. This does not make Christianity okay. It's not meant as a true defense. But I resent the constant efforts to paint Christianity as an enabler of slavery - it most certainly was - without also giving the religious belief system credit for the ending of an abhorrent, but also very human, practice.

Mostly it's understood that Christianity became - and still remains in a significant way - a defense for the colonization and exploitation of other cultures. But again, what I will say is that some of that was going to be part of the dynamic in any case. One culture more powerful encounters another culture and exploits, subjugates, and even exterminates them. That's what people do. Since even before we were people. Young male adult chimpanzees go around their territory and beat to death any chimpanzees they find not a part of their group. We didn't inherit that from chimpanzees, but we did inherit that trait from a common ancestor.

As a people the conquering culture then uses their own rationales for their abuses in a way that galvanizes their tribe in support of those actions. In the case of Europe post Dias sailing around the Cape of Good Hope, and then the subsequent forays by other powers all around the globe, Christianity became a big part of that rationale, because it was the tool available to them. In my opinion we're fortunate it doesn't happen more often than it does, because the wiring for it is ever present from the genesis of our species, and it's only the software - the values we're groomed to adopt and as individual adults choose to act upon - that keeps it from happening even more. 

In any case, in my ideal world - and I posted something similar earlier in the thread - there would be some way as a society we could have a Methodist Church that feels okay with ordaining gay ministers, and another group that doesn't feel like it's okay, and yet we could live in a society that allows both groups to practice their religious beliefs. If both groups want to believe the other side is going to hell, so be it. I grew up with a sweet Grandmother who made sure I never had communion in her Church of Christ church because I wasn't a member, and it took me until my 20s to come to the realization she understood on a very fundamental level her beloved grandson was doomed to an eternity of torment in the fires of damnation because I wasn't a member of the Church of Christ. But to me, that's okay. At least she didn't remind me of it on a regular basis and I could attend church with her anytime I wanted. I didn't want any of those stale wafers or what was probably shitty grape juice anyway. 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Young male adult chimpanzees go around their territory and beat to death any chimpanzees they find not a part of their group.

Those chimps would vote Republican in a heartbeat, if given the chance.  It's the main argument against bestowing legal personhood to the animals.  

[Gatorubet 30239]

3 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

 During these centuries [4th through 14th] the Christian faith . . . permeated all aspects of life in the West. The very conception of medicine, as well as its practice, was deeply touched by the doctrine and discipline of the Church.

I agree with the bold language. But under that rubric, as Christianity permeated the entirety of western civilization, it is probably fair to credit all the bad things as well as credit all the good things to Christianity, no?

The description of Eastern medicine and its history and development seems to be extremely biased and ethnocentric.

[SL Xpress 7515]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

I agree with the bold language. But under that rubric, as Christianity permeated the entirety of western civilization, it is probably fair to credit all the bad things as well as credit all the good things to Christianity, no?

The description of Eastern medicine and its history and development seems to be extremely biased and ethnocentric.

So did we advance as a species during that time? Or did we decline? In your opinion.

I could make an argument for either, although there's no doubt that technologically we've advanced. Just unconvinced that's the only metric we should measure ourselves by, when sometimes it seems like it is. 

We certainly became more globally connected. And our conflicts and our level of cooperation both became more global right along with it. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I agree with the bold language. But under that rubric, as Christianity permeated the entirety of western civilization, it is probably fair to credit all the bad things as well as credit all the good things to Christianity, no?

The description of Eastern medicine and its history and development seems to be extremely biased and ethnocentric.

I think any worldview or ideology can be judged in a number of ways:  veracity of tenets, impact on adherents, positive and negative products of adherents, behavior of adherents towards others, etc.  My point is that we should use the same standard for every group. 

For example, was the Roman empire a net positive or negative on the world?  It's easy enough to point out its evils and atrocities, but that doesn't answer the question.  Same with Christianity. 

[Gatorubet 30239]

3 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Why does God need our love?

Christianity is baffling.

I do agree that if there was no God, man would have created one or more.  It’s more like man needs God. Primitive people needed gods to give order to the mysterious world they lived in.  

Modern man knows you can pick up hot chicks at church.

[Gatorubet 30239]

Just now, axiom of foundation said:

For example, was the Roman empire a net positive or negative on the world?  It's easy enough to point out its evils and atrocities, but that doesn't answer the question.  Same with Christianity. 

Totally agree. 

And I’m not just saying that because I’m a fan of aqueducts.

[LCHorn 2620]

All I know is that, as a life long Methodist reared in Baptist country, the mere fact that a thread on us would reach 5 pages in length is something of a miracle, praise Jesus!

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Jesus seems cool, but he would have been an epic hero if he would have killed his asshole dad.

[Jatrain 288]

Why would a God who loves his creation and wants it to follow and worship him choose to give his followers scripture that, instead of plainly and clearly uniting and leading them to him, instead (and as illustrated by thousands of years of Christian history) is divisive to the point of leading, again and again to war death and destruction?
 

All the suffering in the world could be stopped in an instant by God, but instead he chooses to sit back, watch, and do nothing.  

Edited May 25, 2023 by Jatrain

[Gatorubet 30239]

19 minutes ago, Jatrain said:

All the suffering in the world could be stopped in an instant by God, but instead he chooses to sit back, watch, and do nothing.  

Are we even sure if time works in the same way for a Deity ? 

I guess what I’m saying is, what if there’s a game on and He doesn’t know yet?

[SydneyCarton 48106]

This is a wildly simplistic viewpoint for a complex and multifaceted issue like the evolution of humanity but...

I find it wildly convenient that some purport that all of the best things about human advancement can be associated with the spread of Christianity, but all the failures of and faults of Christianity are because of the inherent flaws/behaviors/sins of man. And by convenient, I mean a load of horseshit. 

[Guest]

It’s really not fair that Christians get to say some of the positive contributions of their worldview and compare the actions of past adherents to their peers. We should judge ideologies by internet memes.

[Celery Man 20950]

I think that most people care less about whether Christianity is inherently a tool for the wicked and more about how Christianity in modern America has become primarily a tool for the wicked as well as a primary tool for the wicked.

[Gatorubet 30239]

45 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I think that most people care less about whether Christianity is inherently a tool for the wicked and more about how Christianity in modern America has become primarily a tool for the wicked as well as a primary tool for the wicked.

The problem there is that if you are trying to argue or logic away someone’s hateful position on something, you might * be able to do it just on the merits of your argument. But if you were telling someone who deeply believes that they are obeying God they should consider changing their hateful position, you are going to have zero success.  

That religious dynamic makes change a serious problem.  Because you are not just telling them their position is wrong, you are telling them that their religious beliefs are wrong. 

(* granted, our brains are wired to make it difficult to change our opinions in any event)

[SydneyCarton 48106]

1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

It’s really not fair that Christians get to say some of the positive contributions of their worldview and compare the actions of past adherents to their peers. We should judge ideologies by internet memes.

Actually, the meaning of my post was more like "Christians like to claim a metric fuck ton of positive contributions that may or may not be specifically because of Christianity, meanwhile all the failings of Christianity are attributable not to anything like...the Bible. But instead the failings of man." 

See below, coming to or already arrived to a school text book near you:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/in-texas-textbooks-moses-is-a-founding-father

Quote

The issue that attracted the most attention revolved around the intellectual influences the Framers felt when they crafted the United States Constitution. The new curriculum standards require students to learn about the supposed influence of individuals such as Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, William Blackstone, and even Moses on 18th-century republican thought and the American founding.

The problem began when the SBOE evicted Enlightenment thinkers from the World History standards and substituted a list that included Moses, Aquinas, Calvin, and Blackstone. Figures from that grab-bag list also made their way into the requirements for United States history and government. Never mind that Aquinas and Calvin were theologians, or that Blackstone believed all societies should require some form of absolute, unchallengeable sovereign power. The real issue turned out to be Moses.

Careful analyst by Justine Esta Ellis (a scholar who was not part of the TFN group) finds the strategy of starting with Moses is aimed at presenting the United States as a unique “redeemer nation,” predestined among all others to act out God’s will. Arch-conservative David Barton, who has no historian’s credentials but who nonetheless has had a huge impact on TEKS, maintains that verse after verse from the Bible is quoted “verbatim” in the Constitution. Checking Scripture demonstrates quickly that this is just not so. The language and the ideas do not match. Any professor of history teaches history majors not to make that kind of mistake.

But the State Board of Education wanted nothing to do with professors. More than a dozen from Texas colleges and universities volunteered to take part in reviewing texts this past summer. Almost all were turned down.

One of those historians, my colleague and former Southern Methodist University department chair Kathleen Wellman, testified at the SBOE public hearing this month. She told the SBOE that the effect of the TEKS requirement to find biblical origins for the Constitution would be to make Moses the “first American.” Some historians give that honor to Benjamin Franklin. Whoever might merit it, Moses definitely does not qualify.

The bolded is my favorite part. "FIND ME PROOF MOSES WAS A FOUNDING FATHER." Christianity stealin' that Founding of The United States Valor. Or, as I'm sure some adherents would frame it "It's not Christianity trying to steal the valor of the USA. Just the Christians."

['stache 21815]

18 hours ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

And what happened when these astronomers dared to question traditional church teaching about the solar system? Also, let's not forget that the European scientific revolution was mainly based on knowledge and technology from the Middle East and East Asia, where there were *checks notes* not that many Christians.

As to institutionalizing medical care and higher education, thanks for the medical debt and school loans.

Church influence also had little to do with theology and almost entirely to do with wealth. The churches were really the only entities other than monarchies and nobilities that could acquire immense wealth necessary to fund things like science and medicine. And if anything, the theology side of things slowed down progress when a few big hats felt learning about the stars could undermine their control mechanisms. I don't credit the religious part of these things much, if at all.

[SydneyCarton 48106]

33 minutes ago, &#x27;stache said:

Church influence also had little to do with theology and almost entirely to do with wealth. The churches were really the only entities other than monarchies and nobilities that could acquire immense wealth necessary to fund things like science and medicine. And if anything, the theology side of things slowed down progress when a few big hats felt learning about the stars could undermine their control mechanisms. I don't credit the religious part of these things much, if at all.

Ha. Thanks, your post reminded me that in regards to Christianity advancing science...someone go ask Copernicus how that worked out for him. 

[TwiceHorn 31472]

19 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I agree with the bold language. But under that rubric, as Christianity permeated the entirety of western civilization, it is probably fair to credit all the bad things as well as credit all the good things to Christianity, no?

 

Yes indeed, but there's a significant chunk of this thread that only wants to credit the bad things.

[TwiceHorn 31472]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

Ha. Thanks, your post reminded me that in regards to Christianity advancing science...someone go ask Copernicus how that worked out for him. 

Wrong dude.  Galileo is your man there.  Copernicus enjoyed pretty good relations with the Vatican most of his life.

[Gatorubet 30239]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes indeed, but there's a significant chunk of this thread that only wants to credit the bad things.

Weirdly, I was originally trying to both sides Ani, pushing against a “all positive” take. 

You are correct that this, like any important topic, is far more complex and nuanced than any simple black or white conclusion good or bad. 

[SydneyCarton 48106]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Wrong dude.  Galileo is your man there.  Copernicus enjoyed pretty good relations with the Vatican most of his life.

I'm sure you're correct, as I'm not a historian or even a history buff, but I thought I remembered that people reacted negatively to the concept that the Earth revolved around the sun, as opposed to vice versa. 

[formermav43 4606]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm sure you're correct, as I'm not a historian or even a history buff, but I thought I remembered that people reacted negatively to the concept that the Earth revolved around the sun, as opposed to vice versa. 

Not until after Copernicus was dead.

[TwiceHorn 31472]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

I'm sure you're correct, as I'm not a historian or even a history buff, but I thought I remembered that people reacted negatively to the concept that the Earth revolved around the sun, as opposed to vice versa. 

That's true.  Galileo just refined and further proved Copernicus' ideas.  And he was "inquisitioned" for it.  But that seems mostly to have been a somewhat personal thing with Pope Urban.  Copernicus received some criticism from several angles, including the church, both Protestant and Catholic, but never any serious ramifications.

[SydneyCarton 48106]

4 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Not until after Copernicus was dead.

 

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's true.  Galileo just refined and further proved Copernicus' ideas.  And he was "inquisitioned" for it.  But that seems mostly to have been a somewhat personal thing with Pope Urban.  Copernicus received some criticism from several angles, including the church, both Protestant and Catholic, but never any serious ramifications.

Cool. I'm glad I'm just not completely off-base here, like someone referencing airports during the Revolutionary War.  

[Beau Vine 54230]

19 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

For example, was the Roman empire a net positive or negative on the world? 

 

[Brisketexan 105142]

Yes indeed, but there's a significant chunk of this thread that only wants to credit the bad things.

Sure, it’s recency bias. Doesn’t much matter what “Christianity” did 400 years ago if here and now, as it is practiced most conspicuously, it is a weapon of cruelty and pain. I don’t care if she was a good woman when you married her; if she’s abusing you now, that the relationship.

[locodos 5387]

Why do you have to take two Methodist Ministers with you when you go fishing?

Spoiler

Because if you only bring one he'll drink all your beer

 

[LCHorn 2620]

22 minutes ago, locodos said:

Why do you have to take two Methodist Ministers with you when you go fishing?

  Reveal hidden contents

Because if you only bring one he'll drink all your beer

 

Hah!  True story, first time I heard that one was from our Methodist pastor but it was about Baptists.  Another one he told was “how can you tell a Baptist from a Catholic?”

”A Catholic will say ‘hello’ to you at the liquor store.”

[locodos 5387]

1 minute ago, LCHorn said:

Hah!  True story, first time I heard that one was from our Methodist pastor but it was about Baptists.  Another one he told was “how can you tell a Baptist from a Catholic?”

”A Catholic will say ‘hello’ to you at the liquor store.”

Why are Baptists so against fornication?

Spoiler

Might lead to dancing!

 

[irishtexan 11519]

On 5/24/2023 at 1:39 PM, Patricio Swayze said:

Why does God need our love?

Christianity is baffling.

The neediness and insecurity is proof god is female. (JK ladies. I know that most men are profoundly more needy and insecure than women)

4 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

The problem there is that if you are trying to argue or logic away someone’s hateful position on something, you might * be able to do it just on the merits of your argument. But if you were telling someone who deeply believes that they are obeying God they should consider changing their hateful position, you are going to have zero success.  

That religious dynamic makes change a serious problem.  Because you are not just telling them their position is wrong, you are telling them that their religious beliefs are wrong. 

(* granted, our brains are wired to make it difficult to change our opinions in any event)

That sounds VERY cult-y. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, &#x27;stache said:

And if anything, the theology side of things slowed down progress when a few big hats felt learning about the stars could undermine their control mechanisms. I don't credit the religious part of these things much, if at all.

The pioneers and main contributors to the scientific revolution were absolutely motivated and guided by their christian worldview in their pursuit in finding a single set of guiding laws of the universe.  Claiming their theology had nothing to do with it is utter nonsense given by folks with no knowledge of these men or the period of time they lived in.

 

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm sure you're correct, as I'm not a historian or even a history buff, but I thought I remembered that people reacted negatively to the concept that the Earth revolved around the sun, as opposed to vice versa. 

There was a lot of negative reaction to heliocentrism following Copernicus.   Geocentrism had been established scientific orthodoxy since the ancient Greeks and worked really well to predict lots of phenomena.  Since Aristotle, it was also believed that the heavens beyond the moon were eternally immutable (the unchanging celestial realm) and fundamentally different than the terrestrial elements (earth, wind, water), which is why it made sense that things on earth slowed down and degraded over time while the heavens never degraded or slowed down.  Going from that view to the earth being another one of the planets took some getting used to; it required a complete revision of the understanding of the cosmos. 

Also, there was some legitimate objections to the heliocentrism of Copernicus because he based his model on perfectly circular orbits, which had some problems.  Kepler corrected this with elliptical orbits a few decades later.  Newton was the one who brought it all together with his universal gravitation based on the inverse square law.  By this time (1680s), Newton faced no resistance and was catapulted to international celebrity. 

[SydneyCarton 48106]

3 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

The pioneers and main contributors to the scientific revolution were absolutely motivated and guided by their christian worldview in their pursuit in finding a single set of guiding laws of the universe.  Claiming their theology had nothing to do with it is utter nonsense given by folks with no knowledge of these men or the period of time they lived in.

 

There was a lot of negative reaction to heliocentrism following Copernicus.   Geocentrism had been established scientific orthodoxy since the ancient Greeks and worked really well to predict lots of phenomena.  Since Aristotle, it was also believed that the heavens beyond the moon were eternally immutable (the unchanging celestial realm) and fundamentally different than the terrestrial elements (earth, wind, water), which is why it made sense that things on earth slowed down and degraded over time while the heavens never degraded or slowed down.  Going from that view to the earth being another one of the planets took some getting used to; it required a complete revision of the understanding of the cosmos. 

Also, there was some legitimate objections to the heliocentrism of Copernicus because he based his model on perfectly circular orbits, which had some problems.  Kepler corrected this with elliptical orbits a few decades later.  Newton was the one who brought it all together with his universal gravitation based on the inverse square law.  By this time (1680s), Newton faced no resistance and was catapulted to international celebrity. 

Here we go again, guys. It wasn't the Church's fault. The failure was just the Christians in the church who pushed back against science. I feel like I've read this play before.