Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilisation?

[arthur]

Arthur,

 

Self-flagellation doesn't need to be a social event.

 

You aren't going to find much support here. If you look at the posts attacking you, you will see that a lot of them are attacking all religions, the people who wrote them not realizing they also have some supporting belief system that informs their life.

 

For example, Stephen Leacock's farm family in "Caroline's Christmas"

 

 

We can find comfort in lots of things, such as the eternal truth of an isosceles triangle. We can construct a civilization on such simple beliefs as that parallel lines will only meet in infinity. We can meditate on the question, "Where do the parallel lines go after that?"

 

 

Sorry. I know Christianity was pretty directly involved in Sir Isaac Newton's physics, but the numbers he used were, after all, non-Christian. And the impulses he was avoiding were apparently non-Christian.

 

A lot of the civilization we now have is Christian because the Crusaders were careful to destroy the non-Christian civilizations in their way. Gresham's law, that the bad drives out the good, works. We as a culture have become dominant by destroying civilizations more advanced than ours.

 

--lemit

 

 

Hello lemit

 

quote:

You aren't going to find much support here. You may be right, but support for what? I'm not sure if I am looking for support, hoping that some one might have the time and the inclination and curiosity and be willing to flex their brain cells to give me an objective evaluation of what I consider is a profound concept maybe considered as looking for support.

 

 

quote:

If you look at the posts attacking you, you will see that a lot of them are attacking all religions, the people who wrote them not realizing they also have some supporting belief system that informs their life.

 

I can agree that for some, on the face of it, it may appear that these people are actually attacking religion per se but, *if*the attacks are genuine, what they are attacking is some aspect or other of their knowledge or, more likely than not, their lack of knowledge, of what they selectively "think" religion is or, what expediently, for the sake of arguing, what it represents to them. I suspect that you know as I know that it is much too big to verbally attack any more than little bits of it. Many of us have seen umpteen examples of this sort of stuff and have even read it when Saul became Paul. A friend who must have been the world most vehement anti Islam bigot. Whilst cycling though France at a camp site we met a Moroccan family which included the most beautiful 18 year old daughter that Allah had ever created, on seeing her my friends knees went weak and it was instant love. Years later they were married and as a Muslim he died a happy man. Another friend, a drunken violent anti Christian bigoted recidivist who after being released for the tenth time made his home in the gutter, drunk, un-washed, smelling of urine, ill, sad and an emaciated alcoholic the Christian Sally army saved him and as a devout Christian he also died a happy and grateful man.

 

Belief is a strange word particularly when people make claims about what they believe, as the 'boy' knew, "kick em on the shin and you will soon find out what they believe" or as the inquisitors new put them on the rack

and you'll soon find if they believe, or as Constantine discovered put then in the arena and see how willingly they die for their belief. Belief is manifested by what one does not just by saying the words as is disbelief.

 

 

quote:

We can find comfort in lots of things, such as the eternal truth of an isosceles triangle. We can construct a civilization on such simple as that parallel lines will only meet in infinity. We can meditate on the question, "Where do the parallel lines go after that?"

 

You lucky man, I have never known anyone who wasn't smoking who would find comfort thus.

 

 

quote:

Sorry. I know Christianity was pretty directly involved in Sir Isaac Newton's physics, but the numbers he used were, after all, non-Christian. And the impulses he was avoiding were apparently non-Christian.

 

Was that the same Newton, Newton the theologian who spent most of his life convinced that the world was created as per Genesis?

 

regards. .arthur..

[arthur]

Okay Arthur. That's your belief, and you are more than welcome to it.

 

Problem is, that Christianity as you know it today, is lightyears removed from what the Bible, the foundation of Christianity, spouts as morality and moral behaviour. If we were to live according to the literal bible, the world would look entirely different than the one you currently see around you. For one, you will not find very many pig farms nor crayfish restaurants around. You also will not see homosexuals nor prostitutes (a profession even older than professional preaching) around, except for the corpses of those that were stoned last night.

 

The thing is, Christians pick and choose those verses in the bible that are compatible with the world at the time. Which means that the moral filter as used by Christians is actually society, and has very little, if anything, to do with Christianity or the bible. Christians maintain that they impose their morality on society, with the bible as source, whilst it is, in actual fact, precisely the other way around.

 

I don't see the disappearance of Christianity having any negative effect on society. Quite the opposite. Consider, for instance, how the Netherlands bloomed in the early Rennaisance when it threw the dogma of Catholic Spain off and turned into the most liberal country in Europe. Art, science and philosophy like you have never seen in such a small area before. Imagine that same blooming of the human spirit world-wide, if we can cast off the yoke of anything even remotely religious.

 

The church is a chain, choking the mind. Christianity is merely a bit more lenient and lax than the more severe forms of Islam, but the principle holds the same for all. And none of them are the issuers of morality they pretend to be. Society is imposing its will on the church, and the church merely follow suit, meekly being led by worldly affairs and wordly issues, whilst loudly pretending all the while that it's leading the world. The church is a cultural remnant of our ignorant past, and very much like the appendix, serves no readily discernible useful purpose.

 

I propose a global appendectomy. Because appendicitis can kill. Look at the World Trade Center, for that matter.

 

 

 

Hi Boerseun,

 

Putting aside your rather aggressive display of your dislike for what you feel or consider Christianity actually is, objectively re-consider the quote and offer me a more likely source of the morality the ethics and the values that you personally use to help you to harmonise within your society etc, and then, objectively consider an alternative to what I say holds this comparatively stable, free and democratic, sophisticated civilized society together.

 

 

With interest..arthur..

 

 

 

And please remember

There is nothing clever in knowing what one knows;

There is nothing clever in being able to do what one can do; There is nothing

clever in an idea spontaneously coming into ones head; No creature is more

intelligent than any other; The art in being an intellectual is being able to

interpret meanings without reference to bigotry, bias or prejudice;

[Donk]

Arthur -

 

Most of the posts in this thread are in response to your original post. The vast majority agree with the premise that our civilisation has been affected by Christianity. Of course it has - a quick look at any history book gives the lie to anyone who says differently.

 

Where we differ is in your belief that Civilisation means Us. There are many ways to be civilised, and they don't all involve dark suits, SUVs and skyscrapers.

 

Many, including myself, have replied to the title of the thread. Nobody (apart from you) believes that civilisation will die without Christianity. Why should it?

 

You're now going to fulminate that you didn't say anything like that. You're no doubt going to complain about bigotry - it's one of your favourite words, but I have to tell you that you've been misusing it. Bigotry is unreasoning prejudice. Many of the posters have shown prejudice against religion, but they have mostly given reasons. Those who haven't would certainly do so if challenged. The fact that I'm prejudiced against axe murderers or child molesters doesn't make me a bigot.

 

You sound like some other elderly people I've known. You demand respect without having earned it. You talk but don't listen. You demand answers and then ignore them. You contradict yourself then deny having done so. Only your opinion has value, so you spend no time discussing or even considering that of others.

 

Can you point me to any forum, anywhere, where your posts have met with the reasoned discussion you feel they deserve? If not, then maybe you should consider that there is something wrong with your posts or your abrasive style of posting.

 

You won't, of course. You won't even consider that everyone else might be right and you might be wrong, because you know you aren't. If we misunderstand you it's because we're stupid, not because you haven't explained things properly.

 

A little humility might help, but I think you're probably a long way past any help we can offer to you.

[arthur]

Arthur -

 

Most of the posts in this thread are in response to your original post. The vast majority agree with the premise that our civilisation has been affected by Christianity. Of course it has - a quick look at any history book gives the lie to anyone who says differently.

 

Where we differ is in your belief that Civilisation means Us. There are many ways to be civilised, and they don't all involve dark suits, SUVs and skyscrapers.

 

Many, including myself, have replied to the title of the thread. Nobody (apart from you) believes that civilisation will die without Christianity. Why should it?

 

You're now going to fulminate that you didn't say anything like that. You're no doubt going to complain about bigotry - it's one of your favourite words, but I have to tell you that you've been misusing it. Bigotry is unreasoning prejudice. Many of the posters have shown prejudice against religion, but they have mostly given reasons. Those who haven't would certainly do so if challenged. The fact that I'm prejudiced against axe murderers or child molesters doesn't make me a bigot.

 

You sound like some other elderly people I've known. You demand respect without having earned it. You talk but don't listen. You demand answers and then ignore them. You contradict yourself then deny having done so. Only your opinion has value, so you spend no time discussing or even considering that of others.

 

Can you point me to any forum, anywhere, where your posts have met with the reasoned discussion you feel they deserve? If not, then maybe you should consider that there is something wrong with your posts or your abrasive style of posting.

 

You won't, of course. You won't even consider that everyone else might be right and you might be wrong, because you know you aren't. If we misunderstand you it's because we're stupid, not because you haven't explained things properly.

 

A little humility might help, but I think you're probably a long way past any help we can offer to you.

 

Well my dear Donk

 

At last you have found (If you didn’t already have them) your diatribic feet for that really was a humdinger of one, Wow, do you feel better? It has it all, invective, unjust criticism, false accusations, accusatory inventions and a display (may be real, may be not) of prejudice indicating an extremely high level of anger producing hormones that only something like this is capable of relieving. I am not an MD but I am willing to offer you some advice, keep calm for not only does such activity impinge upon your credibility of being a rational person but it really is not conducive with the retardation of dementia or with helping to maintain a harmonious society because it is, in effect, an invitation for a bombardment of prejudicial commentary from others who may only give lip service to 'the golden rule'.

 

Quote:

Where we differ is in your belief that Civilisation means Us. There are many ways to be civilised, and they don't all involve dark suits, SUVs and skyscrapers.

 

Now that you have that out of your system let us consider a couple of the more sensible point that you brought up. Nearly every were in my rambling I have emphasised this, our sophisticated civilised society as the prime reference to civilisation of course one can argue what the words mean but I am sure that an unbiased reading of them in context would produce an acceptable all round meaning of them to allow intelligent discussion to be carried out. I am not sure who you mean by your use of the word 'we' in your statement but If you recognise this as being the case why do you think that it has failed?

 

The references in the proposition are to this/your/the person next doors sophisticated civilised society

 

never in the history of the earth has so many people been so wealthy, well fed, well housed, so free and so secure. Never in the history of any society have so many people spent so little of their resources and time on the acquisition of food, No society in history has had such a complex and sophisticated economic system for the universal distribution of wealth. No other society has had a universal education or a universal health system or universal suffrage. And no other society in history has had so many of its members spending so much of their time and their resources caring for the infirm, the feckless and the unfortunates of the society because to do so is a requirement of their faith.

 

Now Donk, (Where we differ is in your belief) Do you personally, rather the your 'we', differ in my belief that what I have expressed is what I believe to be, with regards to my proposition, a reasonable summation?

 

quote:

Nobody (apart from you) believes that civilisation will die without Christianity. Why should it?

 

Donk, how do you know that nobody etc, etc.?

 

If you had understood my proposition you would not have needed to asked that question. I have never said that I believes that civilisation will die without Christianity I have asked the question and offered a proposal that R Catholicism and Christianity and this (see above for clarification) civilisation/society are so intertwined as to be inseparable which means, I think, (hence the request for a considered opinion) that if they could be separated neither of them would be the same and the combination of them would not exist, so Donk why don't you give me a considered opinion instead of all of this hormonally induced silliness. as I have said, I understand that it might not be so emotionally thrilling as all of this attacking, abuse and rudeness must be but, to be able to take this proposition seriously and consider an academic aspect of life that you have never even contemplated could possibly exist must surely be intellectually exciting enough to compensate for the other, No?

 

quote;

You won't, of course. You won't even consider that everyone else might be right and you might be wrong, because you know you aren't. If we misunderstand you it's because we're stupid, not because you haven't explained things properly.

 

Donk what is this right and wrong stuff and if you mean "know I aren't right" why on earth would I say any thing, unless in humour, that I know to be 'not right'?? There is the *we* again, are you a spokesman for "them", anyway, I state categorically that nobody is less intelligent than any one else so how, if your statement is not you opinion, could I consider any one as stupid?

 

People driven by, for example, the desire to experience the emotional satisfaction of defeating some one in competition very often say unthought-out things that are obviously stupid and so by doing create a situation that is stupid and futile but that does not mean that the person is stupid, may be silly or ridiculous but not stupid.

 

What I am trying to do is not get into a subjective argument that will lead absolutely no where towards gaining an objective critique of my proposition.

 

Here is an important axiom I *suspect* that you have never considered "an explanation is *only* so when it is understood"

quote:

A little humility might help

 

Donk remember that it not what is written that has meaning but what is interpreted. Ahh, that magic thing 'humility' 'for it is they that will inherit the earth' Help what? or help who?, If you mean that in some way it might help you to look at my proposition logically and rationally and logically and rationally offer me a critique I will willingly try it, But, and here I have a problem, how can I patronise you with you out knowing, how can I pretend that I don’t know what I am talking about for if I did you would spend all of your time correcting me. I don’t know how to display humility other than, as I am by, being polite and respectful and taking the time and putting in the effort to sensibly respond to sensible posts, with the ulterior motive of receiving an objective opinion, I have no motive to ingratiate myself to anyone only to interest people in my proposition.

 

My father said that "before you start a project start on the basis of how little you know not on how much you think you might know"

And I say of all of the gazillion things that there are to be known just look at how few of them we know, and Donk as a reminder There is nothing clever in knowing what one knows;

There is nothing clever in being able to do what one can do; There is nothing clever in an idea spontaneously coming into ones head; No creature is more intelligent than any other; The art in being an intellectual is being able to interpret meanings without reference to bigotry, bias or prejudice;

 

in the hope of having encouraged you to review my proposition and give me a sensible critique my kindest regard ..arthur..

[Buffy]

in the hope of having encouraged you to review my proposition and give me a sensible critique my kindest regard ..arthur..

I apologize, but I read that last post and I must say I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that there is a fairly clear misunderstanding of the specific meanings you have ascribed to "decline" and "demise".

 

Can you tell us exactly what those words mean within the context of your proposition?

 

And on my side it is so well apparell'd, so clear, so shining and so evident, that it will glimmer through a blind man's eye, :naughty:

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Putting aside your rather aggressive display of your dislike for what you feel or consider Christianity actually is, objectively re-consider the quote and offer me a more likely source of the morality the ethics and the values that you personally use to help you to harmonise within your society etc, and then, objectively consider an alternative to what I say holds this comparatively stable, free and democratic, sophisticated civilized society together.

Howdy Arthur.

 

Whatever the source of my morals is, I emphatically hold that the source of your morals cannot be Christianity. Because Christianity amends itself according to societal pressure. Consider, for instance, the attitude of the Church in the 1500's compared to today. The Church have mellowed out, because society basically told it to do so, or shove off. People pick and choose those verses of the bible which are palatable and compatible to society, and basically flatly ignore the rest. Pictures of dead hookers and homosexuals should be common fodder in newspapers (and on the side of the road) as the biblical order to do so is followed by the Righteous and Just. If Christianity was the ultimate source of morals, this would have been common. But we don't do this, nor do we burn witches, because society continuously moderates the church to fit in with the modes and mores of the day. Society imposes its will and morals on the church - regardless what the pastor/priest/father might tell you on Sunday.

 

The only moral authority the Christian church of today wield, is imaginary.

 

I would like to see you prove me wrong.

[lemit]

We can find comfort in lots of things, such as the eternal truth of an isosceles triangle. We can construct a civilization on such simple as that parallel lines will only meet in infinity. We can meditate on the question, "Where do the parallel lines go after that?"

 

You lucky man, I have never known anyone who wasn't smoking who would find comfort thus.

 

Apparently that would help with my pain and my digestive problems, but I'm not really tempted, and I don't really need it to see the world in ways I can only explain to my cat, who would much rather stalk mice.

 

I'm sorry you can't accept support from people who do not share your worldview. I wish you well anyway.

 

--lemit

[arthur]

Apparently that would help with my pain and my digestive problems, but I'm not really tempted, and I don't really need it to see the world in ways I can only explain to my cat, who would much rather stalk mice.

 

I'm sorry you can't accept support from people who do not share your worldview. I wish you well anyway.

 

--lemit

 

Lemit I am not sure of your last post to me, I have enjoyed and welcomed your posts and had no intention other than to be a little larkful and there was no intention what so ever to cause any thing other than a smile.

 

..arthur..

[lemit]

Arthur,

 

I don't need psycho-active drugs to inform my mystical nature, nor do I need a particular historical interpretation of my religious experience. My experience is my own.

 

But I don't begrudge others the fact that they find in organized religion what I find outside organized religion. I definitely don't begrudge people their own beliefs.

 

I believe strongly in tolerance, an acceptance and love of those unlike one's self, partly out of self-interest since my experience is my own and noone else's. In your case, I haven't quite figured out just whom I need to be tolerant of, if anyone. (I'm not saintly; I grant myself intolerance in the cause of furthering tolerance.) About half the time I agree with the people around here who believe that you should be ridden out of cyberspace on an electron rail. But then I see something in you, a gossamer something that unfortunately always seems to turn back to spider web in your next post.

 

You say you're not sure of my last post? I'm not sure of anything you've written! I love gossamer, but I don't like spiders.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. Come to think of it, I've never been that fond of gossamer. Have you ever had a bunch of that stuff wrap itself around your face?

[plumber]

WOW. I am out o' here, I've never read a more emotional rendering and denial of world history in my life! Anyone care to admit what the world was like before Christianity? I mean dang! Leave out the majority of history just so you can beat each other up. WOW.

[arthur]

WOW. I am out o' here, I've never read a more emotional rendering and denial of world history in my life! Anyone care to admit what the world was like before Christianity? I mean dang! Leave out the majority of history just so you can beat each other up. WOW.

 

 

 

Anyone care to admit what the world was like before Christianity?

 

It is some thing that not one of the contributor other than my self and may be one other have considered. Thanks for the sensible question.

 

arthur...

[Michaelangelica]

Where is you proof that Christianity has "declined"?

Numbers of Christians?

Surely that must be the biggest # for some time historically.

 

What do you mean by 'demise"?

Would you think Islamic, jewish, buddist nations have been "demised"

[Donk]

If you had understood my proposition...

 

<snip>

 

in the hope of having encouraged you to review my proposition and give me a sensible critique my kindest regard ..arthur..

I assure you I can see every step of your reasoning, even those you haven't put before us yet.

 

1. Our civilisation is inextricably bound up with Christianity. Its history, its laws, its morals, its very mindset are all based on Christianity's teachings.

2. Therefore, if Christianity's influence were to falter, our civilised society would be in big trouble. Even if the tenets of Christianity are not true, it's still our responsibility (and in our best interests) to preserve and protect it.

 

The faulty reasoning lies in the "therefore". Let me demonstrate:

 

1. American civilisation is inextricably bound up with England. Its history, its laws, its morals, its very mindset are all based on English teachings.

2. Therefore, if England's influence were to falter, our civilised society would be in big trouble. Even if we don't particularly like the English, it's our responsibility (and in our best interests) to preserve and protect England.

 

Once again, it's true up to the "therefore". Then it falls apart. We supplied the seed-corn and you grew. Your civilisation is based on ours, but stands independently of our fate. To suggest otherwise would be ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as the first version. :eek2:

 

Your plan was to get a measure of agreement on #1, then use it as a basis for #2. An interesting new approach, but as I've demonstrated, it doesn't fly. Plus, you rather queered your pitch by making #2 the thread title - kinda gave the game away ;)

[Michaelangelica]

Nice to see you don't have a parochial view of "civilisation"? :eek2:

 

Personally, I would love to see how a USA without religion would look.

I don't see that it could be much worse for the lack of so-called, "Christianity"

[arthur]

I apologize, but I read that last post and I must say I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that there is a fairly clear misunderstanding of the specific meanings you have ascribed to "decline" and "demise".

 

Can you tell us exactly what those words mean within the context of your proposition?

 

And on my side it is so well apparell'd, so clear, so shining and so evident, that it will glimmer through a blind man's eye, :eek2:

Buffy

 

Hello Buffy,

 

I am not sure if or not I should take your sudden involvement in this thread as a genuine desire to understand anything given that you haven't yet displayed the common cutesy of replying to my earlier post.

 

As I posted to Z and which she (?) apparently and with no display of apology successfully did for a reason I don't know. Maybe it was because she now realises that all of the music she has listened to is a *product from religion*. again of course, the assumption being that she doesn’t listen to Oriental or native aboriginal, or early Islamic music. Which by the way was also influenced by a different religion.

 

Quote:

I have been sucked into responding to posts in the past only to be gratuitously abused, misquoted, and suffering the tedium of reading inaccurate tirades of bigotry etc after spending a great deal of time and effort on the responses. As can be seen in this forum, and by having this put into Silly claims and having an administrator display crass disrespect and rudeness to me with their Bla Bla post. which also with out any sign of embarrassment or apology has disappeared.

 

Was this also your intention, If it was not, and I quote, I am interested in any one is willing to politely give me any genuine and objective logical evaluation with good will of any thing I say or write. I am not interested in discussing or arguing things subjectively /emotionally and I really only want to discuss what, in reality, is my extremely academically profound concept.

 

A situation that has not really happened.

 

The answer to what I might have intended a reader to understand can be found in my proposition, if I understand your question.

 

 

Quote:

Can you tell us exactly what those words mean within the context of your proposition?

 

Did you mean *us* or should it have been *me*, ie, you buffy?

 

..arthur…

[HydrogenBond]

If you look at the teachings of Christ, i.e., the red letter aspect of the bible, these quotes are not the basis for the atrocities of the church. There is nothing that teaches this. This began when the original Christian Church merged with Rome and the new church included elements of Roman atheism. The Christians of the first few centuries acted differently, until the Roman atheist merge. Christianity softened the brutality of atheism, while atheism toughened early Christianity. Conquest and control was never part of the original teachings; that came from atheist Rome.

 

Maybe what we need to do is look at the teachings of the earliest Christian movement. Then look at atheist Rome to separate the composite that we call the Church. Then we can put the history of Christianity into two piles, and compare the Roman atheist and Christian roles. The Spanish Inquisition had more of a Roman atheist flavor than early Christian. The early christianity doesn't teach any of these things. But one can find similar accounts in atheist Rome.

[Moontanman]

If you look at the teachings of Christ, i.e., the red letter aspect of the bible, these quotes are not the basis for the atrocities of the church. There is nothing that teaches this. This began when the original Christian Church merged with Rome and the new church included elements of Roman atheism. The Christians of the first few centuries acted differently, until the Roman atheist merge. Christianity softened the brutality of atheism, while atheism toughened early Christianity. Conquest and control was never part of the original teachings; that came from atheist Rome.

 

HB, every once in a while your posts really hit the nail on the head, this is not one of those times. Roman atheism? Do you have anything what so ever to back that up? Anything?

 

Maybe what we need to do is look at the teachings of the earliest Christian movement. Then look at atheist Rome to separate the composite that we call the Church. Then we can put the history of Christianity into two piles, and compare the Roman atheist and Christian roles. The Spanish Inquisition had more of a Roman atheist flavor than early Christian. The early christianity doesn't teach any of these things. But one can find similar accounts in atheist Rome.

 

 

Again you are proceeding on a totally unverified assumption of Roman atheism, I ask again can you show where Rome or the Roman Empire was atheistic? The Spanish Inquisition was totally Christian, conceived by Christians, and sanctified by the Pope. Any Roman influence was incidental to the Christian need for control through fear and punishment.