Christians, please answer this simple question
Posted on: August 5, 2007 - 9:49pm
Offline
Christians, please answer this simple question
What has Christianity contributed to the world, that is unique to Christianity, would have been impossible without Christianity, and has made the world a better place?
(Note: I'm asking about things on earth. Getting to go to heaven doesn't happen in this world.)
I'm probably not going to respond. I'll leave that to our members. I'm really just interested in collecting a list of answers.
Thanks.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Actually what most Christians believe about the Jesus character in the BuyBull is far from what's actually there:
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Oh Christos, thank you for the...the... elevation of my spirits. I love the way that young people believe that they will change the "human world" after it has been the same from the birth of civilization.
You must do as your ethic demands. I have gone to the third world and seen what it looks like. I have been on hunting trips in South Africa/Lesotho and gone to the gem/human bazaars of Mauritania. I have seen the filth of the Ganges and smelled the corpses there. You will be as the gnat pissing into the sea. Will you also shout, "Every little bit helps"?
I know this is off topic, but the moral sanctimony of the comment was absolutely delicious, almost divine. I will feast on it for days.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Yes.
"Those who are rationale try to fit themselves into their environment. Those who are irrationale try to fit their environments to themselves. Therefore, all change comes from the irrationale."
..I don't know what to say about the easy dismissal for the claim "every little bit helps."
Fair enough. However, what I was actually thinking about when I made this comment was the Bible/Christian dogma and not actual Christians in general. After all, it was men who wrote the bible and women certainly play a secondary role. I should have made that clarification.
As a general rule, I try not to make generalizations about groups of people, since I consider everyone to be an idividual. However, I'm sure I do my fair share of generalizing.
I also don't think my comment was condescending in the least. Most (not all) religious dogma does not look favorably upon those who live outside of it.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
It speaks for itself, lad. Every little bit does not mean a damn thing. Mother Theresa worked for the suffering of the poor, and what do we have from her pissing in the sea? More children that will starve! Well, Thanks be unto God that she was there to assure their existence!
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
Who is Mother Theresa? Just a person. If she failed in affecting great change, so be it.
Those who do great things do not always set out to do great things even as those who do small things don't always set out to do small things.
That's why.. its a good thing to have a philosphy of mere "to help." Whether small or large. No way to know what affect your "little thing" will have in the course of human history..
The problem with this statement:
Is that it assumes the conclusion before the conclusion has been set. It begs the question.
If it is "little," then, by definition, it would seem to be of "small significance"-- yet, how can you conclude this before the action is done? More specifically, how can use it as some generally applicable philosphy?
If you meant to be merely tautological.. so be it.. but I took exception if, by chance, you did not mean to be.
And, I feel as if you did not mean to be.. because it SEEMED that you were meaning to belittle the significance of someone's help , or attempt to help, by suggesting it was "little."
Fair enough.
No, I despise tautologies. Time will prove a better pedagogue than I. If you put forth anyone who has attempted to serve man, you will find their efforts lacking on the micro and macro levels. Your little bit is of no value. The expanse of humanity is in its natural, wretched state. Neither you nor young Christos can stop that.
Feel free to take exception. I have seen too much of this pitiable, wonderous world to give much concern over the consternation of one man.
"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer
I do feel free to take exception. That is why I did.
Sounds very Ecclesiastes-ical.
def. relating to the book of ecclesiastes, not a mispelling of ecclesiastical.
Preservation, reconstruction and safeguarding of literature and science texts by western monks following the fall of the Empire.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
I would like to chime in on one little point here.
I cant speak for science and culture. But as far as art goes, I'm not sure christianity really helped the arts along. Most post-roman western art was only church authorized, meaning you had to get a patron usually through the church to do church sponsored art work. Creativity and new techniques really weren't persued (with some exception, the most notably being development of perspective and chiaroscuro.)
By the 16th and 17th century, most art considered real art was done by academy artists following a rigid set of rules. It wasn't until you get impressionism in the 18th and 19th centuries that that breaks down.
There were probably great artistic genuises that we've never heard of because they didn't have the church patrons that Michaelangelo and the like had.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
And today there are likely artists of great genius living anonymously because they are not commercially viable and are unable to navigate te complexities of the contemporary art world.
My Artwork
Why is a question like this so polemic? Could it be the christians cannot come up with a worthy answer? Why is anyone and everyone with a theist badge (deist, pantheist...etc.) offended when the request was for one thing UNIQUE that came from CHRISTIANITY?
It seems like an honest question by Hamby and everyone but the christians seem to be answering. If christianity is truly unique, as is claimed in many churches every Sunday, the uniqueness should be evident to the believers.
Let's get this thread back on the original topic, I want to hear some answers to the OP regarding CHRISTIANITY!!
True enough, but today I dont have to go to my local church to get a grant for an art project. (Which is probably a good thing, as I dont think they'd appreciate my work much.)
And there are a lot of oppurtunities available for non commercial artists or less famous artists. Small galleries are always looking for unknowns and small time artists.
I could go more in depth, but I dont want to derail the topic. My original idea still stands that art is more varied without church patronage.
I still contend the question is illy constructed.
Until someone gives me a reason why this is not a valid argument, I will continue to state that.
The "unique" contribution that Christianity gives is a philosophy upon which some can base "peace" in one's lifetime, "purpose" in one's acts, and "principal" one's relationships.
I just wanted to go with the three p's.
I quote myself.. again:
Who's offended? Not me.
Hamby dissallowed "heavenly" consequences. That destroys the core of Christianity and creates a question that is really a useless excercise. Unless some Christian walks on water or some such thing, there is nothing they can do that is really unique. Server the poor? Atheists can do that. Spit in a barrel? Jump off a cliff? There is nothing unique. It is the heavenly aspects of Chritianity that define it not the actions of individuals in this world. Their actions are motivated by the heavenly. But nothing prevent the same actions via different motivations.
The question seems like asking me to explain chemistry without invoking atoms.
My Artwork
This seems like a dodge, maybe I am misinterpreting.
This is not unique in any way to christianity. All of these things can be found elsewhere, and sometimes more so.
I think that is general sense of the question, something earthly that could not be accomplished or achieved in any other manner. Something christianity claims to have solely to itself and it's believers.
I think you are conflating Hamby's question with a conclusion he has not stated he is trying to achieve. All he is doing now is asking a question, you are making an argument against a conclusion he has not stated.
I think he is using the definition:
u·nique (y
-n
k
)adj.
1. Being the only one of its kind: the unique existing example of Donne's handwriting.2. Without an equal or equivalent; unparalleled. I am not going to get into ontology on this. Take the definition as the OP intended it, something christianity SOLELY offers. He is asking a question of CHRISTIANITY solely and not of all religion, the rest of your argument referred to 'religion' and I am not going to address that. He asked a question to which not one christian has even responded to yet, rather we are arguing about a conclusion he has not made and whether 'unique' can mean 'faster'. Just answer the OP, name one thing worldly that CHRISTIANITY has offered it's followers that is unique and could not be achieved in another manner. Your three P's are not valid, they are not unique.So I still stick with my original position.
If we are using the definition you gave.. then what does it prove or establish? We still keep lots of things around which do not give "unique" benefits.. more so.. we find them "beneficial."
If we use the other definition.. then it becomes to difficult to prove anything (approx.).
You are conflating the question with a conclusion he has not stated. You are creating your own conclusion, all he asked was your first point, is there anything unique. You filled in two and three yourself, he did not state an argument as such. You think you know where he is going with the question and have felt the need to rebut a statement he has not made.
See
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/9226
You're right. He didn't make the statement in this thread.. he made it in another thread contemporaneous to this one. I'm assuming that when said "link to a post" he was meaning this thread.
Hey.. I could be wrong. However.
If this is not the conclusion he is trying to make then I have no problems conceeding that objectively speaking Christianity, religion for that matter, has not contributed anything unique to society especially if we're considering "unique" in the sense that it could not have been hypothetically contributed through some other means.
Even as cars, airplanes, proton laser theorapy, democracy, republics, concrete, asphalt........(mumbles off)
Not only are you arguing against an argument Hamby has not made, as has been pointed out, but even if he was making this argument (which I imagine he isn't as this argument is not an argument against Christianity, but is an argument against theism in general) you are arguing against a strawman of the position one who was actually making this argument normally takes.
I don't think people normally making this argument are arguing for what should be "allowed". The argument merely points to why many think it a worthwhile pursuit to engage in discussions with the intent of employing reasoned argumentation to eradicate dangerous theistic beliefs. If I thought there was an alternative for an automobile that could provide one with what they needed, say getting to work twenty miles from their home each day, and did so in a manner that removed the dangerous nature of driving an automobile I would certainly attempt to discourage the use of automobiles. I would likely do so by pointing out that the automobile was offering no unique benefit that could possibly be worth the danger inherent in its use. If I could even further show that there was no evidence that the person even had a job that they actually needed to get to, well, driving that damn dangerous car is starting to look awfully silly.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Biking 20 miles to work wouldn't be so bad if everyone did it.. and, it would have the added benefit of adding in peoples health.
As for.. arguing something Hammy never stated.
My inference was based off objective facts.. I still believe that what I have stated accurately demonstrates what Hammy was suggesting. As I showed in the post before your last one.
But I conceeded points.
If you want added reason for the position I was/am taking. Here are Hammy's own words, in this thread, in response to the very post you guys are now responding to:
That is not the conclusion I am trying to make.
Highly qualified answer accepted.
Can we move on?
ANY CHRISTIANS??? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
(Rhad, I realize that you can find other posts where I make follow up arguments that could be based on this question. My opinion of Christianity is hardly a secret. I really am just interested in the answer to this question, and I am not trying to trick anyone into saying yes or no so I can say, "Gotcha!" I just want to know if any Christians actually think their religion is unique in any earthly ways.)
So far, I'm not thrilled with the turnout of Christians, but who knows...
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Thanks.
That's fine that you want an answer-- I, however, still find the question to as "why this question is relevant?" still is an interesting one to ask.
BTW, you reformulated your question in this post. "Christianity is unique in any earthly way" is not the same as "unique contribution."
Christianity is unique because it has 1.6 billion followers.
Or.. because of it's central figure. Idea of a trinity.
As for contribution. Hmm.. a unique contribution.. nope.. still don't got one that can't be responded to with the assertion:
"X has that." or "That could've easily come about through X." or "In fact, Christianity slowed down that, it would have been much better without X."
One unique contribution of Christianity are the countless cathedrals strewn across Europe. They make for nice eye candy.
(Hammy, you're not suppose to be here anymore. You've given up on this thread already. Be gone. I was having fun speaking for you.) :P
Honestly Hamby, why don't you read a book about Christian history to find out what its contributed. Or read a book about Christian experience to see the change it can make in a person. You aren't going to get the answers you want on this forum.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
Why don't you stop assuming things about me? You think I don't know about Christian history? It's impossible for you to imagine that I have studied history and come to a vastly different conclusion than you?
You think I haven't read Christian "testimony" books?
Seriously, Christos, you have now made two completely wrong, and pretty damned insulting assumptions about me. How about you stop doing that, ok?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Rhad, you're splitting hairs because you don't like my question. I'm sorry you don't like it, but you know what I'm asking.
And there are 24 people in Wyoming who believe the world is flat and 24,000 below the Mason Dixon line who think the Civil War never ended. Stop being obtuse.
This is not a unique concept. The cult of Mythras had a two in one deity.
And you know this isn't even relevant to my question. You're deflecting.
Rhad, it's ok. you've answered. I accept your highly qualified answer, which was exactly suited to the question I asked. You don't need to keep demonstrating that you don't approve of the question. I know. We all know.
PFFFFFTTTTTTTHHHHHHHH!!!
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
But being obtuse is what I do.
Heh. Sorry. Yesyes. I will leave this thread alone. A thousand apologies.
It seems as though my comment was overlooked:
If I thought that people biking long distances to work was a reasonable alternative to driving their cars then I would certainly attempt to persuade people to employ this means of transportation, for more reasons than because automobiles have more inherent danger. I am sure you understand why many would not find this other method of travel sufficient however, and I tend to agree with them in most situations.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
jmm, I didn't overlook your comment. Sorry.
I'm not really thinking of debating your point, although I don't agree with it, nor do I think it answers my question.
I asked for things that Christianity has done. Establishing Jesus' historicity and, subsequently, the accuracy of the acts and words he allegedly did and said, are beyond the scope of this question. I want to know what the religion specifically has contributed. In other words, what have the teachings of Christianity made possible that could not have been possible but for the uniqueness of the Christian theology?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'm not looking into starting a "historicity of Jesus" debate, as an entire thread already exists for those types of discussions. Whether or not Jesus actually existed, nor whether or not the original manuscripts of the gospels are accurate has nothing to do with the fact that the gospels have been around for ~1900 years in some form or fashion, so therefore the "alleged" teachings of Christ had an impact on the world a long, long time ago whether he actually existed or not, or whether the texts were corrupt or not. If you for whatever reason do not consider the gospels to be the cornerstone of Christianity as well as Christian theology, then I don't know what else to say to you.
If you're just going to tweak the question when a Christian gives you a good answer when you weren't expecting one, then what's the point?
Just to get things straight, now the question is: "What has Christian theology uniquely contributed to the world?" I want to know if this is the question now before I waste my time on another response.
Original Question:
Christianity didn't exist until after Paul. Paul lived after Jesus. (assuming Jesus' historicity) Therefore, anything Jesus did wasn't done by Christianity. See?
I'm not changing my question. You theists are the ones avoiding the answer and trying to find a way to answer it without addressing what I clearly mean.
If the answer is "nothing" just say "nothing." I promise there's no "gotcha!" at the end of this.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yeah, I think this is where this question is going to run into problems. Just by nature of the fact that Christianity has been around for so long and that it has many followers it is going to have had effects on society. Whether those effects are good or bad, whether they are unique or not, whether they would have come about anyway, are merely extensions of already existing ideas or are completely original, it is all too subjective. I would contend that no matter if Christianity, or theism in general, has benefited mankind in the past or not, that it no longer does in any way that is worthy of accepting its inherent risk or that justifies holding to a flawed understanding of the nature of reality (as this is a risky endeavor as well) when we have the knowledge and the ability to form relevant, applicable moral understandings from secular understandings of the nature of societies and their parts. Of course, that is straying from the OP.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
This makes no sense to me. How can you ask about what Christianity may or may not contribute without taking the whole package? It is the theology that defines Christianity. Without the theology you don't have Christianity. The core of Christianity is not about things in this world, but about things in the next life. Anything done by a Christian in this life, even if duplicatable by an atheist, only has meaning in the context of the afterlife. If you are not a Christian, then that meaing is void.
My Artwork
Yeah. It's way off course. Thanks, rhad!
(Yes, Rhad. I'm blaming it on you. You're convenient that way.)
I'm not trying to make a conclusion like this. I'm not interested in anyone's subjective opinion of whether or not Christianity on the whole has been good, bad, or neutral.
I'm interested in the objective facts:
Either there is something unique about Christianity's contributions, or there is not.
This is a yes or no question. Yes answers require a documented example.
It's that simple.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
WAVE!!!!
Stop it!
I promise, if you want to talk about this, we can make a whole new thread and talk about it.
I have every right to ask this question, whether you approve of it or not. It is a valid question with a real answer. Whether you think the question is relevant to any argument and/or conclusion you're reading into my question -- that's for you to ponder for the time being.
This is a very, very simple question.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Gah!
I truly don't understand the question. I can usually form a response from a Christian perspective but I can't wrap my brain around this one.
My Artwork
This thread has turned into dadaism. To separate Christ from Christianity is...well...there's just no way to adequately respond to that, hamby, because it's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. You keep tweaking and tweaking, adding caveat after caveat, then you blame us, the theists, for not being able to understand your post-modern collage of a question.
Of course Pauline Christianity has done nothing unique for the physical world. Hasn't done a whole hell of a lot for the kingdom of God for that matter. Have the criteria been adequately parsed down to suit you? Is this answer adequate, or will there be another round of modifications? Christian theology between Paul and Augustine, but only with theologians who were born on a leap year and whose middle names begin with Q, perhaps?
If you're ok with me shortening Pauline Christianity to "Christianity." I mean, seriously... was there Christianity before Paul? Are you suggesting that all the denominations commonly accepted as "Christian" aren't based on the New Testament -- the story of Jesus, and then the story of the establishment of Christianity, by Paul, after Jesus supposedly lived?
This is such a simple question. Why is everyone making such a big deal out of it?
So, jmm. I've got you down for "nothing" as the answer to the question.
Thank you.
(I ought to have been a dentist, as many teeth as I'm having to pull.)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
So, Hambydammit, DDS how goes the afternoon extractions? I see you have had to re-state the question again. LOL
Yeah, it's like... I have to define "is."
(What amazes me about this is that even after my solemn promise that there's not a hidden agenda, and that I am not planning a rebuttal based on this answer, I'm still having to defend literally every word in the question... and they knew what I meant the first time.)
Why is this question so scary?
(That's rhetorical. Please, please, please, nobody answer that. I'm having a hard enough time getting a few simple answers to my simple question.)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
It's a simple question in the sense that Kent Hovind's challenge to prove evolution is a simple challenge.
I'd get mad at you if this wasn't so ludicrous.
It's hard for me to be mad when i'm laughing. I can't help it.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Okay..... you have presented a flawed analogy.
Kent Hovind's challenge is completely impossible according to everything we know about biology today. It is a ludicrous challenge and just plain asinine.
Hamby's question on the other hand is none of these things. Every Sunday in churches around the world christians are told they are unique and their religion is unique, therefore Hamby's question is very valid.
Hovind's Challenge = Absurd
Hamby's Challenge = Plausible
I disagree. Allow me to rephrase it. Hamby's challange is simple in the same sense that Hovind's is (namely, that it isn't). Hamby's challenge is worded in a very weaselly way, which I already pointed out.
Hamby's question is the very definition of asinine. It's impossible to answer, because he has worded it as such. I'm guessing that he's perfectly aware of that. So let's examine the situation: Hamby is presenting a question, with complete knowledge that said question is impossible to answer, and demanding an answer to it, all the while playing dumb to the fact that the question cannot be answered as it is worded. How exactly is that (the aforementioned situation) different from what Hovind has done?
I disagree (with the second assertion, not the first).
This thread is both funny and fascinating. I have no doubt that the question makes perfect sense to hamby. This is, for me at least, a classic example of the disconnect between theistic and athistic points of view. We are all smart people but we can't find the common language to resolve what appears to be a simple question.
I say, lets have a beer, or glass of wine or whatever and enjoy the buzz.
My Artwork
Sure Sure Hammy. Blame the Theist.
As a good quote from a bad movie once said..
It doesn't really matter what you say.. it matters what you do, that's all that matters.
Well at least give me some novocaine, because it HURTS.