What has Christianity truly contributed to humanity

[Mister Agenda]

Mate is an expression, you Militant Atheist. I don't consider you a friend either, because only a genuine well-wisher is a friend, and you're not. You're a lying slanderer in calling me a pedophile enabler after I condemned it and I couldmore truly call you a Genocide-Enabler because you refused to condemn the ongoing Genocide and Persecution of 360 Million Christians that affects many of us Christians including Christians in India where I live.

Speaking only for myself, if someone was not a pedophile but was a member of NAMBLA, I would be justifed in calling them a pedophile enabler. Large organizations respond to only one thing quickly: members leaving in droves. I'm not saying you should stop being Catholic, I'm saying you should stop supporting the RCC until it reforms and becomes transparent in how it handles child abuse by clergy. There's always Independent Catholicism to turn to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independen...ich%20they

No one should be persecuted or oppressed for the religion they belong to (or for not belonging to any), that's Humanism 101.

[Mister Agenda]

If you read the below and seriously think the man who said this wasn't a Christian, you're hopelessly lost.

""Whereas the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God in all the affairs of men and of nations, has by a resolution requested the President to designate and set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation; and

Whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord;"

No one here claimed Lincoln was not a Christian. You said he was a devout Christian, and as evidence you offer a ceremonial declaration he made while acting as president. If I said the same thing, would you think that proved I'm a devout Christian?

[Thumpalumpacus]

NX fails to mention that Pope Pius XII was both racist and antisemitic. He maintained secret communications with Adolf Hitler, remained utterly silent about the Holocaust. He praised the invasion of the USSR. Somehow Darwin's racism matters more, even though unlike the pope, he had no responsibility for moral leadership.

This is what is known as a double-standard.

This is why discussing religion with NX is utterly useless. On this topic he is a dishonest interlocutor.

There's also this:

The Reich Concordat granted Pacelli the right to impose the new Code of Canon Law on Catholics in Germany and promised a number of measures favorable to Catholic education, including new schools. In exchange, Pacelli collaborated in the withdrawal of Catholics from political and social activity. The negotiations were conducted in secret by Pacelli, Kaas, and Hitler’s deputy chancellor, Franz von Papen, over the heads of German bishops and the faithful. The Catholic Church in Germany had no say in setting the conditions. In the end, Hitler insisted that his signature on the concordat would depend on the Center Party’s voting for the Enabling Act, the legislation that was to give him dictatorial powers. It was Kaas, chairman of the party but completely in thrall to Pacelli, who bullied the delegates into acceptance. Next, Hitler insisted on the “voluntary” disbanding of the Center Party, the last truly parliamentary force in Germany. Again, Pacelli was the prime mover in this tragic Catholic surrender. The fact that the party voluntarily disbanded itself, rather than go down fighting, had a profound psychological effect, depriving Germany of the last democratic focus of potential noncompliance and resistance. In the political vacuum created by its surrender, Catholics in the millions joined the Nazi Party, believing that it had the support of the Pope.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/1999/10...xii-199910

[Bolding added -- Thump]

[Mister Agenda]

Lying Idiot. I did not condemn it? You lack reading comprehension skill or are guilty of malicious defamation and slander, which is a mortal sin.

I said: "So since people keep bringing this up, let's have a separate thread to discuss this: (1) now, firstly, Catholic Christianity, the Catechism etc, condemns Child Abuse as a Grave Crime and Mortal Sin deserving both Eternal Hell-Fire in the next and civil punishment in this life; so that its clear that there's nothing in Christianity itself that can be blamed for the crime and sin of Child Abuse; (2) secondly, one should look at the relative stats in other fields, not only ministers in other denominations, but also Secular Professions, to see if the %ages of 1 are higher."

The issue isn't the percentages, the issue is how the RCC handles it. The RCC should be alerting the appropriate secular authorities whenever they discover a child abuser in their midst, without delay.

[Mister Agenda]

We keep hearing, from Christians mainly, that Christianity has been, for the most part, a positive force in the world.

I dispute that, and would be happy to have anyone post anything good that Christianity has contributed to humanity or the world in general.

Of course, anyone can feel free to dispute, debate, or otherwise shut down any claims.

Also, feel free to list anything that Christianity has done to damage the planet or humanity.

This thread is open to all varieties of Christianity, from Catholics to Mormons to Johos.

And...


GO!

There are a lot of things to be frustrated about when it comes to the bad stuff Christianity has brought to the world, but if we're suggesting Christianity over the past couple millennia didn't bring anything positive to the world, then that frankly comes off as an incredibly biased thing to suggest.

Besides the literature, art and music and hospitals it has inspired, individual people themselves have changed for the better because of it. And there are some nice morals and philosophies to find in Christian works.

One might say the devil is in the details, and that ultimately nothing good has come out of Christianity perse, but then one might as well say Christianity doesn't do anything at all in this world, good or bad.

So maybe after this bit of rambling, I should now ask: What is Christianity exactly? And what counts as contributing to humanity/world? If the contribution itself is not original, is it still a contribution? Must we filter out all other influencing factors before we can say Christianity has contributed anything?

I think it's more that if there hadn't been Christianity, would whatever took its place have accomplished the same things people often credit to Christianity? It's not like countries where Chrisitanity never gained a toehold don't have art and music and hospitals and charities. Buddhists can offer plenty of stories of how Buddhism has changed individual people's lives for the better.

But we could have had something worse or better or about the same. It's unknowable; but that doesn't add up to 'oh my goodness, the West would be a dystopia if not for Christianity!'.

[Mister Agenda]

Your point refuted with one name: John Newton.

Your point refuted with one name: Tomas de Torquemada. But if your defense of Christianity is based on tallying up the heroes and villains, it's going to be a long list on both sides.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yup, unfortunately there is. Such men are sinners and will be judged by God as the sinners they were. So was that Terrorist Thug "General" Dyer and those he killed in the Jalianwala Bagh Massacre, because he refused to acknowledge Indians have the same inalienable human rights as the Britishers do, in our own Country at that. 

"The massacre caused a re-evaluation by the British Army of its military role against civilians to "minimal force whenever possible", although later British actions during the Mau Mau rebellion in the Kenya Colony have led historian Huw Bennett to comment that the new policy could sometimes be put aside.[9] The army was retrained and developed less violent tactics for crowd control.[10] The level of casual brutality, and lack of any accountability, stunned the entire nation,[11] resulting in a wrenching loss of faith of the general Indian public in the intentions of the United Kingdom.[12] The attack was condemned by the Secretary of State for War, Winston Churchill, as "unutterably monstrous", and in the UK House of Commons debate on 8 July 1920 Members of Parliament voted 247 to 37 against Dyer. The ineffective inquiry, together with the initial accolades for Dyer, fuelled great widespread anger against the British among the Indian populace, leading to the non-cooperation movement of 1920–22.[13] Some historians consider the episode a decisive step towards the end of British rule in India.[14][15] ...

Rabindranath Tagore received the news of the massacre by 22 May 1919. He tried to arrange a protest meeting in Calcutta and finally decided to renounce his British knighthood as "a symbolic act of protest".[68] In the repudiation letter, dated 31 May 1919 and addressed to the Viceroy of India, Lord Chelmsford, he wrote "I ... wish to stand, shorn, of all special distinctions, by the side of those of my countrymen who, for their so called insignificance, are liable to suffer degradation not fit for human beings."[69]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

Now, one of the good things earlier British Christian Missionaries - unlike Thugs like Dyer - did, and in this they were following Jesus Christ and practicing Universal Love, was the Abolition of Sati and Education against this misguided practice, which ultimately benefited Indian Women. William Carey and William Wilberforce were examples of those who did this and who put pressure on the East India Company to do it.

"The first official British response to sati was in 1680 when the Agent of Madras Streynsham Master intervened and prohibited the burning of a Hindu widow [102][103] in Madras Presidency. Attempts to limit or ban the practice had been made by individual British officers, but without the backing of the East India Company. This is because it followed a policy of non-interference in Hindu religious affairs and there was no legislation or ban against Sati.[104] The first formal British ban was imposed in 1798, in the city of Calcutta only. The practice continued in surrounding regions. In the beginning of the 19th century, the evangelical church in Britain, and its members in India, started campaigns against sati. This activism came about during a period when British missionaries in India began focusing on promoting and establishing Christian educational systems as a distinctive contribution of theirs to the missionary enterprise as a whole.[105] Leaders of these campaigns included William Carey and William Wilberforce. These movements put pressure on the company to ban the act. William Carey, and the other missionaries at Serampore conducted in 1803–04 a census on cases of sati for a region within a 30-mile radius of Calcutta, finding more than 300 such cases there.[91] The missionaries also approached Hindu theologians, who opined that the practice was encouraged, rather than enjoined by the Hindu scriptures.[106][107]"

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)

I'm thoroughly astonished that you are so quick to defend the centuries long brutalization of your country by Christians, a social, political and economic rapine that was ended by non-Christians.

 Have you no shame?

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

"Well, I'm just thinking of the Bad Old Days, before people started saying that everyone has [or should have] equal rights. 

Like in Ancient Greece or Rome, it was just assumed that a person who is athletic, good-looking, rich, speaks well, reasons well, and has leadership abilities in politics and war, is just a superior person and ought to have more power and privilege. The thought that someone who is the opposite of all these things should somehow have equality would have seemed unnatural back then. 

You can say, "well, we just changed our minds," but that doesn't really explain to me why or when our values changed. Or whether our current thinking is somehow more "natural," or likely to endure."

Except for the being-against-infanticide part, I honestly don't believe people's current way of thinking IS natural, however I do think it is better. I honestly can't name when our views changed either, but I think our views started to change when wars became less necessary and humans started focusing more on intellectual matters rather than fighting and killing one another. Murder became less and less common, and more frowned upon.

Possibly when it became the norm for families to be able to feed every child.

[Nishant Xavier]

Respectfully disagree, Brian. Many Good Hindus, Muslims and Christians worked together in our Freedom Struggle once it became clear the British weren't doing good. That was mostly after Jallianwala Bagh. Before that, very many Indians supported the British, and not without reason, because they also did some good things for the Nation. I don't think you'd know that Raja Ram Mohan Roy, who was a Devout Hindu, applauded and supported the British government when they finally outlawed Sati - because he knew it was such a boon to Indian Women, all Indians, and the Indians of the Future, as in fact it was. So I don't think you understand the historical situation in India perfectly. As I said, if they had not done that atrocity at Jalianwala Bagh, after which they very quickly lost popular support, things may have turned out differently.

[Nishant Xavier]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)

---

Principal reformers and 1829 ban

Plaque of Last Legal Sati of Bengal, Scottish Church College, Kolkata
The principal campaigners against Sati were Christian and Hindu reformers such as William Carey and Ram Mohan Roy. In 1799 Carey, a Baptist missionary from England, first witnessed the burning of a widow on her husband's funeral pyre. Horrified by the practice, Carey and his coworkers Joshua Marshman and William Ward opposed sati from that point onward, lobbying for its abolishment. Known as the Serampore Trio, they published essays forcefully condemning the practice[20] and presented an address against Sati to then Governor General of India, Lord Wellesley.[111]

In 1812, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, founder of Brahmo Samaj, began to champion the cause of banning sati practice. He was motivated by the experience of seeing his own sister-in-law being forced to die by sati.[112] He visited Kolkata's cremation grounds to persuade widows against immolation, formed watch groups to do the same, sought the support of other elite Bengali classes, and wrote and disseminated articles to show that it was not required by Hindu scripture.[112] He was at loggerheads with Hindu groups which did not want the Government to interfere in religious practices.[113]

From 1815 to 1818 Sati deaths doubled. Ram Mohan Roy launched an attack on Sati that "aroused such anger that for awhile his life was in danger".[114] In 1821 he published a tract opposing Sati, and in 1823 the Serampore missionaries led by Carey published a book containing their earlier essays, of which the first three chapters opposed Sati. Another Christian missionary published a tract against Sati in 1927.

Sahajanand Swami, the founder of the Swaminarayan sect, preached against the practice of sati in his area of influence, that is Gujarat. He argued that the practice had no Vedic standing and only God could take a life he had given. He also opined that widows could lead lives that would eventually lead to salvation. Sir John Malcolm, the Governor of Bombay supported Sahajanand Swami in this endeavour.[115]

In 1828 Lord William Bentinck came to power as Governor of India. When he landed in Calcutta, he said that he felt "the dreadful responsibility hanging over his head in this world and the next, if... he was to consent to the continuance of this practice (sati) one moment longer."[116]

Bentinck decided to put an immediate end to Sati. Ram Mohan Roy warned Bentinck against abruptly ending Sati.[117] However, after observing that the judges in the courts were unanimously in favour of reform, Bentinck proceeded to lay the draft before his council.[118] Charles Metcalfe, the Governor's most prominent counselor expressed apprehension that the banning of Sati might be "used by the disaffected and designing" as "an engine to produce insurrection". However these concerns did not deter him from upholding the Governor's decision "in the suppression of the horrible custom by which so many lives are cruelly sacrificed."[119]

Thus on Sunday morning of 4 December 1829 Lord Bentinck issued Regulation XVII declaring Sati to be illegal and punishable in criminal courts. It was presented to William Carey for translation. His response is recorded as follows: "Springing to his feet and throwing off his black coat he cried, 'No church for me to-day... If I delay an hour to translate and publish this, many a widow's life may be sacrificed,' he said. By evening the task was finished."[120]

On 2 February 1830 this law was extended to Madras and Bombay.[121] The ban was challenged by a petition signed by "several thousand... Hindoo inhabitants of Bihar, Bengal, Orissa etc"[122] and the matter went to the Privy Council in London. Along with British supporters, Ram Mohan Roy presented counter-petitions to parliament in support of ending Sati. The Privy Council rejected the petition in 1832, and the ban on Sati was upheld.[123]

After the ban, Balochi priests in the Sindh region complained to the British Governor, Charles Napier about what they claimed was a meddlement in a sacred custom of their nation. Napier replied:

Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs!

Thereafter, the account goes, no suttee took place.[124]

---