Is Christianity standing in the way of progress?

Exactly. It makes the place more interesting, I think.

It's no surprise that Giuseppe Garibaldi, before leading his soldiers to begin the process of Italian unification, worked in a Deli in Staten Island.

The city has people of very color, religious movements of virtually every God, political radicals and arachists, reactionaries and fanatics. Plenty of assholes but some nice folks too. When those fucking bastards flew those planes into the Twin Towers, it might have been a symbolic blow against capitalism, but it was also a shot against social harmony.

Oh well.

Back to religion- you can't really say that religion has helped us become more moral because the institutions have often worked at cross purposes.

Take for instance international law. Today we have a notion of human rights law that owes itself, to some regard, to the ecclesiastical courts but more to the willingness of some teachers from Spanish universities to criticize the government and the conquistadors for their treatment of native americans in the New World. Our notion of human rights can be attributed to historical notions of natural law, which originally was derived from the notion of God.

But at the same time the notions of Just War are also born of Catholic doctrine- the fear of barbarian invasion meant that the Catholics needed a "war" doctrine with which to unify and fight enemies. Yet this also justified crusades against "less civilized" people, opening the door for religious justification for warfare.

The notions of suffering as good for the soul and the notion of "divine right" theory were both used to justify the long-standing practice of repression and authoritarianism, only challenged after the notions of Christian doctrine where challenged by Enlightenment scholars.

For those interested in the violence of the major faiths- check out=

THe Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam a four volume set.
 
bob_the_rambler said:
never said i wanted conforminty, but i find it interesting to tell the commie side to see your reaction.

Commie side? What the fuck are you talking about?

What, do you think I worked as a corporate lawyer for three years because I believe in communism?

Anytime someone says "social class" everyone starts saying commie! Please. Marx was picking up on a lot of the ideas of Adam Smith and Max Weber used class as a meaningful concept for sociological analysis.

In the US we have class issues too, but we don't talk about them. Instead we see the divisions in terms of race. But as Ancient Oldie pointed out, the poor white guy is as fucked as the poor black.

Just because a person talks in the language of social classes doesn't make the person a communist, and just because the communist states fell doesn't mean that Marx was totally wrong either.

That said, the commies were some of the worse ideological motherfuckers of them all. They gave up religion and picked up Marx, but the idea of a worker's paradise in which there was no bourgeousie and all got what they needed and all did what they could, was their own notion of heaven. Both the Christians and the Commies preach a deterministic teleological end point. Both will, in the end, reach the correct end- it's just a matter of time.

In my book, there's not that much difference between a Christian zealot and a commie zealot- both are mindless drones.
 
Bob- people will always try to put you in a box that they can understand.

Bullshit. People aren't that simple. ANd there is no reason why you, as an individual, free thinking dude, need to be placed in a box.

So fuck that conformity crap. Really. If you were to say, "Welsh, you are one Liberal motherfucker." I'd say, yes, that's probably right.

When I was 14 I was more conservative. But the more you add up the numbers the more it looks like being conservative makes it that more easy for the man to fuck you in the ass.

People out there are bitching that the liberals have fucked up the country. Bullshit. If it weren't for the liberals we'd still back in the 50s if not worse, maybe back in the 1920s.

If you study law and legal history you can tell the tenor of a country (or at least those in charge) by the types of laws that were being passed. It's not a suprise that many of the laws that were passed that improved the lives of the average working Joe were passed when liberals were in office. Look at some of the stuff that was passed when conservative ran the country and it gets scary. We take for granted a lot of liberties and freedoms that we have today. We often forget that democracy is a pretty fragile thing, and that it's based on some principles- including the notions of equality and freedom to pursue one's pursuit of happiness as they please. You can say that there have been times when the liberals have constrained that freedom, and you're right. But without the liberals a lot of those freedoms wouldn't exist at all.
 
That said, the commies were some of the worse ideological motherfuckers of them all.
I strongly disagree here, welsh. I'm certainly not supporting Stalinism (which is simply based on terror) or the more authoritarian forms of communism, but I do support the communist ideal. It is, indeed, a form of heaven on earth, but it is, more accurately, the ultimate form of equality. Everyone reaps the same benefits and everyone pays the same costs, but, sadly, this has some nasty side-effects.
Before I start with those, though, the elimination of religion is NOT a requirement of communism, Lenin, in fact, never actually eradicated or wanted to completely eradicate relgiion. He discouraged it. Stalin is completely different, but Stalin wasn't about communism: he was about power.
The nasty side-effects are legion, and they are, in fact, too legion for me to name them all here. So I won't. I'll leave you to think of them.

And bob, you should really stop making silly statements and actually come with arguments or something to support those statements.
 
welsh said:
In the US we have class issues too, but we don't talk about them. Instead we see the divisions in terms of race. But as Ancient Oldie pointed out, the poor white guy is as fucked as the poor black.

I have to in some way diasagree here, The poor white guy in a way is MORE fucked over than the poor black guy.

Because the US labels blacks as a minority the poor black guy is eligable for greater aid and more scholorships than the poor white guy.

All in an effort to be PC and "help the minorities", Nevermind that white people, men especially ARE the minority in the US.

Just seems fucked up to me.
 
Ellisar said:
Nevermind that white people, men especially ARE the minority in the US.
Dude, I thought you weren't allowed to smoke crack in the army. Where the hell did you pick this up?
 
i dont know what US laws are, but it seems that there are a lot of laws there that a pro-woman.
 
Is christianity standing in the way of progress? Hell yes! Show me one religion that doesn't and I will run/swim all the way to your front door and shoot myself!
 
Just remember, the Christian Moral Code was the basis for the Western Moral Code. Anyway, it depends on what field youre talking about on whether they hamper progress. In many ways theyve helped, while in others theyve hindered. It's not a one sided issue here.

I also wouldn't say that religion is the cause of wars. Sure, people use religions as EXCUSES to start wars, but even if there were no religions people wouldv'e started something.
 
Gruug. Christianity is not standing in the way of progress, all the time. And neither is any ohter religion. And in today's world, there are many religions. Hell, I can make one up right now if needed be. And I can gaurentee there is at least on religion out there that absolutely supports progress, no matter how "cruel"
 
Sander- you are being silly. The hard core communist is in many ways as commited to that ideological vision as the hard core Christian. It's over determinism and teleological conclusions almost overcomes the demands for falsificiation. It becomes an ideology that I think most communists don't fully understand. That makes it awfully Christian.

As for religion and progress. I won't dispute that Christian theology helped form our current basis of Western morality. Whether that has been a good thing or not is debatable. Yes, many wars might have been launched ostensibly on religious reasons, while hiding the more realistic reason. But one shouldn't discount that religion might have had a larger role in it.

That said, when you have an organization like the Chrisitan Right that is protesting and lobbying about stem cell research or funding a particle collider or campaign against teaching evolution, it sounds awfully reminescent of when the Catholic Church would repress scientists like Galleo for their pursuit of science.

The Christian Right, or Christian Coalition, or the Catholic Church are very powerful lobby groups. They can stop or frustrate the government's support of science. That science is often the research and development needed to start the product cycle rolling.

By curtailing that funding, you are preventing economic expansion but you are also holding back scientific progress. And why? Because religion feels threatened by science?

There are some who believe that science and religion are not inherent in opposition, but historically that has been the divide.

The reasons and consequences are not just conceptual or ethical, but also economic and political.
 
Merely talking about religion can hinder progress, if you think about it. Not that I don't condone not talking about religion, but for the sake of my argument here goes:
You all spent quite a bit of time writing up some of those replies right? There may be a scientist among us, who in the time it took to work on one of the big replies, could of started on the track to the cancer treatmeant.
Think about it.
 
Sander- you are being silly. The hard core communist is in many ways as commited to that ideological vision as the hard core Christian. It's over determinism and teleological conclusions almost overcomes the demands for falsificiation. It becomes an ideology that I think most communists don't fully understand. That makes it awfully Christian.
That's not what I was saying, welsh. I was saying that condemning simply all communists was being silly, since that was what I saw in your posts. I know that the hard core communists can be just as bad as the hard core Christians.
I also wouldn't say that religion is the cause of wars. Sure, people use religions as EXCUSES to start wars, but even if there were no religions people wouldv'e started something.
Well, first of all, you're saying that it doesn't matter that Hitler was there, there would've been a war anyway. That doesn't make him any better, nor does it mean that his existence didn't matter.
Secondly, you're stating a half truth, and one that has been repeated several times in this and other threads. Religion is generally an excuse for a war, yes, but it does have the power to rally more people behind it's flag, and it can start wars, at times. Although this is certainly rare.
You all spent quite a bit of time writing up some of those replies right? There may be a scientist among us, who in the time it took to work on one of the big replies, could of started on the track to the cancer treatmeant.
Think about it.
...
What? Okay, why did you play Fallout, then?
 
"Well, first of all, you're saying that it doesn't matter that Hitler was there, there would've been a war anyway. That doesn't make him any better, nor does it mean that his existence didn't matter.
Secondly, you're stating a half truth, and one that has been repeated several times in this and other threads. Religion is generally an excuse for a war, yes, but it does have the power to rally more people behind it's flag, and it can start wars, at times. Although this is certainly rare. "

So countries should be abolished because fighting for a country is a powerful rallying cry to war? or fighting for ones ideas? Hitler isn't a religion.
 
I think what Sander is saying is that, the conditions in Europe were such that war in Europe was probable, even without Hitler.

I tend to agree on this point. We tend to put the blame on Hitler's shoulder's and that fucker deserves it. But chances are, even without a Hitler, they probably would have gone to war based on the balance of power in Europe at the time.

As for religion being a rallying cry- yes, historically religion has been a basis by which communities identify themselves. Currently you can divide the Israeli-Palestinian issue better on religion than on race (especially since there are many Arab Jews and Palestinian Christians). Go East and the conflicts between Pakistan and India have a religious dimension. Back to World War 2, both sides used the notion that "God is on our side" to rally the force.

You see a bit of that today in the US as well.

But the question is not whether countries shoud be abolished. Some countries shoud be abolished. When you speak of country you really mean National-state, and national states have only be around, in their formative stage, for a few hundred years. The modern national state has probably only really existed since the industrial revolution which changed the nature of national political economies away from in-direct rule to more direct rule through the development of complex state administrative agencies.

For example, the use of merit based examinations for bureaucrats (while done in Asia for a long time) generally followed industrialization.

That said, the national state became what it was because it basically destroyed other forms of politics. In the past people rallied around the city-state (Athens rules, Sparta sucks) over empires (Rome is the light of civilization), over causes (Workers of the World Unite!), over other polities (the Hanseatic League, the clan, the horde, etc).

But these causes were mostly constructed ideas given power by individuals for reasons of power. There is no reason to see people as members as a "nation" except the idea that we are all one group.

Hitler wasn't an idea, but a man who used notions of mercantilism, autoarchy, anti-semitism, anti-communism, but mostly Facism, to build a power base.

So you can think of Hitler as a man, but you can also think of him as an idea (Der Fuhrer!)

What you chose to fight for is something you have to decide on your own. What do you value and what don't you. But often we do fight for on on behalf of ideas.
 
So countries should be abolished because fighting for a country is a powerful rallying cry to war? or fighting for ones ideas? Hitler isn't a religion.
Ehh....que? What the hell are you talking about? In case you hadn't noticed, I WAS NOT ARGUING THAT RELIGIONS SHOULD BE ABOLISHED! Therefore your conclusion does not make sense.

For clarification, I was saying that not putting any blame on the shoulders of a religion because people would've fought anyway, is the same as not putting any blame on Hitler's shoulders because people would've fought anyway. People may have fought anyway, but that does not make the religion nor Hitler free of guilt.
 
Personally......

I see all religeons as something that gets in the way of progression.........

I am Athiest (obviously) but i respect everyone and everything.......and im sorry but you cant call a bunch of cells a 'independant'........its not.......it doesnt have anything.......

Hell if you feel so strongly about that dont go to hospital for modern drugs as ALL modern drugs are tested on animals........ I personally would think people can say this and destroy the scientific community yet they are also the ones who complain when the NHS waiting lists are too high.....or when a loved one dies in a complicated procedure which could have been solved through some medical advancment which they helpped to stop.......

INFACT........if you feel that strongly.......go live in a cave and eat berries........ Becuase buying food in a supermarket would be unfair to the third-world children who are starving..........

Yes we can all rant about how great this 'God' is.........but the morals are all over the place......
 
Back
Top