How do Christians make the world...

Originally posted by Starrman
I've no idea, I'm not convinced the world could be a worse place through the absence of Christianity.

There are a lot of traits and actions attributed to Jesus which, if followed by everyone, would unquestionably make the world a better place. Let's be charitable like Jesus and assume that's what whodey means by "following Christ".

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
[b]Christian charities merely couple their charity work with doses of evangelism.

Doesn't this make them, all other things being equal, worse, since they could be seen to be putting people in need into "spiritual debt" by helping them?

The same goes for Islam, too.

And for most modern secular morality, almost all political ideologies and most basic human motivations.[/b]

Good points, stranger, although I wouldn't necessarily agree with the first as one must consider the type of message being spread to these people. If it is one of hellfire and brimstone then I would agree with you. If it is to promote goodwill and compassion in the spirit of jesus of nazareth's teachings, then I have no issue with that.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
There are a lot of traits and actions attributed to Jesus which, if followed by everyone, would unquestionably make the world a better place. Let's be charitable like Jesus and assume that's what whodey means by "following Christ".

No, firstly those attributes are not Christ's to claim and secondly no christian I know follows them anyway.

Originally posted by Starrman
No, firstly those attributes are not Christ's to claim and secondly no christian I know follows them anyway.

Careful what you say. Just because no Christian you know doesn't follow them, doesn't mean that there aren't many that do. You don't want to sound like that Epiphane jackass who talks the same way about atheists.

Originally posted by Starrman
No, firstly those attributes are not Christ's to claim and secondly no christian I know follows them anyway.

whodey didn't mention Christianity in his post. He talked of "following Jesus's example". To me, that simply means acting a certain way, and from a consequentialist point of view (ie, would the world be a better place?), it's immaterial whether someone acts charitably, say, or is unconcerned with material wealth, because Jesus did it or because of some other motivation.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
There are a lot of traits and actions attributed to Jesus which, if followed by everyone, would unquestionably make the world a better place. Let's be charitable like Jesus and assume that's what whodey means by "following Christ".

I think the point is that there need not be a Christ to live in harmony. Most
people tend to follow certain social guidelines even without Christ in their
lives. Think about all the peaceful, "primitive" societies that precede
Christians. Pueblo tribes immediately comes to mind.

Originally posted by stocken
I think the point is that there need not be a Christ to live in harmony. Most
people tend to follow certain social guidelines even without Christ in their
lives. Think about all the peaceful, "primitive" societies that precede
Christians. Pueblo tribes immediately comes to mind.

Absolutely true. All I'm saying is that, hypothetically, if everyone did emulate Jesus in certain ways (having nothing to do with gods or Christianity), the world would improve. The same goes for many other potential examples, eg the Buddha or many members of the societies you mention.

Is the world a better place because of the struggles of Martin Luther King, Jr.? Did his Christian beliefs not at least inform his decisions with regard to civil rights action? (This is the flip-side, I think, of Christians using the Bible to support slavery and segregation.) When rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched with King at Selma, his decision was absolutely informed by his religious beliefs.

Is the world a better place because of the struggles of Mahatma Gandhi? Did his Hindu beliefs not at least inform his decisions with regard to satyagraha?

Is the world a better place because of Archbishop Oscar Romero, whose religious beliefs seemed to compel him to a kind of “metanoia” experience which led to his speaking out against oppression in El Salvador?

Non-religious people who do things to make the world a better place are informed by other considerations—my best friend as a research physiologist in the area of cardio-vascular disease, for example.

Note that I have picked examples of individuals, not programs—although their work may have led to more programmatic activities.

The point—to me at least—is not whether Christians or non-Christians or anyone else does “the most” good. It is only that I don’t think we can really separate the motivational considerations from the choice. I suspect that Darv’s mother is so motivated in her missionary work—and not just the evangelism part.


EDIT: I think I'm making the same point as ChronicLeaky.

Originally posted by darvlay
Good points, stranger, although I wouldn't necessarily agree with the first as one must consider the type of message being spread to these people. If it is one of hellfire and brimstone then I would agree with you. If it is to promote goodwill and compassion in the spirit of jesus of nazareth's teachings, then I have no issue with that.

I'm not sure, stranger. I think it's better to feed a starving person than it is to feed them while telling them some things they should believe, no matter how good those things are, because starving people tend to feel a sense of indebtedness, or at least gratitude, toward those who feed them, and this colours their ability to consider objectively what the person who feeds them says. No matter how well-intended the message, missionaries steal the autonomy of those they help.

(Parents do this too: when mum warns a child about talking to strangers, the child has to listen or, in principle, face death if mum gets fed up and leaves.)

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
Absolutely true. All I'm saying is that, hypothetically, if everyone did emulate Jesus in certain ways (having nothing to do with gods or Christianity), the world would improve. The same goes for many other potential examples, eg the Buddha or many members of the societies you mention.

Agreed, but my post is not about what example people should follow, but why the world is better by the presence of Christianity.

Originally posted by vistesd
Is the world a better place because of the struggles of Martin Luther King, Jr.? Did his Christian beliefs not at least inform his decisions with regard to civil rights action? (This is the flip-side, I think, of Christians using the Bible to support slavery and segregation.) When rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched with King at Selma, his decisio ...[text shortened]... nd not just the evangelism part.


EDIT: I think I'm making the same point as ChronicLeaky.

But could or would those things have been accomplished by non-religious people? I guess I'm asking for a necessary benefit of Christianity.

Originally posted by Starrman
Agreed, but my post is not about what example people should follow, but why the world is better by the presence of Christianity.

Hmm, so as a direct response to whodey, you're being off-topic by talking about Christianity when he was talking about following Christ's example, but he was off-topic by talking about merely following Christ's example in your thread about Christianity? Shouldn't you have turned the other cheek instead of unleashing OFF-TOPIC REVENGE 😉?

EDIT In view of your post to vistesd: The only necessary benefit of Christianity is giving RHP something to bicker about besides that chess malarkey.

Originally posted by whodey
There are two ways of looking at good works. One way is by looking at doing good works as being a sacrifice we should be patted on the back for. Another way of looking at good works is simply doing what is expected of us for being considered a descent human being. If I choose the later perspective, I would be condemned for my "attempted" good works. They ...[text shortened]... and if he is in control of your heart good works should naturally follow more often than not.

whodey: Another way of looking at good works is simply doing what is expected of us for being considered a descent human being. If I choose the later perspective, I would be condemned for my "attempted" good works. They would be considered pathetic to say the least.

WTF???? Why would it be considered "pathetic" to act like a "decent human being"? And why would you be "condemned" for "attempted good works"?

Originally posted by Starrman
But could or would those things have been accomplished by non-religious people? I guess I'm asking for a necessary benefit of Christianity.

But could or would those things have been accomplished by non-religious people?

Quite possibly; maybe even probably. There were likely non-religious people involved in each of those cases. Perhaps those individuals would’ve done it even had they not been informed by their religious beliefs.

But now you’re in the realm of total abstraction. I do not know how to abstract all the experiences that make up my life to date from how I now live that life. I do not know which ones could be removed as "unnecessary." For example, looking back on even the terrible events, had they not taken place would I have met and loved and married my second wife? To me, an unanswerable question, and a fruitless exercise in speculation.

I don’t know how to judge whether the world would be a better place or not if there had never been any such thing as Christianity. One has to weigh both scales—the atrocities and the acts of beneficence, and I simply don’t know how to do that. I’ve experienced both the good and the bad of it in my personal life, and I don’t even know how to weigh that up.

EDIT: After seeing No. 1’s post, the possibility has to be granted, I think, that whatever expressions of human decency are found in the religions comes from that sense of human decency, and not necessarily the other way around. Nevertheless, once one’s sense of decency is informed by whatever religious expression, I don’t think you can just abstract that out.

EDIT 2: It was likely the Buddha's sense of compassion that led to his formulating a teaching to alleviate human anguish.

Originally posted by no1marauder
whodey: Another way of looking at good works is simply doing what is expected of us for being considered a descent human being. If I choose the later perspective, I would be condemned for my "attempted" good works. They would be considered pathetic to say the least.

WTF???? Why would it be considered "pathetic" to act like a "decent human being"? And why would you be "condemned" for "attempted good works"?

What I ment was that there are two ways to look at doing "good works". The first way is to look at it is as if it were a nice thing to do in which you get patted on the back for doing. The second way of looking at it is something you are expected to do because decent human beings should try to help others. The bottom line is that we do not always do the "right thing" in terms of helping those around us that we may see have a need of some kind. Therefore, if it is expected of you, as in the second way of looking at doing good deeds, then you are guilty of not always doing what is expected of you.