15 Nov 07
I was in the thread about the world's greatest Jew and Christ's name naturally came up. However, twhitehead made the comment that the negative effects of Christs existence far outweighed the positive ones. I then asked him to explain his position but as yet have not recieved an explanation. However, I was just wondering, does anyone else feel the same? If so, why?
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyWell, nobody can ever truly answer an 'if' question, one can only guess. If Hitler won WWII would the world be better or worse? We don't know. We can only guess.
I was in the thread about the world's greatest Jew and Christ's name naturally came up. However, twhitehead made the comment that the negative effects of Christs existence far outweighed the positive ones. I then asked him to explain his position but as yet have not recieved an explanation. However, I was just wondering, does anyone else feel the same? If so, why?
However, I do believe that the world would be a better place without religion, especially religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and Jesus started one of the worlds largest religions (and don't forget that Islam probably also started as a result of him too). However, I obviously do not know what religions would have appeared if Christianity hadn't.
One of my biggest issues with religion is their tendency to create divisions both between people of different religions and even people within a religion but of different beliefs (denominations etc). (Northern Ireland for example).
Other famous figures such as Ghandi, and Mandela, have both brought about massive positive political changes, Jesus did not. If anything, Jesus brought about greater division during his lifetime.
Of course most of Christianities later effects has far more to do with Paul than it does with Jesus.
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is indeed interesting that you pick upon the three religions that point to the God of Abraham. Then again, religions pointing to the God of Abraham are by far the majority. It is then curious as to why, no?
However, I do believe that the world would be a better place without religion, especially religions like Christianity, Judaism and Islam, and Jesus started one of the worlds largest religions (and don't forget that Islam probably also started as a result of him too). However, I obviously do not know what religions would have appeared if Christianity hadn't. ...[text shortened]... rse most of Christianities later effects has far more to do with Paul than it does with Jesus.[/b]
15 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo on the one hand Jesus brought about no political changes but on the other hand he has brought about political division?
One of my biggest issues with religion is their tendency to create divisions both between people of different religions and even people within a religion but of different beliefs (denominations etc). (Northern Ireland for example).
Other famous figures such as Ghandi, and Mandela, have both brought about massive positive political changes, Jesus did not. If ...[text shortened]... ourse most of Christianities later effects has far more to do with Paul than it does with Jesus.[/b]
Make no mistake about it, Jesus was not about bringing about political change in terms of establishing a wordly kingdom. Reading his teachings should tell us this. Therefore, why the bad press? Also, did Paul condone the establishment of a wordly empire/kingdom, for example? Why the bad press for him as well? In effect, show me where in either the writings of Jesus or Paul that you deem to be "evil".
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyIf you consider 53% or 54% "by far the majority", you need a stat course. It's no secret how Christianity and Islam were mainly spread; by conquest.
It is indeed interesting that you pick upon the three religions that point to the God of Abraham. Then again, religions pointing to the God of Abraham are by far the majority. It is then curious as to why, no?
15 Nov 07
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAs I recall, the nation of Armenia was the first Christian nation to have existed which was soley a result of the original apostles of Christ efforts to evangalize the region. This was done well before any conquests done in the name of Christ. Say what you will but I would argue that such conquests as the Crusades negatively effected the faith rather than enhanced it. For example, even Christians today are often referred to as "Crusaders". A bad reputation is hard to shake.
If you consider 53% or 54% "by far the majority", you need a stat course. It's no secret how Christianity and Islam were mainly spread; by conquest.
As I recall, the nation of Armenia was the first Christian country to have existed which was soley a result of Jesus' apostles missionary work there and well before any conquests done in the name of ...[text shortened]... for example, Even today Christians are referred to as "Crusaders".
As for Christianity an
As for 53 or 54% being an impressive majority, what other religion comes close to such numbers?
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeywhodey: Then again, religions pointing to the God of Abraham are by far the majority.
As I recall, the nation of Armenia was the first Christian nation to have existed which was soley a result of the original apostles of Christ efforts to evangalize the region. This was done well before any conquests done in the name of Christ. Say what you will but I would argue that such conquests as the Crusades negatively effected the faith rather than e ...[text shortened]... s for 53 or 54% being an impressive majority, what other religion comes close to such numbers?
No they are not. Your statement was incorrect, so admit it.
Christianity was a small rather unimportant sect until the Roman Emperor Constantine converted and decreed it was the new state religion. Similar occurences happened throughout Europe. The story of the conquests in the New World, the forcible destruction of the existing cultures and religions is old news. Ditto for Africa. If not for force or threat of force, Christianity would have less adherents as Judaism, which has less than 0.25% of the world's population.
15 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyI would've thought that Hindu numbers would be astronomical given the population of India.
As I recall, the nation of Armenia was the first Christian nation to have existed which was soley a result of the original apostles of Christ efforts to evangalize the region. This was done well before any conquests done in the name of Christ. Say what you will but I would argue that such conquests as the Crusades negatively effected the faith rather than e ...[text shortened]... s for 53 or 54% being an impressive majority, what other religion comes close to such numbers?
16 Nov 07
1 edit
..jesus' recorded words, when compiled into two lists, show that he spoke mostly about the kingdom of heaven...this kingdom of heaven was not an expected socialist heaven on earth ( "my kingdom is not of this earth" he said to pilate )...and christ also said that the "poor will always be with us"...no, teaching care and kindness and having a generous and sharing heart on a personal level and extended to those around you is not a call for socialism but is rather a personal call to reflect on earth a kingdom of heaven citizenship quality for the purpose of improving yourself and only collaterally the society around you...
16 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyI picked on them precisely because the attributes that have caused them to spread so successfully are the very attributes that I am claiming are undesirable.
It is indeed interesting that you pick upon the three religions that point to the God of Abraham. Then again, religions pointing to the God of Abraham are by far the majority. It is then curious as to why, no?
When Christian missionaries first came to Africa, they experienced very little resistance to conversion. If they had encountered say Jews or Muslims they would have had far less success and the result would probably have been division and wars.
I must mention however that one of the key reasons for the success of those religions is that they just happened to be the religions of the people that were at the center of civilization (Europe and the middle east) and as civilization spread so did the religion (and the culture and language too). Where they encountered other fairly developed societies (civilizations) such as India, China, and Japan, they were far less successful transferring either their language, culture or religion.
If the Chinese had conquered the world first then maybe we would all be Buddhists.