Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilisation?

[Zythryn]

Likewise I am waiting for a reply to mine.

Arthur, again you fail to discuss. You are the one that asked for objective discussion, yet you only respond to those you feel are being unobjective. How about the others?

If you feel my post and question were not objective, please tell me how.

Right now, with your refusal to respond to objective responses you are the one that appears not to be objective.

[Moontanman]

Much of what you talk about is only slightly affiliated by the Christian religion, mostly for tax proposes. Many of the so called save this or that by religious are nothing but an attempt to proselytize the religion and huge amounts of funds go into nothing but the religion it's self. Far more help could be done if the religions didn't siphon off so much of the money to spread the word, often by building huge churches and multi-million dollar homes for the big wigs in the churches. To simply look at these organizations and say look what good they are doing is simplistic at best. Do these people do good? yes they do but to attribute it to religion is simply wrong. I am an atheist but I often cook for the homeless and do my best to help. The main reason religion dominates such efforts is the if an atheist organization tried to do the same they would be subject to huge amounts of resistance by the government due to taxes and a need to show where every dime goes, something the anyone who claims to be affiliated with a religion doesn't have to do. Not to mention the the slander religions try to give to anyone who isn't a believer. Most atheists are willing to help it's just harder for us to do it as a organized group. Another reason religion keeps a strangle hold on "helping" is that they make huge sums of money off these efforts, they claim most money goes to the people they help but common sense says otherwise when you see how much they spend on themselves. The key is that religions do not have to account for their money. the government allows them to claim anything with no proof no accountability.

[arthur]

Likewise I am waiting for a reply to mine..

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Zythryn.

 

The reason I didn't respond to your first post was because of your use of the words, "I believe that statement is false" and "mine come from the 'golden rule' which came about long before Christianity used it." And the reason that I am responding now is because of "The very basis of your position seems faulty"

 

I have been sucked into responding to posts in the past only to be gratuitously abused, misquoted, and suffering the tedium of reading inaccurate tirades of bigotry etc after spending a great deal of time and effort on the responses. As can be seen in this forum, and by having this put into Silly claims and having an administrator display crass disrespect and rudeness to me with their Bla Bla post.

 

I am interested in any one is willing to politely give me any genuine and objective logical evaluation with good will of any thing I say or write. I am not interested in discussing or arguing things subjectively /emotionally and I really only want to discuss what, in reality, is my extremely academically profound concept.

 

An important axiom for understanding, not only my proposition, but a great many other things is that 'all of biology, which includes humans, is the product of how it responded to its perceptions of it environments'

 

So Zythrin ask away, and let me know what you feel is faulty.

 

my regards. …arthur..

[Moontanman]

Arthur, so far I have been very nice to you, as far as I can see your only problem with me is that I disagree with you and have given reasons why that you cannot refute. So far all you have really done is proselytize and gripe because we haven't jumped to agree with you. If you are looking to be welcomed with open arms I suggest you go to the religious forum's. I am sure they will pump you as full of sunshine as you can stand. I however will not do so. You have made many statements or claims that simply do not stand up to scrutiny. So far i haven't seen you even try to show the truth in any thing you have claimed other than to just preach it at us. Stop trying to show you are being mistreated in some way, you get the same treatment as any one else who makes unsubstantiated claims, we show how unsubstantiated they really are. if you can show other wise please do so, if not admit defeat or go get some sunshine someplace else.

[Zythryn]

Hi Zythryn.

 

The reason I didn't respond to your first post was because of your use of the words, "I believe that statement is false" ...

 

And why would you not respond to that?

You did ask for discussion, and again in your latest post you asked:

So Zythrin ask away, and let me know what you feel is faulty.

 

The original basis for your position is, in your words:

The basis of the proposition is that this Sophisticated Civilised society exists only because of Roman Catholicism and Christianity

 

I find fault in this statement in that I see evidence that sophistacated civilized societies have developed and grown that were not a result of Roman Catholicism and Christianity.

China is a wonderful example. Many discoveries were made in China (Paper and gunpowder for two) and they had a very socially advanced society for much of their history.

I would not necessarily carry the example of China to modern times, but through the middle ages they were leaders scientifically and socially.

 

Back to your 'basis'. How would you objectively measure this? I am curious, as it is a very charged question for many people.

Yes, you can always give examples of great people, great nations and societies, but the problem there is the other side of the discussion can also bring up examples of atrocities and terrible people/societies. So an objective way to measure this would be very welcome.

 

 

and "mine come from the 'golden rule' which came about long before Christianity used it."

This was a response to your question. I don't see why it persauded you to ignore what I thought were valid questions? The second part of the sentance was to pre-empt the response which I have often heard which is "See, you follow the golden rule which came from Jesus!".

I apologize if that was not going to be your response or if that caused any offense.

 

And the reason that I am responding now is because of "The very basis of your position seems faulty"

 

Is that so different from "I believe that [basis] statement is false".

 

I am interested in any one is willing to politely give me any genuine and objective logical evaluation with good will of any thing I say or write. I am not interested in discussing or arguing things subjectively /emotionally and I really only want to discuss what, in reality, is my extremely academically profound concept.

 

I am glad to hear that. I look forward to hearing your response.

[lawcat]

To answer the title of the post, the short answer is no. To narrow the discussion I presume that civilization means western civilization. A government creates social order and civilization. After the installment of representative governments, after French Revolution, the customs became less and less christian in essence, but secular in accord with democratic laws. This has been going on for over 200 years in the west, and civilization thrived. Today, western governments are independent of religion. There is no reason to think that if christianity was eliminated thta governments could not function. Since government can and does function without christianity, social order can be maintained, and civilization will be just fine.

[Donk]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that we need Christianity because

 

(1) our moral tenets come from Christianity, and

(2) most charitable organisations are Christian.

 

Most people, of any religion or none, have a moral code. The ten commandments isn't particularly Christian. It's a set of rules for harmony within a tribe. Most human groups have similar rules. The New Testament added another layer of instruction which boils down to the Golden Rule - "Do as you would be done by", as mentioned by Zythryn.

 

As for charities, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I give quite a lot to charities. I don't deliberately avoid "Christian" charities - I look at the work they do and give accordingly. Except for one: I get regular mailings from a Roman Catholic charity lauding the work they do with unwanted street children in Latin America. They go straight in the bin, with a cry of "if you didn't treat contraception as a sin there wouldn't BE so many unwanted children!"

 

You might have a point when you mention specifically night shelters, rehab, etc. Religions have always been involved in outreach work. Maybe because they're good people, or maybe because they're looking for converts. But as Society secularises, that work is being taken over by Society. Education was once the sole province of the church, as was healthcare.

 

So no, I don't think that civilisation will fall as Christianity declines. We were fairly civilised (commandments, golden rule and all) before Christianity. We've had a lot of two-forward-one-back progress since then, but I don't think any religion can claim any particular credit for that progress. The reverse might even be true.

[arthur]

And why would you not respond to that?

You did ask for discussion, and again in your latest post you asked:

 

The original basis for your position is, in your words:

 

I find fault in this statement in that I see evidence that sophistacated civilized societies have developed and grown that were not a result of Roman Catholicism and Christianity.

China is a wonderful example. Many discoveries were made in China (Paper and gunpowder for two) and they had a very socially advanced society for much of their history.

I would not necessarily carry the example of China to modern times, but through the middle ages they were leaders scientifically and socially.

 

Back to your 'basis'. How would you objectively measure this? I am curious, as it is a very charged question for many people.

Yes, you can always give examples of great people, great nations and societies, but the problem there is the other side of the discussion can also bring up examples of atrocities and terrible people/societies. So an objective way to measure this would be very welcome.

 

 

 

This was a response to your question. I don't see why it persauded you to ignore what I thought were valid questions? The second part of the sentance was to pre-empt the response which I have often heard which is "See, you follow the golden rule which came from Jesus!".

I apologize if that was not going to be your response or if that caused any offense.

 

Is that so different from "I believe that [basis] statement is false".

 

I am glad to hear that. I look forward to hearing your response.

 

Hi Zythrin.

 

Golly, so many questions unrelated to my proposition. I will take a chance and reply to them to the best of my ability and hope that my responses will be viewed with the good will of intelligent and intellectual debate.

 

Yes there is an enormous difference between "I believe that statement *is false*". and "The very basis of your position *seems faulty*", particularly in a forum that manifestly has shown little good will towards me or my proposition.

 

Never in my life until now have I heard or read such a statement as "See, you follow the golden rule which came from Jesus!" and having given it consideration and asked six of my colleagues I have absolutely no Idea what it means, although if it were to be used in a different context I might possibly be able to glean a meaning. I am not sure which of my question prompted your response of "mine come from the 'golden rule' which came about long before Christianity used it."

 

Part of the reason for my reticence in answering your post was because you wrote,

quote:

"As for the source of laws and morals, I believe mine come from the 'golden rule' which came about long before Christianity used it."

The reason can be explained by the axiom that 'You are a product of nothing more than the results of your responses to your perceptions of your environments' which of course precludes any other influences, and therefore I considered that to attempt to explain any aspect of this in this particular forum would only give grist to the mill of ill favour and bigotry.

 

quote:

I see evidence that sophistacated civilized societies have developed and grown that were not a result of Roman Catholicism and Christianity.

China is a wonderful example. Many discoveries were made in China (Paper and gunpowder for two) and they had a very socially advanced society for much of their history.

I would not necessarily carry the example of China to modern times, but through the middle ages they were leaders scientifically and socially.

 

 

Of course comparatively sophisticated societies have come about with out Roman Catholicism and Christianity. But my proposition discusses is *this* the one you and I live in sophisticated and civilised society. All of the others civilisations and large governed societies in history were no more than brutal serfdoms which were run for the aggrandisement and "greed" of a few powerful people as not so long ago the "civilisation" from which "our" sophisticated civilized society evolved from was. If one even took a cursory glance at the history of China one would see that during, what 'they' call the Winter period of their history that for a thousand + years there was continual carnage and when the Autumn period became establishes the carnage continued but now because of the large numbers of more powerful and established War Lords it was tempered with the need for diplomacy and it continued albeit on a smaller scale than in the Winter period up until the Nippon - Sino wars and the establishment of totalitarianism.

 

My proposition is *not* concerned with good, bad, nice, nasty it is what it says it is. It is *not* the self abridged versions that are called "your proposition" (And it is definitely not, as another contributor to this forum claimed, ie, the question that heads this thread, not only because a single question cannot, by the nature of language, be a proposition but because I do not definitively know the answer) So the proposition is the *whole* of the proposal which I asked for the merit of.

 

The **basis** of the proposition is that this Sophisticated Civilised society exists only because of Roman Catholicism and Christianity, ***As well as*** And that Roman Catholicism and Christianity permeates, directly or indirectly, virtually every aspect of this Sophisticated Civilised society to the extent that the "religions" and society are so intertwined as to be inseparable.

 

Now, to me, all of that seems to be so obvious as I believed it would be to any body who would read it with the honesty and good will of intelligent inquiry and that having thus read it they would be able to give an informed opinion of the thread question.

 

BUT, Zythrin and any body else. As I have implied and said, the most important aspect of understanding this propositions is academic. Although it might be interesting to be able to calculate and understand how and when we and our kin might die before our and their "allotted time" it, in my opinion, would be academically more exciting to understand the bio and social mechanisms which allow us to recognise and feel that as human being we are different from all other form of biology where concepts of right and wrong do not exist and only expedience reigns, and all that is required to understand this, is that thing which is becoming increasingly difficult to find in a public arena when the word Christianity or the word God is mentioned, and it is intellectual integrity and it all has nothing to do with a God.

 

I hope that this satisfactorily answers your questions and I hope that it allows you to recognise that this is not just a silly claim with no substance.

 

 

..arthur..

[Moontanman]

 

Of course comparatively sophisticated societies have come about with out Roman Catholicism and Christianity. But my proposition discusses is *this* the one you and I live in sophisticated and civilised society. All of the others civilisations and large governed societies in history were no more than brutal serfdoms which were run for the aggrandisement and "greed" of a few powerful people as not so long ago the "civilisation" from which "our" sophisticated civilized society evolved from was. If one even took a cursory glance at the history of China one would see that during, what 'they' call the Winter period of their history that for a thousand + years there was continual carnage and when the Autumn period became establishes the carnage continued but now because of the large numbers of more powerful and established War Lords it was tempered with the need for diplomacy and it continued albeit on a smaller scale than in the Winter period up until the Nippon - Sino wars and the establishment of totalitarianism.

 

Arthur, really? I mean REALLY? Up until when the west started to separate religion and government a system of serfdom and religious wars was exactly what Christianity had imposed on it's subjects. Are you really blinded by your desire to glorify the Church that you cannot see these things? Up until quite recently The Holy Roman Empire and it's descendants were nothing but totalitarian fiefdoms with the population held in virtual slavery. Until the power of the Church began to subside two or three hundred years ago this was the way of the world under the foot of Christianity!

 

My proposition is *not* concerned with good, bad, nice, nasty it is what it says it is. It is *not* the self abridged versions that are called "your proposition" (And it is definitely not, as another contributor to this forum claimed, ie, the question that heads this thread, not only because a single question cannot, by the nature of language, be a proposition but because I do not definitively know the answer) So the proposition is the *whole* of the proposal which I asked for the merit of.

 

Obfustication/word salad

 

The **basis** of the proposition is that this Sophisticated Civilised society exists only because of Roman Catholicism and Christianity, ***As well as*** And that Roman Catholicism and Christianity permeates, directly or indirectly, virtually every aspect of this Sophisticated Civilised society to the extent that the "religions" and society are so intertwined as to be inseparable.

 

Of course it is, all we are is where we came from but only by escaping the "influence" of the Church have we been able to become civilized. I'll say that again, only because we have been able to escape the "influence" of the Church have we been able to become civilized. This is true even by your standards Arthur. If the Church had it's way we would still be living as surfs in small fiefdoms ruled by Kings whose power was granted by the Church!

 

 

Now, to me, all of that seems to be so obvious as I believed it would be to any body who would read it with the honesty and good will of intelligent inquiry and that having thus read it they would be able to give an informed opinion of the thread question.

 

Only because you ignore your own standards of civilization while smiling in rapture at the Church!

 

BUT, Zythrin and any body else. As I have implied and said, the most important aspect of understanding this propositions is academic. Although it might be interesting to be able to calculate and understand how and when we and our kin might die before our and their "allotted time" it, in my opinion, would be academically more exciting to understand the bio and social mechanisms which allow us to recognise and feel that as human being we are different from all other form of biology where concepts of right and wrong do not exist and only expedience reigns, and all that is required to understand this, is that thing which is becoming increasingly difficult to find in a public arena when the word Christianity or the word God is mentioned, and it is intellectual integrity and it all has nothing to do with a God.

 

I think it's equally valid to think of where we might be if not for the influence of the "Church" I once read a paper on the influence of the church and where we might be without it. "The Church" almost certainly caused 1000 years of stagnation, if not for the Church we might be visiting other stars in Star Ships by now. The Star Ships might have Greek lettering on them instead of English but it would be preferable to the 1000 years of stagnation caused by the "Church"

 

I hope that this satisfactorily answers your questions and I hope that it allows you to recognise that this is not just a silly claim with no substance.

 

 

..arthur..

 

No Arthur it does not!

[arthur]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that we need Christianity because

 

(1) our moral tenets come from Christianity, and

(2) most charitable organisations are Christian.

 

Most people, of any religion or none, have a moral code. The ten commandments isn't particularly Christian. It's a set of rules for harmony within a tribe. Most human groups have similar rules. The New Testament added another layer of instruction which boils down to the Golden Rule - "Do as you would be done by", as mentioned by Zythryn.

 

As for charities, I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I give quite a lot to charities. I don't deliberately avoid "Christian" charities - I look at the work they do and give accordingly. Except for one: I get regular mailings from a Roman Catholic charity lauding the work they do with unwanted street children in Latin America. They go straight in the bin, with a cry of "if you didn't treat contraception as a sin there wouldn't BE so many unwanted children!"

 

You might have a point when you mention specifically night shelters, rehab, etc. Religions have always been involved in outreach work. Maybe because they're good people, or maybe because they're looking for converts. But as Society secularises, that work is being taken over by Society. Education was once the sole province of the church, as was healthcare.

 

So no, I don't think that civilisation will fall as Christianity declines. We were fairly civilised (commandments, golden rule and all) before Christianity. We've had a lot of two-forward-one-back progress since then, but I don't think any religion can claim any particular credit for that progress. The reverse might even be true.

 

Hello Donk,

 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that we need Christianity because

 

(1) our moral tenets come from Christianity, and

(2) most charitable organisations are Christian. True.

 

No, I am not saying that we *need* anything, But, I do say that the moral values, codes, and taboos which we use to allow us to live in comparative harmony this sophisticated society initially came as the result the tenets of Christianity.

 

quote:

Most people, of any religion or none, have a moral code.

 

True but if the moral code of, for example, city street gangs, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, FPMR, ELN, Islamic Jihad, ANO and the ALIR just to name a few of the rapidly increasing number of malcontent groups that are increasingly destroying the lives of (world wide) millions of innocents and putting enormous pressures on Christian voluntary aid organizations, and who's aims, stated or not, are to destroy all of the codes and values that allow this sophisticated civilised society to function one would have difficulty in relating the word morality to any of their values.

 

quote:

The ten commandments isn't particularly Christian.

 

True they were Jewish.

 

quote:

the golden rule, ( I didn't know that the ethic of reciprocity ie, love thy neighbour as thy self, was called the golden rule)

 

Mrs Be done by as you did and Mrs Do as you would be done by, being characters from Kingsley The Water Babies and being a Christian morality tale works well in the situation where people have empathy, sympathy and a desire towards peacefulness with others, but in the cut and thrust of the "real" world and in nature where there are no morals only expediency and competition the golden rule will not work in maintaining harmony. As one can see in forums such as this when debate turns to argument.

 

quote:

"if you didn't treat contraception as a sin there wouldn't BE so many unwanted children!"

 

To me it make little sense that the RC edict on artificial contraception has much of an effect, if any at all, on the numbers of children in the world or to world population, Certainly not in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, China, most of Africa, Near and Mid east, Russia in fact any where.

 

quote:

But as Society secularises, that work is being taken over by Society.

 

No, In the climate of recession the amount of help being given by governments is diminishing word wide, as is the amount of money from charitable contributions is falling at an alarming rate. If one wants to see the gradual break down of a civilised society one only has to look at counties like S Africa and inner cities.

 

My regards and thank you for a polite post, ..arthur..

[Zythryn]

Golly, so many questions unrelated to my proposition.

OK, let me try to focus on your proposition, with one quick sidenote, and then I will drop that as well.

 

Yes there is an enormous difference between "I believe that statement *is false*". and "The very basis of your position *seems faulty*", particularly in a forum that manifestly has shown little good will towards me or my proposition.

 

I don't see that there is.

The word 'that' in the first statement was referring to the basis of your position. 'I believe that [basis] is false" is very similar to 'The very basis of your position seems faulty'.

The word 'seems' generally means 'looks like' or 'appears to be'. And 'faulty' means basically 'is false' or 'is incorrect'. Which is what the first statement says.

Now, this really is off topic, so I am happy to drop that at this point.

 

For your position which you asked for discussion on:

Of course comparatively sophisticated societies have come about with out Roman Catholicism and Christianity. But my proposition discusses is *this* the one you and I live in sophisticated and civilised society. All of the others civilisations and large governed societies in history were no more than brutal serfdoms which were run for the aggrandisement and "greed" of a few powerful people as not so long ago the "civilisation" from which "our" sophisticated civilized society evolved from was.

 

Here again you seem to indicate that all civilizations other than the western ones are no more than 'brutal serfdoms'.

How do you measure this? Average standard of living? Income disparity between the rich and poor in each society?

 

The **basis** of the proposition is that this Sophisticated Civilised society exists only because of Roman Catholicism and Christianity, ***As well as*** And that Roman Catholicism and Christianity permeates, directly or indirectly, virtually every aspect of this Sophisticated Civilised society to the extent that the "religions" and society are so intertwined as to be inseparable.

 

I apologize if you have and I have missed it, but could you define 'This society'?

I live in the midwest of the USA. Other board members live in Norway, South Africa, and many other places. So if you refer to a society where 'we' live it really doesn't help define what you mean unless you really do mean the whole world.

 

I do agree with the second part of your basis. Roman Catholicism and Christianity has had and does have a huge affect and presence in society in the USA. Although your definition of 'this society' may be broader than mine??

The first part of your basis: "this Sophisticated Civilised society exists only because of Roman Catholicism and Christianity".

Technically this is true. But it can also be said that THIS society only exists because of Rock and Roll, as without Rock and Roll this society would be different than it is.

 

Now, I don't want to read too much into your basis, so instead of assuming, let me ask.

When you say "this Sophisticated Civilised society exists only because of Roman Catholicism and Christianity" are you stating that our society would not be as sophisticated or as civilized without Roman Catholicism or Christianity?

[Moontanman]

Hello Donk,

 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that we need Christianity because

 

(1) our moral tenets come from Christianity, and

(2) most charitable organisations are Christian. True.

 

No, I am not saying that we *need* anything, But, I do say that the moral values, codes, and taboos which we use to allow us to live in comparative harmony this sophisticated society initially came as the result the tenets of Christianity.

 

Arthur this has been shown not to be true over and over on these forums, you repeating it will not make it true. Please stop saying it.

 

 

quote:

Most people, of any religion or none, have a moral code.

 

True but if the moral code of, for example, city street gangs, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, FPMR, ELN, Islamic Jihad, ANO and the ALIR just to name a few of the rapidly increasing number of malcontent groups that are increasingly destroying the lives of (world wide) millions of innocents and putting enormous pressures on Christian voluntary aid organizations, and who's aims, stated or not, are to destroy all of the codes and values that allow this sophisticated civilised society to function one would have difficulty in relating the word morality to any of their values.

 

Oh the poor Christians trying to save the world, can you be anymore disingenuous? So you claim that anyone who doesn't agree that Christianity is the only way is trying to destroy the world? Hell even Christians cannot get along, until quite recently Protestants and Catholics were killing each other in Ireland. All the religious groups you mentioned think they have the final say on who should run the world, all Christianity wants is to proselytize their own way. No better than any of the others if pushed to the wall. Christians have over the years also done horrible things in the name of their religion. They are no better than any of the others.

 

quote:

The ten commandments isn't particularly Christian.

 

True they were Jewish.

 

quote:

the golden rule, ( I didn't know that the ethic of reciprocity ie, love thy neighbour as thy self, was called the golden rule)

 

Mrs Be done by as you did and Mrs Do as you would be done by, being characters from Kingsley The Water Babies and being a Christian morality tale works well in the situation where people have empathy, sympathy and a desire towards peacefulness with others, but in the cut and thrust of the "real" world and in nature where there are no morals only expediency and competition the golden rule will not work in maintaining harmony. As one can see in forums such as this when debate turns to argument.

 

As i have said before religion did not create these ideas they hijacked them for their own use. Please stop claiming otherwise.

 

quote:

"if you didn't treat contraception as a sin there wouldn't BE so many unwanted children!"

 

To me it make little sense that the RC edict on artificial contraception has much of an effect, if any at all, on the numbers of children in the world or to world population, Certainly not in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, China, most of Africa, Near and Mid east, Russia in fact any where.

 

Over much of the world where the Catholic church holds sway this policy does indeed contribute to over population not to mention the spread of aids and other sexually transmitted disease. Latin America and Africa happen to be hot beds of Catholic influence. You really need to think about what you are saying Arthur.

 

quote:

But as Society secularises, that work is being taken over by Society.

 

No, In the climate of recession the amount of help being given by governments is diminishing word wide, as is the amount of money from charitable contributions is falling at an alarming rate. If one wants to see the gradual break down of a civilised society one only has to look at counties like S Africa and inner cities.

 

Yes this is true and religion is beginning to feel the heat of not being able to fill their coffers to proselytize and build more huge worthless buildings to the glory of god. Only a small percentage of church money goes to anything but making new converts and building new buildings and into the pockets of televangelists.

 

My regards and thank you for a polite post, ..arthur..

 

You're welcome. :naughty:

[arthur]

Arthur, so far I have been very nice to you, as far as I can see your only problem with me is that I disagree with you and have given reasons why that you cannot refute. So far all you have really done is proselytize and gripe because we haven't jumped to agree with you. If you are looking to be welcomed with open arms I suggest you go to the religious forum's. I am sure they will pump you as full of sunshine as you can stand. I however will not do so. You have made many statements or claims that simply do not stand up to scrutiny. So far i haven't seen you even try to show the truth in any thing you have claimed other than to just preach it at us. Stop trying to show you are being mistreated in some way, you get the same treatment as any one else who makes unsubstantiated claims, we show how unsubstantiated they really are. if you can show other wise please do so, if not admit defeat or go get some sunshine someplace else.

 

 

 

 

I have no problem with you at all or with your accusatory rudeness or even with your abject religious bigotry. A bigotry, I add, that actually results from your feelings of inadequacy with, or not, what the psychologist call, low self esteem which classically is manifested with such displays of irrational aggressiveness to wards fixations that one doesn't understand and so becomes fearful of.

 

I make no judgement, for how can one blame a creature for it nature? But I do feel sad when I have contact with people like your self who would baulk at the idea of being treated as you are, for example, treating me, but, again I forgive you for you obviously know not what you do (Luke 23:34) and I suspect that the concept of loving thy neighbour as you self is completely foreign to you. If there is one, I am sure that God will forgive you.

 

Kindest thoughts with sympathy. ..arthur..

[Moontanman]

I have no problem with you at all or with your accusatory rudeness or even with your abject religious bigotry. A bigotry, I add, that actually results from your feelings of inadequacy with, or not, what the psychologist call, low self esteem which classically is manifested with such displays of irrational aggressiveness to wards fixations that one doesn't understand and so becomes fearful of.

 

I make no judgement, for how can one blame a creature for it nature? But I do feel sad when I have contact with people like your self who would baulk at the idea of being treated as you are, for example, treating me, but, again I forgive you for you obviously know not what you do (Luke 23:34) and I suspect that the concept of loving thy neighbour as you self is completely foreign to you. If there is one, I am sure that God will forgive you.

 

Kindest thoughts with sympathy. ..arthur..

 

You're a funny man Arthur, I like comedy, it's helps grease the world and you seem to have a large store of grease. I'm glad your assessment of me is no more accurate than your assessment of Christianity and it's importance in the world. Go forth in forgiveness Arthur and proselytize no more :)

[Zythryn]

Arthur, if you were serious in your request for discussion, why is it you respond mainly to those posts you feel are not appropriate?

And when doing so, you do so by making personal attacks as opposed to reason?

If you are serious in your request for discussion, please discuss those points others have raised.

[Boerseun]

Crickey.

 

As to the OP: The decline in Christianity will most definitely not lead to the demise of civilization. Unless, of course, you see civilization as being exclusively driven by the Church. Which it most definitely is not.

 

Subjectively, if you are a staunch and devout Christian who see the Church as the exclusive guardians of morality (which it is not), then you might anticipate a complete collapse - only to see welfare services being rendered by well-meaning (and perfectly moral) atheists, and muslims, jews, bhuddists, and so forth.

 

Civilization, as we know it, is driven by institutions like courts of law, where apart from regular run-of-the-mill law and order is enforced, one of the main (if often overlooked) pillars of civilization is maintained: The honoring of contracts. These courts of law are expressly secular - according to them, a contract entered into by a muslim carries as much weight as one entered into by a christian. The personal beliefs of the individuals is of no interest to the court. What matters, is that the contract is adhered to. And that results in civilization.

 

If christianity were to disappear, at worst, your neighbourhood might look a little different on Sunday morning. There will be more cars in your neighbours' driveways.

 

And that's about it, I guess.

[arthur]

OK, let me try to focus on your proposition, with one quick sidenote, and then I will drop that as well.

 

 

 

I don't see that there is.

The word 'that' in the first statement was referring to the basis of your position. 'I believe that [basis] is false" is very similar to 'The very basis of your position seems faulty'.

The word 'seems' generally means 'looks like' or 'appears to be'. And 'faulty' means basically 'is false' or 'is incorrect'. Which is what the first statement says.

Now, this really is off topic, so I am happy to drop that at this point.

 

For your position which you asked for discussion on:

 

 

Here again you seem to indicate that all civilizations other than the western ones are no more than 'brutal serfdoms'.

How do you measure this? Average standard of living? Income disparity between the rich and poor in each society?

 

 

 

I apologize if you have and I have missed it, but could you define 'This society'?

I live in the midwest of the USA. Other board members live in Norway, South Africa, and many other places. So if you refer to a society where 'we' live it really doesn't help define what you mean unless you really do mean the whole world.

 

I do agree with the second part of your basis. Roman Catholicism and Christianity has had and does have a huge affect and presence in society in the USA. Although your definition of 'this society' may be broader than mine??

The first part of your basis: "this Sophisticated Civilised society exists only because of Roman Catholicism and Christianity".

Technically this is true. But it can also be said that THIS society only exists because of Rock and Roll, as without Rock and Roll this society would be different than it is.

 

Now, I don't want to read too much into your basis, so instead of assuming, let me ask.

When you say "this Sophisticated Civilised society exists only because of Roman Catholicism and Christianity" are you stating that our society would not be as sophisticated or as civilized without Roman Catholicism or Christianity?

 

 

 

Hi Zythrin.

thanks for an interesting and pleasant post. actually I didn't ask for discussion but for a critique, although I am quite happy to sensibly discuss my proposition with you.

 

This proposition is original and to understand it will almost certainly require a change in many ideas that many people have taken for granted as being so and never questioning the veracity of them, but if one has the time and the inclination one will find that all aspects of it, in retrospect will be "but that is so obvious" There is no argument if something is read with good will and it appears illogical either it is, or it is a slip or one doesn’t understand it.

 

Some of your points, interesting as they are have little relevance to understanding the proposition and in fact if it was understood the points would also be understood.

 

quote:

Here again you seem to indicate that all civilizations other than the western ones are no more than 'brutal serfdoms'.

 

No I am not and if I try to give a clear and concise answer to what I think you want to know it will require a history lesson which would promote even more questions and the whole thing would be open to be nit picked for any little point that could be used by the ilk who have no interest in the subject and who just want to be silly.

 

But having said that and without defining what a civilisation actually is, in principle serfdom breaks down with the advent of democracy which in effect gives citizens an element of freedom. Democratically electing a government that will respect the citizens as do the governments of the more affluent countries (the ones that have been influenced by Roman Catholicism and by the tenets of Christianity to respect such Christian inspired concepts as universal education, human rights, a universal system of legal justice, a universal medical care system and universal womans suffrage etc, etc.

 

 

The society that is civilised and sophisticated enough, that any one who is reading this lives in, that allows you/them the freedom to own a PC and discuss what we are with out the fear of being imprisoned, etc, etc.

 

Never in the history of the earth has so many people been so

wealthy, well fed, well housed, so free and so secure. Never in the history of

any society have so many people spent so little of their resources and time on

the acquisition of food, No society in history has had such a complex and

sophisticated economic system for the universal distribution of wealth. No other

society has had a universal education or a universal health system. And no other

society in history has had so many of its members spending so much of their time

and their resources caring for the infirm, the feckless and the unfortunates of

the society because to do so is a requirement of 'their faith

 

 

Living in The Mid West, if you are Caucasian and old stock with European or Scandinavian ancestry the chances are high that you are there as the result of your distant relations having experienced religious persecution and that persecution will involve "Christianity" even if this is not the case if any of your relations worshiped God you will have been influenced etc see the proposition. And the same applies if you live in S Africa.

 

 

quote:

"this Sophisticated Civilised society exists only because of Roman Catholicism and Christianity".

Technically this is true. But it can also be said that THIS society only exists because of Rock and Roll, as without Rock and Roll this society would be different than it is."

 

This is very true but is R&R as an integral enough aspect of society that it is inseparable?

 

Rock and Roll as with all western music is the indirect product of RC and of Christianity.

 

quote:

When you say "this Sophisticated Civilised society exists only because of " are you stating that our society would not be as sophisticated or as civilized ? Roman Catholicism and Christianity

 

To your last question the answer is in the proposal. Without the influences of Roman Catholicism or Christianity or Judaism no civilisation as we have it could have evolved.

 

 

 

With regards. …arthur..