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

[HydrogenBond]

The head of the early Christian Church was Christ. What he teaches is Christianity in the pure form. Read the quotes of Jesus. Departure from these simple teachings is something else. That departure had a Roman influence. Christianity was not the top dog that decided to include Rome. It was the religion of the slaves. Rather, Rome was the top dog that included Christianity as an appendage. The Christian influence began as secondary and the Roman influence began as the primary.

 

Rome was an intellectual place for that time in history. They had reason, science, technology, military, politics, all types of entertainment, commerce, etc, none of which are taught by Christ. The modern atheist claim many of these things as their own. I was assuming the atheist claim to these thing was valid and these things were not created by religion. These atheist propensities of Rome were integrated into the church, along with some of the Christian teachings. The atheist-Christian compromise became the basis of the new Christian Church.

 

The Latin language of the Catholic Church was the language of Rome, even if Christians began with the Hebrew language. That choice of language was a choice by Rome, since this was the top dog language of the empire. It was not pure atheist or pure Christian but a composite.

 

All I was doing is looking at the historical nature of both influences, in pure form before the merge. When merged they formed a compromise with Rome at the top of the food chain. Atheist was brought into the compromise. I was hoping to open the discussion to see if we can decide which influence did what. There were two competing philosophies, like democrat and republican, trying to find compromise, with one side more in charge at the beginning, stamping its mark on the church.

[Zythryn]

Arthur, I did not continue my line of reasoning because your reply did not address the question.

You seem to only consider attempts at conversation with you 'polite' if the replies agree with you.

Donk brought up a VERY good point, which others have also brought up, but I think Donk put it in very concise wording.

Again, no one is arguing that Christianity has had a large influence on societty in the USA (and many other areas).

Where the question of your proposal comes in is 'how do you measure that'? And, what support do you have for the second part.

For example, as a measure of civilization you commented that the standard of living in the 'society' has never been higher (this is a paraphrase, the full quote, minus the cause which could be argued, is at the bottom of this post. for brevity I am just using the paraphrase here).

So if our society is at a peak of civilization, is Christianity also at a peak right now? Has it ever been stronger than it is now?

 

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 or universal suffrage. 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...

[Moontanman]

The head of the early Christian Church was Christ. What he teaches is Christianity in the pure form. Read the quotes of Jesus. Departure from these simple teachings is something else. That departure had a Roman influence. Christianity was not the top dog that decided to include Rome. It was the religion of the slaves. Rather, Rome was the top dog that included Christianity as an appendage. The Christian influence began as secondary and the Roman influence began as the primary.

 

How does this show Rome was Atheistic?

 

Rome was an intellectual place for that time in history. They had reason, science, technology, military, politics, all types of entertainment, commerce, etc, none of which are taught by Christ. The modern atheist claim many of these things as their own. I was assuming the atheist claim to these thing was valid and these things were not created by religion. These atheist propensities of Rome were integrated into the church, along with some of the Christian teachings. The atheist-Christian compromise became the basis of the new Christian Church.

 

Yes it is true, Christianity had none of these things, but your assertion that Rome was Atheistic is simply not supported by any of this.

 

The Latin language of the Catholic Church was the language of Rome, even if Christians began with the Hebrew language. That choice of language was a choice by Rome, since this was the top dog language of the empire. It was not pure atheist or pure Christian but a composite.

 

Again please show how Rome was Atheistic.

 

All I was doing is looking at the historical nature of both influences, in pure form before the merge. When merged they formed a compromise with Rome at the top of the food chain. Atheist was brought into the compromise. I was hoping to open the discussion to see if we can decide which influence did what. There were two competing philosophies, like democrat and republican, trying to find compromise, with one side more in charge at the beginning, stamping its mark on the church.

 

You keep claiming Rome was Atheistic, please show some support for this assumption.

[HydrogenBond]

There is a modern definition of atheism, just like there is a modern definition of the Christian Church. Neither exactly apply to the originals, except in bits and pieces. Both began differently and evolved to their modern versions.

[Moontanman]

There is a modern definition of atheism, just like there is a modern definition of the Christian Church. Neither exactly apply to the originals, except in bits and pieces. Both began differently and evolved to their modern versions.

 

No HB you are incorrect, the idea of Atheism is the same now as it was then and the Romans were not Atheists in any way shape or form. They were polytheists, they believed in a whole gaggle of Gods.

 

List of Major Roman Gods

 

They were very religious, religion played a huge role in their lives. For a long time Christianity was just another religion among the many. Only after the Emperor was converted did Christianity gain power and contribute to more than 1000 years of intellectual suppression, serfdom and human misery. Not until governments began to restrict the role of the church did civilization begin to rise up out of the pit of misery that was religion throw off the weight of religious control and suppression and begin to flourish.

 

Rome was an intellectual place for that time in history. They had reason, science, technology, military, politics, all types of entertainment, commerce, etc, none of which are taught by Christ.

 

Now this part is correct and Christianity made sure anything that would challenge it's power was suppressed. particularly dangerous to the church was reason, science, technology (other than military technology) politics, and entertainment. These were among the things suppressed by the church for over a 1000 years.

[arthur]

I assure you I can see every step of your reasoning, even those you haven't put before us yet.

 

1. Our civilisation is inextricably bound up with Christianity. Its history, its laws, its morals, its very mindset are all based on Christianity's teachings.

2. Therefore, if Christianity's influence were to falter, our civilised society would be in big trouble. Even if the tenets of Christianity are not true, it's still our responsibility (and in our best interests) to preserve and protect it.

 

The faulty reasoning lies in the "therefore". Let me demonstrate:

 

1. American civilisation is inextricably bound up with England. Its history, its laws, its morals, its very mindset are all based on English teachings.

2. Therefore, if England's influence were to falter, our civilised society would be in big trouble. Even if we don't particularly like the English, it's our responsibility (and in our best interests) to preserve and protect England.

 

Once again, it's true up to the "therefore". Then it falls apart. We supplied the seed-corn and you grew. Your civilisation is based on ours, but stands independently of our fate. To suggest otherwise would be ludicrous. Just as ludicrous as the first version. :QuestionM

 

Your plan was to get a measure of agreement on #1, then use it as a basis for #2. An interesting new approach, but as I've demonstrated, it doesn't fly. Plus, you rather queered your pitch by making #2 the thread title - kinda gave the game away ;)

 

 

 

 

Donk

 

quote:

I assure you I can see every step of your reasoning, even those you haven't put before us yet.

1. Our civilisation is inextricably bound up with Christianity. Its history, its laws, its morals, its very mindset are all based on Christianity's teachings.

 

Oh, dearie me deary me Donk, and when I saw your post and only read the sentence "Our civilisation is inextricably bound up with Christianity" I excitedly rushed off to make a cup of coffee and rushed back, on returning saw "I assure you" my excitement evaporated when realising that the "I assure you" indicated silly wasteful competitiveness which was confirmed by reading the whole post.

 

From me, there is no competition and I suspect that it is your (emotional) subjective interpretation of what I have written which is preventing you recognising what 15 year old's recognise as obvious.

 

So Donk, what is happening is, you are being emotionally driven to contriving biased questions and then with an emotional disposition of wanting to win, answering them. This is the basis of irrational argument. And it is all of this which is preventing you from overtly understanding what I and 15 year old's see as obvious.

 

Having said all of that I will comment on you "suggestion" of your "understanding" of my reasoning, although any understanding of any reasoning that I haven't put before you would be completely amiss as you would obviously understand if you had understood anything that I have previously put before you, and as you will see, if you are able to rid your self of the emotional competitive encumbrance to logic, rational, and objectivity, when you read my reply.

 

OK, Donk, Close but not quite, in that, It is the unconscious psychological absorption and acceptance and the unconscious/spontaneous utilisation of morals, ethics, values and standards that influences the mode of subsequent behaviour which has become an integral behaviour trait of enough people to maintain the degree of harmony that makes their/this civilisation possible.

 

It is academically the case that these behaviour traits have evolved from, directly or indirectly the influences which primarily are/were conscious and subconscious interpretations of the tenets of Christianity which via the above process have permeated virtually every aspect of this Sophisticated Civilised society to the extent that the "religions" influences and society are so intertwined as to be inseparable.

 

It is having grown up in an atmosphere of security and protection of benevolent laws which allows one the freedom to, within the bounds of, for example, decency and morality, to say what we want and to do what we want, it is the universal acceptance of these (morals, ethics, values and standards) and laws which has influenced us to expect from our neighbours the kind of decent and polite treatment that they would expect from us. (except in this forum)

 

It is because we developed and grew up in this environment where the laws, the kind of morality, that have given us our concept of right and wrong, of honesty and dishonesty, etc which has allowed us, that is you and me as well as other people to evolve a psychological dependency on an expectation of us having a future, etcetera, etcetera.

I am sure that any reasonably intelligent person could extrapolate for themselves the importance of and the impact that Christianity has had on, directly and indirectly, developing moral or ethical values that they them selves might have. I am also sure that any reasonably intelligent person could not recognise that there is nobody unaffected by the influences of Christianity and its effects.

 

Consider what it is that has held the (westernised) Sophisticated "Christian" Civilised Societies that 'we' are all a part of together. Consider firstly from your own personal perspective the characteristic of you expecting others to adhere to the basic laws and the rules and values which have evolved out of the basic tenets, creed, code of belief, doctrine, professed values, of "Christianity". The laws, rules and taboos which have been the bonding meme of the society of tens of millions of free thinking individuals. The laws and rules that you have never really questioned, the ones that you have absorbed and which have become an integral part of your being, from being that young child and screaming "But that’s not fair" to the maturity of becoming spontaneously distressed by the evil or immoral activity of others who do not respect the same values.

 

Now, and here is the nub, consider that we all, you, me and every person who we know and every person who we have ever known or met and every person who we have ever seen, and, every person who we have ever heard of who lives or has lived in a Sophisticated Civilised Society; AND, Everything that you or I and any of these other people have ever done, thought, wanted or owned as well as every judgement and decision that you, I or they have ever made has been, or is, directly or indirectly influenced by or is the product of the tenets of Christianity and the Judaic ten Commandments irrespective whether you, I or they are conscious of the fact. It is because of these tenets that, Sophisticated Civilised Society exists. It is because of them that you, me and anyone else, whether you or I or they are clever or thick, intellectual or not, has the freedom to pander to their or our expectations of and enjoy the freedom, the security and protection that the society affords, irrespective of any contribution that any of us has made to it. And Donk It really is that simple,

 

 

quote:

2. Therefore, if Christianity's influence were to falter, our civilised society would be in big trouble. Even if the tenets of Christianity are not true, it's still our responsibility (and in our best interests) to preserve and protect it.

 

No Donk, But, if enough of societies behaviour is carried out with no reference to the morals, ethics, values and standards and laws which evolved out of the basic tenets, creed, code of belief, doctrine, professed values, of "Christianity" anarchy, starvation and for any one who remembers what it was like before, hell.

 

quote:

I've demonstrated, it doesn't fly. . Plus, you rather queered your pitch by making #2 the thread title - kinda gave the game away

 

I am not sure what you intended by the above but I assume that because it was bases on a false premise I guess it now doesn’t apply.

 

I will tell you, the title was going to be 'will this proposition explain a potential demise of civilisation'?

After my last foray into this sort of thing and receiving as much religious bigotry I was going to give up. Various friends who are more familiar with this sort of forum stuff kept telling me that I am wasting my time because all they (the forum members) are interested in is, and I quote, ' in masturbating their aggression egos' I said that I cant believe that there isn't some one who would understand the basis of the proposition which resulted in a 100 Euro bet that I have just won after nearly 200 posts. It was the chap who bet me who decided the thread title.

 

It is a shame that your post was not sent with a view of intelligent discourse and I hope that I haven't caused you any embarrassment.

 

still with my regards…arthur..

[Moontanman]

And it is all of this which is preventing you from overtly understanding what I and 15 year olds see as obvious.

 

Arthur, do you not see how this statement makes you look? Are just trying to be insulting to the rest of us here or do you really think a person of 15 with an immature mind who's brain is still ten years away from maturity is somehow superior to adults who have lived and experienced life? A 15 year old can be convinced that almost anything is real.

 

I have genuinely tried to see your point and admitted you do have some points of truth in your ideas. You accuse me of being rude, of being mentally or emotionally unstable for simply disagreeing with you. I have shown you my points of disagreements with you but all you do is keep repeating your own stance and refusing to address those who disagree in any thing but a personal derogatory manner.

 

Just because people disagree with you doesn't automatically make you wrong, it doesn't make them stupid or crazy, and it doesn't make you persecuted either. You have good points but you ignore good points of disagreement instead of addressing them. If you can refute my points of disagreement i am completely capable of seeing I am wrong but you don't see to able to see anything but your own ideas. You do not offer points to refute anything you disagree with , you just continue to disagree. If you want to be taken seriously here you need to back up your claims with more than your own claims.

[arthur]

Howdy Arthur.

 

Whatever the source of my morals is, I emphatically hold that the source of your morals cannot be Christianity. Because Christianity amends itself according to societal pressure. Consider, for instance, the attitude of the Church in the 1500's compared to today. The Church have mellowed out, because society basically told it to do so, or shove off. People pick and choose those verses of the bible which are palatable and compatible to society, and basically flatly ignore the rest. Pictures of dead hookers and homosexuals should be common fodder in newspapers (and on the side of the road) as the biblical order to do so is followed by the Righteous and Just. If Christianity was the ultimate source of morals, this would have been common. But we don't do this, nor do we burn witches, because society continuously moderates the church to fit in with the modes and mores of the day. Society imposes its will and morals on the church - regardless what the pastor/priest/father might tell you on Sunday.

 

The only moral authority the Christian church of today wield, is imaginary.

 

I would like to see you prove me wrong.

 

 

 

Hi Boerseun, The reason I suggested that,

 

you offer me a more likely source of the morality the ethics and the values that you personally use to help you to harmonise within your society etc, and then, objectively consider an alternative to what I say holds this comparatively stable, free and democratic, sophisticated civilized society together.

 

was because by doing so you would discover as

 

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. And I am sure that if you read my proposition you will find it so.

 

That is not really a challenge to prove you wrong, for you know that proof is in the mind of the believer and that to prove some thing to the "I don’t care what you say I wont believe it" would be a non-starter.

 

your remarks vis-à-vis dead hookers and homosexuals would be related to Judaism and the old Testament which has nothing to do with the creed and code of the passive loving and gentle Christianity. (too far off topic to discuss)

 

I know this and I have no religion, and I do know that the morals code that I accept and generally follow come from the same sauce as yours.

 

All the best ..arthur…

[Zythryn]

Arthur, is part of your proposal that civilization would meet it's demise if there is a decline in Christianity (just asking for confirmation as this appears to be the case)?

If so, how would you measure this?

[HydrogenBond]

The problem might be with semantics. If some one is one part theist, and 6 parts atheist, in behavior, the math adds to atheist, but atheist will add this up to theist. Just because someone goes to church on Sunday does not make them a theist, if the rest of the week, one could not tell if they were atheist or not. They are more of an atheist.

 

I use the teaching of Christ, not the church, as one baseline. We can use the teachings of atheism as the other baseline. Next, we take things and see where they belong between these end points. In above example, the data point does not fall on either baseline. If anything it might be closer to the atheist baseline, who will say it falls on the theists baseline. Math is not a strong suit of atheists.

 

The Agnostic movement attempted to rationalize gods. This added atheist flavor to what had been previously more pure theist. This will still be called theist, by an atheist, even if there was atheist influence. I will do the math and separate this into two piles. One pile is keeping the god option open. The other pile is trying to lock it out. The atheists will call this theism even if the math places it someone in the middle.

 

The Romans did have gods as was pointed out. But they also had other things such as reason which shifted their baseline more in the middle of the two. They were not pure atheist either, but shifted the church away from their initial baseline.

[arthur]

 

HB, every once in a while your posts really hit the nail on the head, this is not one of those times. Roman atheism? Do you have anything what so ever to back that up? Anything

 

 

Again you are proceeding on a totally unverified assumption of Roman atheism, I ask again can you show where Rome or the Roman Empire was atheistic? The Spanish Inquisition was totally Christian, conceived by Christians, and sanctified by the Pope. Any Roman influence was incidental to the Christian need for control through fear and punishment.

 

Your actions here show that you cant rationally debate, only rant about things that you dont understand, you should try discussing things with clear minded highly intelligent non bigoted 15 year olds, you wouldn't be able to but if you did you would learn how not to bully, but then you seem unable to even be polite so they wouldn't listen to you. again with sympathy.

 

..arthur....

[Moontanman]

The problem might be with semantics. If some one is one part theist, and 6 parts atheist, in behavior, the math adds to atheist, but atheist will add this up to theist. Just because someone goes to church on Sunday does not make them a theist, if the rest of the week, one could not tell if they were atheist or not. They are more of an atheist.

 

I use the teaching of Christ, not the church, as one baseline. We can use the teachings of atheism as the other baseline. Next, we take things and see where they belong between these end points. In above example, the data point does not fall on either baseline. If anything it might be closer to the atheist baseline, who will say it falls on the theists baseline. Math is not a strong suit of atheists.

 

The Agnostic movement attempted to rationalize gods. This added atheist flavor to what had been previously more pure theist. This will still be called theist, by an atheist, even if there was atheist influence. I will do the math and separate this into two piles. One pile is keeping the god option open. The other pile is trying to lock it out. The atheists will call this theism even if the math places it someone in the middle.

 

The Romans did have gods as was pointed out. But they also had other things such as reason which shifted their baseline more in the middle of the two. They were not pure atheist either, but shifted the church away from their initial baseline.

 

HB, just because a person don't believe in Christianity doesn't make them an atheist, it might mean you disagree with their beliefs but it doesn't make them an atheist. Your premise of atheism and the Roman Empire doesn't hold up in any way shape or form.

[Moontanman]

 

Your actions here show that you cant rationally debate, only rant about things that you dont understand, you should try discussing things with clear minded highly intelligent non bigoted 15 year olds, you wouldn't be able to but if you did you would learn how not to bully, but then you seem unable to even be polite so they wouldn't listen to you. again with sympathy.

 

..arthur....

 

I drew a circle last nigth under the light of the Great Goddess and asked her to forgive you and show you the light so you can change your ways Arthur. I guess it didn't work. :QuestionM

[Donk]

OK, Donk, Close but not quite, in that, It is the unconscious psychological absorption and acceptance and the unconscious/spontaneous utilisation of morals, ethics, values and standards that influences the mode of subsequent behaviour which has become an integral behaviour trait of enough people to maintain the degree of harmony that makes their/this civilisation possible.

 

It is academically the case that these behaviour traits have evolved from, directly or indirectly the influences which primarily are/were conscious and subconscious interpretations of the tenets of Christianity which via the above process have permeated virtually every aspect of this Sophisticated Civilised society to the extent that the "religions" influences and society are so intertwined as to be inseparable.

 

It is having grown up in an atmosphere of security and protection of benevolent laws which allows one the freedom to, within the bounds of, for example, decency and morality, to say what we want and to do what we want, it is the universal acceptance of these (morals, ethics, values and standards) and laws which has influenced us to expect from our neighbours the kind of decent and polite treatment that they would expect from us. (except in this forum)

 

It is because we developed and grew up in this environment where the laws, the kind of morality, that have given us our concept of right and wrong, of honesty and dishonesty, etc which has allowed us, that is you and me as well as other people to evolve a psychological dependency on an expectation of us having a future, etcetera, etcetera.

I am sure that any reasonably intelligent person could extrapolate for themselves the importance of and the impact that Christianity has had on, directly and indirectly, developing moral or ethical values that they them selves might have. I am also sure that any reasonably intelligent person could not recognise that there is nobody unaffected by the influences of Christianity and its effects.

 

Consider what it is that has held the (westernised) Sophisticated "Christian" Civilised Societies that 'we' are all a part of together. Consider firstly from your own personal perspective the characteristic of you expecting others to adhere to the basic laws and the rules and values which have evolved out of the basic tenets, creed, code of belief, doctrine, professed values, of "Christianity". The laws, rules and taboos which have been the bonding meme of the society of tens of millions of free thinking individuals. The laws and rules that you have never really questioned, the ones that you have absorbed and which have become an integral part of your being, from being that young child and screaming "But that’s not fair" to the maturity of becoming spontaneously distressed by the evil or immoral activity of others who do not respect the same values.

 

Now, and here is the nub, consider that we all, you, me and every person who we know and every person who we have ever known or met and every person who we have ever seen, and, every person who we have ever heard of who lives or has lived in a Sophisticated Civilised Society; AND, Everything that you or I and any of these other people have ever done, thought, wanted or owned as well as every judgement and decision that you, I or they have ever made has been, or is, directly or indirectly influenced by or is the product of the tenets of Christianity and the Judaic ten Commandments irrespective whether you, I or they are conscious of the fact. It is because of these tenets that, Sophisticated Civilised Society exists. It is because of them that you, me and anyone else, whether you or I or they are clever or thick, intellectual or not, has the freedom to pander to their or our expectations of and enjoy the freedom, the security and protection that the society affords, irrespective of any contribution that any of us has made to it. And Donk It really is that simple,

Oh, dearie me deary me, Arthur. Too many words, too much froth. You really should learn to précis. You should also be careful not to repeat yourself. You run the danger of boring people. 662 words, saying what I said in 23:

Our civilisation is inextricably bound up with Christianity. Its history, its laws, its morals, its very mindset are all based on Christianity's teachings.

Why subject us to all this unnecessary verbiage? If you took a vote, you'd find that just about everybody posting on this thread agrees with my 23 words. How about accepting the fact that I've helped you explain things and move on?

[Moontanman]

Arthur, i would really like to ask you if you really think that morals come exclusively from Christianity? Do you think that before Christianity there were no morals? No reason to not kill, steal, rape and pillage? do you really think that Christians do not do these things? if Christianity is different from Judaism why do we still use the same rules for morality?

 

Not too many years ago Christians still thought it was ok to kill homosexuals, in some places this is still true, Mexico come to mind, a great predominately Catholic nation, in many places a woman who does something her family thinks is immoral is killed. Catholics in some third world areas are bad for honor killings. Even in the USA prostitutes, not very many years ago, were often killed or raped with impunity.

 

You keep making all these claims of a Christian society but you give nothing to back you up except that we are to mentally ill or stupid to see it. I have shown your ideas to be false several times, you have provided no other proof of your ideas except that it is obvious to 15 year olds. Well Arthur 15 year olds are not legally competent to make any decisions so why would they be so good at seeing if you are telling the truth or just grandstanding?

 

If you really wan to discuss this proved a realistic list of the things you think Christianity is responsible for and i will either agree or attempt to refute each point. To do any less is not moral.

[freeztar]

Your actions here show that you cant rationally debate, only rant about things that you dont understand, you should try discussing things with clear minded highly intelligent non bigoted 15 year olds, you wouldn't be able to but if you did you would learn how not to bully, but then you seem unable to even be polite so they wouldn't listen to you. again with sympathy.

 

..arthur....

 

Arthur,

 

Might I suggest you stop with the ad hominems and address the critiques?

 

If you didn't choose the title (and this is all based on a bet), then why did your friend choose the words "decline" and "demise". It seems like a baiting debate tactic aimed at ruffling feathers more than engaging intellectual responses, especially since you have not addressed the appeals of others to define your terms.

 

If your goal is honest, intellectual critique, then proceed with the same courtesy by addressing this.

[Mrrzy]

I would think that the fall of Christianity would *allow for he development of* civilization.