 |
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:18
|
|
There is absolutely no doubt that Christianity had both positive and negative impacts on the world. Christianity transformed the Roman world. "The meek shall inherit the earth, etc." was a decidely un-Roman concept. As Christianity rose, violence for the sake of sport virtually ended. Slaverly declined. The legal status of women, especially during the time of Justinian, advanced.
Then came the dark ages and things changed. The Church became the empire in the West and was heavily involved in the government of the East. This intermixture of Church and State lead to abuses galore, including the Crusades. the Inquisition, the great wars in the Holy Roman empire between Protestants and Catholics, ditto England and Ireland, and the endless progroms against Jews. (Indeed, the Holocost was a Christian phenomenon because Christian Europe and Pope did nothing to stop it.)
In the modern era, Christianity clearly was behind the abolition of slavery. The concept that all men are "created equal" remains a driving force in the advancement of human and civil rights, including womens rights. It is also at the center of the debates over abortion and human cloning. It is the motivating factor behind the effort, lead by the Pope, to end capital punishment. Christian clergy continuously speak out against war.
None of the above is meant to suggest that other religions and philosophies have not also contributed positively to the advancement of civilization. They have.
But now to the major problem with religions, particularly with aggressive fundamentalist reglions: Intolerance! I could go on and on about the consequences of intolerance, but just a few are: censorship, discrimination and war.
Ned
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
Nice try with this thread Che. It did seem like an attempt to ballance the scales some. The problem with this issue of the "good things" that christianity has done though is that the name of Jesus Christ has been so misused throughout history that both sides can have good points about the good and evil of "christianity" and there will never be a resolution. Jesus said to love your neighbor and even your enemy. And he also called people hypocrites who used his name while NOT doing what he said.
The so called history of christianity is largely a story of hypocrisy. The good things that real Christians did in obedience to the ACTUAL TEACHINGS of Jesus (included being a major factor in freeing the slaves in the United States) were often done in spite of the official position of the organized churches who wanted to protect their power. Hypocrite slave owners who treated their neighbors (the slaves) like dirt cannot claim the name of Jesus anymore than I can call myself the man in the moon and expect to be taken seriously.
Jesus said that many would come in his name and think that they were doing God a service in killing innocent people but he plainly said that they were not sent by him. Of course it is always fun to group the worst of the hypocrites together and call them all christians when one is ignorant of the charitable deeds and neighborly kindness that has been done for centuries by christians and others who really did think it was a good thing to love your neighbor instead of killing him for God.
America's Other Jesus
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
There is absolutely no doubt that Christianity had both positive and negative impacts on the world. Christianity transformed the Roman world. "The meek shall inherit the earth, etc." was a decidely un-Roman concept. As Christianity rose, violence for the sake of sport virtually ended. Slaverly declined. The legal status of women, especially during the time of Justinian, advanced.
Then came the dark ages and things changed. The Church became the empire in the West and was heavily involved in the government of the East. This intermixture of Church and State lead to abuses galore, including the Crusades. the Inquisition, the great wars in the Holy Roman empire between Protestants and Catholics, ditto England and Ireland, and the endless progroms against Jews. (Indeed, the Holocost was a Christian phenomenon because Christian Europe and Pope did nothing to stop it.)
In the modern era, Christianity clearly was behind the abolition of slavery. The concept that all men are "created equal" remains a driving force in the advancement of human and civil rights, including womens rights. It is also at the center of the debates over abortion and human cloning. It is the motivating factor behind the effort, lead by the Pope, to end capital punishment. Christian clergy continuously speak out against war.
None of the above is meant to suggest that other religions and philosophies have not also contributed positively to the advancement of civilization. They have.
But now to the major problem with religions, particularly with aggressive fundamentalist reglions: Intolerance! I could go on and on about the consequences of intolerance, but just a few are: censorship, discrimination and war.
Ned |
I am very intollerant.
and so are most everybody else
and it is a good thing
I am intollerant of murderers
I am intollerant of theives
I am intollerant of abusers
and so on
the hippocracy of the 'tolerance' movement is sickening
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand
Abolitionism was not religious backed. It was a political move by Lincoln, who wanted to send all Blacks to either Liberia or South Carolina as a "Black State", in retribution against South Carolina.
It didn't assure Blacks of anything in the way of Equal Rights, and was a farce for the most part. |
What did they teach you in Texas in the '70s? 
Abolitionism and emancipation are two different things. Abolition was the political movement to end slavery. People had various motives for wanting it abolished: political, economic, and religious. The abolitionist John Brown was a country preacher. Many of the leaders of the abolition movement were preachers, who felt that God did not sanction holding his children in bondage.
Lincoln's abolitionism was also religious based. Lincoln himself was a member of a very strict and devoute (and weird) Christian church. But Lincoln also felt that slavery was at odds with the ideals of the American republic.
Does this mean that Lincoln himself wasn't a racist? Does this mean that Emancipation wasn't a political move to forestall British and French recognition of the CSA? No. But don't dismiss the religious foundation of the movement.
BTW, despite the degraded status of Blacks following Emancipation, it was still far superior to being a slave. They could marry, they could hold property, they didn't have to watch helplessly as their loved ones were sold off, and they weren't worked to death. Finally, they could leave, as many did during the 20th Century.
Plus, I think you're jumbling Reconstruction in there as well.
And Southerners wonder why Northerners thing they're ignorant. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000 time: 23:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One, Brown wasn't a lunatic. Every interview with him showed him as a lucid, well spoken man who had rationally thought out what he had done. His lunacy is a product of racist thinking, in that, only a lunatic white man would lay down his life for Black men.
Two, I couldn't remember whether Garrison was a Reverend or not, and didn't want to stick my foot in my mouth (again as some of you may think ) |
Actually, read an interesting book, on John Brown, in which an entire chapter focused on the politics of Brown's insanity.
The author stressed both sides of the argument, using primary source quotes, and secondary sources from other historians. We have not still determined who is right --- was Brown sane or insane??
You are right about one thing --- many people still believe in the myths of Reconstruction. It was a time of potential for racial equality, but failed for several reasons:
1) racial and political violence by Southern white Democrats
2) economic depression caused Republican party to turn their backs towards blacks at end of Reconstruction to focus on the crisis of the economy in the 1870's
3) sharecropping prevented the South from developing an improved agricultural system
4) Republican party began to change its ideology on race by the 1890's, and became esssentially, a white supremacist party, just as the Democratic party was in the 19th century
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18. Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|