The Triumph of Christianity

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


And if you succeed, what then?

No nation has successfully reversed what they call the demographic transition. The birthrate drops below replacement levels, and remains that way.

You are both right and wrong. Several conties has experienced minus growth and the reaction has been opening for immigration. Trouble is that headcount has beeen stabilised, but that's all - the addon in populace doesn't pay off. You may argue that it's the wrong kind of people we get, but i think that braindrain of the third world is one of the worst thing to do, not only to the third world country, but also to the country that imports those (you only keeps status quo or worsens it)

[Ben Kenobi]

Immigration isn't really the solution, because your appetite for people is insatiable.

Adding a couple hundred thousand a year, isn't going to revise the structural impediments in place towards larger families.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Not really the point at hand. I'm asking why someone, without religion, would choose to constrain his behaviour in such a manner, particularly where such constraints are contrary to his own best interests.

I'm not saying all Christians do succeed in constraining their behaviour. Paul is very clear, that if we were to be judged by the law, we would all fail. None of us manage to live as we ought, but in trying to live, we take upon more of the characteristics of Christ.

I don't believe that any of those constraints are based on a religious ground. They are rules that any "common sense" people will agree to and regulations will be a natural part of legslation.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Immigration isn't really the solution, because your appetite for people is insatiable.

Adding a couple hundred thousand a year, isn't going to revise the structural impediments in place towards larger families.

Quite agree. The (new) danish government has been able to reduce immigration from 30.000 to 3.000 in the last tree years, You migth say that we have lost 27.000 new citizens but the problem is that they mainly would have ended up as unemployed, and then society at all would have lost.

[Velociryx]

Just one question:

Are they going to have "Commando Day" ??



-=Vel=-

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sort of. I'm talking about, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet, those sorts of things.

Why would one apart from the law accept such constraints on his behaviour?

At the moment I there aren´t any human tribes about ewhich I have further knowledge(although they exist),
but Mahathma Gandhi comes into my mind if it goes for "christian" behavior of a noch Christian.

But you could take nonhuman animals, such as monkeys.
As they are (just as humans) herd animals, for them it is just as for humans important to follow certain rules,
where the individual has no personal gains, but the tribe/groups as a whole probably benefits.
Look for example Chimpanzees and Bonobos. They have the ability to lie, for example by faking Alarm Calls, when they have found something to eat, thereby preventing that other apes of their tribe also detect the food. But nevertheless such a behavior seldom happens.
Animals which are caught lying will also be trusted less in the future.
You could also find other forms of altruism, in the animal kingdom, for example Whales helping wounded or young other whales. This is the reason why you often hear about Dolphins helping shipwrecked humans which otherwise would likely drown.
You could also find numerous examples of sharing food among animals.
All these herd animals haven´t formulated these principles into laws, but they obey them nevertheless.
(And at least in Apes and probably Dolphins you should take into account that they have a certain degree of sentience which also, as mentioned, to disobey these rules obf behavior)

What is the reason for conducting behavior which isn´t of use for yourself?
The survival and functioning of the group you are with.
The ten amendments (aside from the first one) are nothing other than guidelines to strenghten the tribe/group you are with, by lessening the friction among the members of the group. They don´t benefit the single person/animal, but the group as a whole, which is the reason why they are implemented.
And it is also the reason why these laws (like the ten amendments) often enough only were followed in face of a member of the own group, but wouldn´t prevent the tribe/group for example from waging wars against other groups/tribes (which they couldn´t if they would obey the rule "thou shalt not kill" against all other humans including the members of other tribes).

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Just one question:

Are they going to have "Commando Day" ??



-=Vel=-

And what is "Commando day" ?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by BlackCat
And what is "Commando day" ?

It's like "Bra-Burning Day", but with less fire and double the underwear.

[Ben Kenobi]

You migth say that we have lost 27.000 new citizens but the problem is that they mainly would have ended up as unemployed, and then society at all would have lost.

That's even worse. Restricting immigration without removing these other impediments, will just mean that the Danish population declines.

I don't believe that any of those constraints are based on a religious ground. They are rules that any "common sense" people will agree to and regulations will be a natural part of legslation.

I don't think these constraints make much sense at all. I don't know the structure in Denmark, but offering benefits to families, particularly to women who choose to have kids earlier on, will see an improvement in your situation.

One option would be to have more leeway for these women going to school to return, without losing the credits and the work they put into school.

[Ben Kenobi]

At the moment I there aren´t any human tribes about ewhich I have further knowledge(although they exist),
but Mahathma Gandhi comes into my mind if it goes for "christian" behavior of a noch Christian.

Yes, he is a remarkable figure. I don't know where he'll end up.

But you could take nonhuman animals, such as monkeys.
As they are (just as humans) herd animals, for them it is just as for humans important to follow certain rules,
where the individual has no personal gains, but the tribe/groups as a whole probably benefits.

Okay, if you use Gandhi as your model, would you consider his behaviour to automatically follow from pack behaviour? It's my understanding that people are less likely to help others when they are in a group, and more likely to do so on their own.

Look for example Chimpanzees and Bonobos. They have the ability to lie, for example by faking Alarm Calls, when they have found something to eat, thereby preventing that other apes of their tribe also detect the food. But nevertheless such a behavior seldom happens.
Animals which are caught lying will also be trusted less in the future.

True, but such behaviour does not make the animals, or people stop lying, and could merely encourage their lies to be more difficult to detect. There's nothing natural about someone not only refraining from lies, but also, choosing to repent from lies told previously.

You could also find other forms of altruism, in the animal kingdom, for example Whales helping wounded or young other whales. This is the reason why you often hear about Dolphins helping shipwrecked humans which otherwise would likely drown.

I haven't heard of that myself.

What I'm trying to say, is that real altruistic behaviour in people is not something that we see as their natural impulse, but rather, goes beyond that impulse. Don't we say, when someone does this sort of thing, that he has chosen to act this way, rather than him merely acting on instinct?

All these herd animals haven´t formulated these principles into laws, but they obey them nevertheless.
(And at least in Apes and probably Dolphins you should take into account that they have a certain degree of sentience which also, as mentioned, to disobey these rules obf behavior)

Which is a very good point. Humans, with greater sentience, would be much less likely to naturally follow this behaviour, but rather, to act out against it.

The survival and functioning of the group you are with.
The ten amendments (aside from the first one) are nothing other than guidelines to strenghten the tribe/group you are with, by lessening the friction among the members of the group. They don´t benefit the single person/animal, but the group as a whole, which is the reason why they are implemented.

How can they be implemented, if they come about naturally? You have to give up one of your presuppositions. If this behaviour follows naturally from human interaction, then there will be no need to institute such a code. If there is a need to implement such a code, than such behaviour does not come naturally to people.

And it is also the reason why these laws (like the ten amendments) often enough only were followed in face of a member of the own group, but wouldn´t prevent the tribe/group for example from waging wars against other groups/tribes (which they couldn´t if they would obey the rule "thou shalt not kill" against all other humans including the members of other tribes).

Thou shalt not murder is different from 'thou shalt not kill.' It does not prevent those from killing others in self-defense.

[Pax]

religion is a tool to keep the masses in line.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by BlackCat


No, Eourope has a relatively high unemployment and many countires has already a problem with integration of immigrants wich have extremely high unemployment rates.

Because they have no necessary skills, while Europeans won't accept jobs that there's lack of work in.

It's not true that eouropean countries are encouraging mass imigration - on the contrary, they are seeking for ways to stop what has happened the last 20 years.

But in the past, they did

I'm confused, please elaborate : "Others religions are growing - simply because they had 0 deal earlier, or close to it"

Simply. If there was a monoparty system, for example, and You introduced political freedom, the monoparty will always lose at least some support

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Pax
religion is a tool to keep the masses in line.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Masses can get pretty rambunctious.

[Heresson]

Oh, forgot to reply to that;

Religion isn't an invention of the power over people.
Christianity was the masses' invention.
Religion CAN BE USED as a tool to keep the masses in line, but IS NOT a tool t.k.t.m.i.l.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Christianity

Western societies weren't dying out when they still believed in it...

Same can be said for any society with its particular defining ideology. Read Toynbee or Braudel.