Christianity's Great Achievments

[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

[MrFun]

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.


Your history lesson for the morning.

Reconstruction and the civil rights that were established were not a farce. It failed in the face of racial and political violence, along with the Republican party's changing ideology.

You did not tell me anything new -- I know the facts, since I am interested in this particular time period.

Yes -- I have also read about the different African-colonization organizations that were functioning as well.

[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]

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

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

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

So in other words, you cannot tolerate religious, faithful people just because of historical and contemporary institutional abuse and misuse?

Individual Christians outside the institution itself, are not responsible for the crimes of past and present and abuses that have been done.

Blame the actual individual Christians who used the religion for the wrong purposes.

[chequita guevara]

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.

[Adam Smith]

Chegitz:

John Brown, a raving lunatic, is a poor example.
Reverend William Lloyd Garrison is a much better one.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Chegitz:

John Brown, a raving lunatic, is a poor example.
Reverend William Lloyd Garrison is a much better one.

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 )

[MrFun]

double post

[MrFun]

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

[chequita guevara]

You forgot a third reason for coming out, MrFun.

The Coming Out Party!!!!!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You forgot a third reason for coming out, MrFun.

The Coming Out Party!!!!!

You just noticed my Signature line?
Anyway, let's not get into that on this thread.

If this Reconstruction discussion continues, I or someone else might have to initiate a new thread for this. But, if we can end it with one more post from you, what are your thoughts on my comments about Reconstruction??

Yeah, I care about other people's opinions.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun


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

Huh?

I don't think the Republican party has ever been a "white supremacist" party. The Republican Party, IIRC, has always been a party interested in "business" and advancing capitalism. It had and has very little interest in social issues except to the extent they take resources away from the private sector and ****** economic freedom. Thus its reputation for not being "compassionate," etc.

Racism, in my view, was primarily concentrated in the South. There the Republican party had virtually no presence until the last 40 years or so.

Ned

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I don't think the Republican party has ever been a "white supremacist" party.

It is now. After the Democratic Party embraced civil rights, all of the Southern Dixiecrats fled the party and became Republicans.
However, MrFun is speaking not so much about active support of white supremacy than acceptance of it as the natural order of things.

Racism, in my view, was primarily concentrated in the South. There the Republican party had virtually no presence until the last 40 years or so.

Ned

Racism has never been soley or primarily a preogative of the South. It is only because the South has had greater access to Blacks that it had more opportunity to do bad things to them. There were anti-Black race riots in New York during the Civl War. Blacks had to live under restricted rules in the North. If you buy property in the North, you may be horrified to discover that your property deed has a restrictive covenent, barring Black people and/or Jews from purchasing your property (these no longer have any legal standing, but must remain part of the property deed).

MrFun. Your scribblings on Reconstruction are on target. I couldn't have made it any better or more concise.

[Ned]

Chegitz, The Republican party is not racist even if some people who vote Republican are. The Republican party in the modern era is primarily a party people who share an economic philosophy. This philosophy manifests itself in being hard line anti-communists. Why? Because communists limit economic freedom.

In contrast, I cannot think of a Republican president or a republican party "plank" that was simply "racist." Until the current president, social issues were largely irrelevant to Republicans.

Ned