Do they generally provide a wider opportunity for the pursuit of happiness than nations founded upon the ethics of other religions?
By Christian I mean Protestant Christianity because the form Roman Catholic nations to the south of us have taken is significantly different than those of North America and Protestant Western Europe.
Is it mostly the Judeo influence that has prospered North America and Western Europe?
Is it mostly the Protestant influence that has created an ideal of universal opportunity?
Not at all. I believe it is just the opposite. Outdated superstitions hold people back. Especially when it comes to the hipocrasy of christianity.
I do love your belief system. Contradiction as god and narrowness of insight as prophecy. How compelling. When are your services and can anybody join. Is there a ritual like circumcision? Do I have to have my vision all manured-up so I can see the "truth," too?
Does your church have a name? Can I suggest one? How about the church of coproblepsia?
Sorry. No church and what belief system are you referring too? Are you a christian? If so then that would explain your vision all manured up statement. Of course christians are humane. Witch trials, crusades, and as soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]
According to Christian chroniclers he "followed meticulously all Christian teachings..."
In 6th century pagans were declared void of all rights.
In the early fourth century the philosopher Sopatros was executed on demand of Christian authorities. [DA466]
The world famous female philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was torn to pieces with glass fragments by a hysterical Christian mob led by a Christian minister named Peter, in a church, in 415.
I know, what a horror show it has been. Humanity was living in a pagan paradise where women and men were equal. There was no slavery. Freedom reigned and everything was rainbows and butterflies. It isn't until the rise of Christianity and the adaptation of Greek philosophy to religion and Roman efficiencies to governance that human freedom begins its long climb toward preeminence. The pagan world offered lives that were mean and brief. With in a millennium western culture was Christian and making cultural advances that out paced the previous ten thousand years.
Im not promoting paganism or any other religion. The question was whether or not christian ethics creates a more humane society. Of course it does not. My last post was just a drop in the bucket of atrocities committed by christians.
I would maintain that it does indeed foster a more humane society. A new regard for the human being as a child of God not just another beast of burden or animal for religious sacrifice takes hold early on and grows. What is pagan? The religion of pre-Columbian America? The tribal religions of Africa? Hinduism? If one were to examine the religious practices of ancient Germans, Celts and Britons one finds human sacrifice, brutality, cannibalism, etc.... It isn't until the rise of the West that any revolution in how people are viewed occurs. Instrumental in that rise is Christianity.
Christianity also deals in human sacrifice. I have a problem with the belief that the only way to salvation is through the sacrifice of a man called Jesus purported to be the son of god. The only way to salvation is through this humans death.
Oh, now I am convinced. Your deep insightful understanding of Christian theology have convinced me. Worst still, as a Catholic I have eaten his flesh and drank his blood. What a monster I am. Maybe some naked full moon dancing and some white sage burning will heal me. Maybe building temples to cows and rats will heal me. I know I am just a Christ Zombie but it would be nice if someone thought deeper than a teaspoon when discussing religion.
Leave it to a christian to become offensive when someone challenges their beliefs. Also there is just as much chance of healing by burning sage and moon dancing then eating some crackers and drinking some wine. It seems to me that you are the one drowning in a teaspoon with your inability to open your mind. I would rather dance naked in the moonlight then take my chances with a catholic priest. Too much unholy touching.
Er..the Mayans had computed the orbit of Venus within 2 hours of accuracy over a period of 500 years. This was 1000 years before Galileo did the same. So much for Christian superiority!
How many people did they cut open to make that calculation? I made no claims to scientific superiority. Good reading comprehension skills, though saw right through all that garbage about philosophy and ethics.
how many witches were burned in Salem?
How many foreigners were killed in the Crusades?
Humans are humans, get over it.
Hell, I've seen my dog treat other dogs more ethically than some humans in history have treated other humans. And they can't even negotiate complicated thoughts to one another.
I took the point of this OP to be that there is an ethical difference between cultures influenced by Christianity not the personal, individual moral superiority of anyone just because they are, or call themselves, a Christian. IT is my contention that history bares out that the influence of western culture, inextricably linked to Christianity, has resulted in great liberty and prosperity for people than any other has. One need only examine those cultures still rooted in non-Western traditions. It is the influence of Christian philosophy on the nature of man that has propelled Western society to its current heights.
What other culture has done more? This does not guarantee the morality of that culture but rather it perception of man as no longer the pawn of a fatalistic universal order but as the captain of his fate.
"What other culture has done more?"
That's such a foolish question to ask, and it reeks of racism. China out-shined the entire world for centuries until it decided to turn to protectionism and isolationist and restrictive government policies. And THEIR god is DIFFERENT than OUR GOD!!!! (NOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo)
I highly recommend the book "Guns Germs and Steel", by Jared Diamond.
It is western religious thought that has fostered the liberty that we enjoy. One cannot fully divorce Catholicism from western culture any more than one can remove the a Greeks or the Romans from it. The philosophical underpinnings of Protestant theology and the Enlightenment are a product of Medieval Catholic philosophers and thinkers like Aquinas.
When one looks south one should recall that the cultural roots of Latin America are Spanish and Portuguese whereas North America is mostly English but also German, Scotch-Irish, French and Dutch. There has been a substantial Catholic population in North America since the Revolution. The foundational philosophy of the Declaration is natural law theory a hall mark of Catholic philosophy.
I do take that into account, but one must also remember the authority of the Roman Church and it's history of squelching independent inquiry. The selling of dispensations and the history of anti-Semitism must also be considered I think. The racism that is institutionalized in the Latin countries and the extreme wealth of the few against the extreme poverty of the many have their root, I believe, in the Church. There is a humble fatalism existent in Catholicism that does not occur in Protestantism. It makes for charming, meek people and maybe they will inherit America, but if they bring their culture it will no longer resemble the America they seek.
Here is a list of "humble meek" people subservient to the Pope. There is an anti-Catholic bent to Protestant America that fails to recognize the profound contribution made by Catholics to the philosophy of the Revolution. Edmund Burke, John Baptiste Rousseau, and others demonstrate that the ideas behind the Enlightenment and American Revolution were Catholics and Protestants.
This is all true, I know it is true. But the Catholic intellectual and the Catholic saint are not the Catholic institution. The reality of the condition of Catholic dominated nations cannot be discounted.
Maryland was lovely, but it's a good thing they were surrounded by Protestants and not Catholics from Spain.
I have friends and family who are Catholic. I love them and I love their faith and I love their God, but I do not love the institution nor its affect on nations.
Hokey, what sin did Jesus commit? His followers are not perfect by far and they make mistakes and they sin yesterday, today and always in this world. Why will you focus on the evil and not see the good. This isn't heaven you know, evil abounds and it infects everything here. There's plenty of good to see too.
As for Jesus commitiing sins I would not know. There is actually no historical documentation of a man named Jesus anywhere except the bible. I really dont like religion at all. More people have been killed in the name of religion than anything else.
We possess at least the testimony of Tacitus (A.D. 54-119) for the statements that the Founder of the Christian religion, a deadly superstition in the eyes of the Romans, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius; that His religion, though suppressed for a time, broke forth again not only throughout Judea where it had originated, but even in Rome, the conflux of all the streams of wickedness and shamelessness; furthermore, that Nero had diverted from himself the suspicion of the burning of Rome by charging the Christians with the crime; that these latter were not guilty of arson, though they deserved their fate on account of their universal misanthropy. Tacitus, moreover, describes some of the horrible torments to which Nero subjected the Christians (Ann., XV, xliv). The Roman writer confounds the Christians with the Jews, considering them as a especially abject Jewish sect; how little he investigated the historical truth of even the Jewish records may be inferred from the credulity with which he accepted the absurd legends and calumnies about the origin of he Hebrew people (Hist., V, iii, iv).
Another Roman writer who shows his acquaintance with Christ and the Christians is Suetonius (A.D. 75-160). It has been noted that Suetonius considered Christ (Chrestus) as a Roman insurgent who stirred up seditions under the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54): "Judaeos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes (Claudius) Roma expulit" (Clau., xxv). In his life of Nero he regards that emperor as a public benefactor on account of his severe treatment of the Christians: "Multa sub eo et animadversa severe, et coercita, nec minus instituta . . . . afflicti Christiani, genus hominum superstitious novae et maleficae" (Nero, xvi). The Roman writer does not understand that the Jewish troubles arose from the Jewish antagonism to the Messianic character of Jesus Christ and to the rights of the Christian Church.
Pliny the Younger
Of greater importance is the letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (about A.D. 61-115), in which the Governor of Bithynia consults his imperial majesty as to how to deal with the Christians living within his jurisdiction. On the one hand, their lives were confessedly innocent; no crime could be proved against them excepting their Christian belief, which appeared to the Roman as an extravagant and perverse superstition. On the other hand, the Christians could not be shaken in their allegiance to Christ, Whom they celebrated as their God in their early morning meetings (Ep., X, 97, 98). Christianity here appears no longer as a religion of criminals, as it does in the texts of Tacitus and Suetonius; Pliny acknowledges the high moral principles of the Christians, admires their constancy in the Faith (pervicacia et inflexibilis obstinatio), which he appears to trace back to their worship of Christ (carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere).
Other pagan writers
The remaining pagan witnesses are of less importance: In the second century Lucian sneered at Christ and the Christians, as he scoffed at the pagan gods. He alludes to Christ's death on the Cross, to His miracles, to the mutual love prevailing among the Christians ("Philopseudes", nn. 13, 16; "De Morte Pereg"). There are also alleged allusions to Christ in Numenius (Origen, Against Celsus IV.51), to His parables in Galerius, to the earthquake at the Crucifixion in Phlegon (Origen, Against Celsus II.14). Before the end of the second century, the logos alethes of Celsus, as quoted by Origen (Contra Celsus, passim), testifies that at that time the facts related in the Gospels were generally accepted as historically true. However scanty the pagan sources of the life of Christ may be, they bear at least testimony to His existence, to His miracles, His parables, His claim to Divine worship, His death on the Cross, and to the more striking characteristics of His religion.
Philo, who dies after A.D. 40, is mainly important for the light he throws on certain modes of thought and phraseology found again in some of the Apostles. Eusebius (Church History II.4) indeed preserves a legend that Philo had met St. Peter in Rome during his mission to the Emperor Caius; moreover, that in his work on the contemplative life he describes the life of the Christian Church in Alexandria founded by St. Mark, rather than that of the Essenes and Therapeutae. But it is hardly probable that Philo had heard enough of Christ and His followers to give an historical foundation to the foregoing legends.
The earlist non-Christian writer who refers Christ is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus; born A.D. 37, he was a contemporary of the Apostles, and died in Rome A.D. 94. Two passages in his "Antiquities" which confirm two facts of the inspired Christian records are not disputed. In the one he reports the murder of "John called Baptist" by Herod (Ant., XVIII, v, 2), describing also John's character and work; in the other (Ant., XX, ix, 1) he disapproves of the sentence pronounced by the high priest Ananus against "James, brother of Jesus Who was called Christ." It is antecedently probable that a writer so well informed as Josephus, must have been well acquainted too with the doctrine and the history of Jesus Christ. Seeing, also, that he records events of minor importance in the history of the Jews, it would be surprising if he were to keep silence about Jesus Christ.
Consideration for the priests and Pharisees did not prevent him from mentioning the judicial murders of John the Baptist and the Apostle James; his endeavour to find the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies in Vespasian did not induce him to pass in silence over several Jewish sects, though their tenets appear to be inconsistent with the Vespasian claims. One naturally expects, therefore, a notice about Jesus Christ in Josephus. Antiquities XVIII, iii, 3, seems to satisfy this expectation:
A testimony so important as the foregoing could not escape the work of the critics. Their conclusions may be reduced to three headings: those who consider the passage wholly spurious; those who consider it to be wholly authentic; and those who consider it to be a little of each.
Those who regard the passage as spurious
First, there are those who consider the whole passage as spurious. The principal reasons for this view appear to be the following:
* Josephus could not represent Jesus Christ as a simple moralist, and on the other hand he could not emphasize the Messianic prophecies and expectations without offending the Roman susceptibilities;
* the above cited passage from Josephus is said to be unknown to Origen and the earlier patristic writers;
* its very place in the Josephan text is uncertain, since Eusebius (Church History II.6) must have found it before the notices concerning Pilate, while it now stands after them.
Those who regard the passage as authentic, with some spurious additions
A second class of critics do not regard the whole of Josephus's testimony concerning Christ as spurious but they maintain the interpolation of parts included above in parenthesis. The reasons assigned for this opinion may be reduced to the following two:
* Josephus must have mentioned Jesus, but he cannot have recognized Him as the Christ; hence part of our present Josephan text must be genuine, part must be interpolated.
* Again, the same conclusion follows from the fact that Origen knew a Josephan text about Jesus, but was not acquainted with our present reading; for, according to the great Alexandrian doctor, Josephus did not believe that Jesus was the Messias ("In Matth.", xiii, 55; Against Celsus I.47).
Those who consider it to be completely genuine
The third class of scholars believe that the whole passage concerning Jesus, as it is found today in Josephus, is genuine. The main arguments for the genuineness of the Josephan passage are the following:
* First, all codices or manuscripts of Josephus's work contain the text in question; to maintain the spuriousness of the text, we must suppose that all the copies of Josephus were in the hands of Christians, and were changed in the same way.
* Second, it is true that neither Tertullian nor St. Justin makes use of Josephus's passage concerning Jesus; but this silence is probably due to the contempt with which the contemporary Jews regarded Josephus, and to the relatively little authority he had among the Roman readers. Writers of the age of Tertullian and Justin could appeal to living witnesses of the Apostolic tradition.
* Third, Eusebius ("Hist. Eccl"., I, xi; cf. "Dem. Ev.", III, v) Sozomen (Church History I.1), Niceph. (Hist. Eccl., I, 39), Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. IV, 225), St. Jerome (catal.script. eccles. xiii), Ambrose, Cassiodorus, etc., appeal to the testimony of Josephus; there must have been no doubt as to its authenticity at the time of these illustrious writers.
* Fourth, the complete silence of Josephus as to Jesus would have been a more eloquent testimony than we possess in his present text; this latter contains no statement incompatible with its Josephan authorship: the Roman reader needed the information that Jesus was the Christ, or the founder of the Christian religion; the wonderful works of Jesus and His Resurrection from the dead were so incessantly urged by the Christians that without these attributes the Josephan Jesus would hardly have been acknowledged as the founder of Christianity.
All this does not necessarily imply that Josephus regarded Jesus as the Jewish Messias; but, even if he had been convinced of His Messiahship, it does not follow that he would have become a Christian. A number of possible subterfuges might have supplied the Jewish historian with apparently sufficient reasons for not embracing Christianity.
These accounts were written by people who didnt know him. Only heard stories of him. Pure hearsay.
I suppose all reporters know the subjects of their little conjectures? Are you sure anything exists that you have never laid your own eyes on?
Could be a trick.
Believe nothing on the faith of traditions,
even though they have been held in honor
for many generations and in diverse places.
Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it.
Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past.
Do not believe what you yourself have imagined,
persuading yourself that a God inspires you.
Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests.
After examination, believe what you yourself have tested
and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
Are you sure? Have you counted? Even in the last two thousand years? Are you sure? How about the milennia preceding Christ?
I said more people have been killed in the name of religion. Not necessarily just christianity.
Actually, in more recent centuries and decades even, the "non religious" have outdone themselves in the mass murdering regimes. This is just factual, basic observable history. If you compare, and look at the recent nature of it its really eye opening.
Jesus isn't mentioned...well of course not. Who would care whether a Jew carpenter from the deep back waters of a dirty little country was executed by the representative of Rome? Is the name of any other criminal recorded anywhere? How literate was the world at that time? Of course writings from the 1st and 2nd centuries by believers are not in anyway as credible as those of non-believers. It is always useful to get a good bunch in your panties and then just deny, contradict, reject, etc....
The four Gospels were completed before the 2nd century. What can one conclude from those Gospels separate from religious belief? Why, at a time when few people could read, were the Gospels written down? Why do we accept the writing of Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny(elder and younger) and Livy when their work doesn't rise to the level of current rigor regarding sources and evidence.
Isn't "proof" of one's actual existence a product of a complex and literate society? What actual evidence is there for the existence of any historical figure? It is not hard to argue anyone out of existence.
Yes. To be clear, people must first understand what Judeo Christian Values even are. There are a lot of misinformed people out there. So you have to go to the correct sources, to even know what Jesus taught. Then you can find the truth to that answer. I would say yes, they are generally more humane to all, including those that don't agree with their beliefs. I have yet to see a better worldview that is more for the freedom for all people everywhere, including all members of society, no matter who they are. Its actually pretty indisputable. Asking it here though, you will get some backlash to be sure.
Sticking to the facts, and knowing what Judeo Christian Values even are, is a great place to start.
Sure - humane.
Dropping atomic bombs on a civilian population?
Slavery and segregation?
Wiping out indigenous peoples?
2 world wars?
Poisoning the Gulf of Mexico?
You want to blame all this on "Judeo Christian Ethics? "
Not going to argue with you.
No, the reason is simple: any sort of monotheism do not tolerate competition, and thus, automatically is NOT more humane. A polytheistic religion is more humane.
Look at the the history: which religions are monotheistic? Islam, Judaism, and Christianity (though technically they are referring to the same God, right?)
But they've fought battles for a thousand years.
Most wars were started by followers of these religions, or attempt to destroy those religions and their followers.
Which wars were started by followers of polytheistic religions? Hmmm? Far less than the monotheistic religions, I'd say.
Is it proper to put "Judeo Christian" and Ethics in the same sentence?
Seems to me that religions, especially fundamentalism in nearly all religions tend to promote intolerance and divisiveness.
Also, for some reason religious fundamentalists of most stripes seem to have an unhealthy preoccupation with sin and sexuality.
The Judeo-Christian tradition has served the function of devising and transmitting an useful ethical rules for their communities except that the fundamentalists have dragged their feet on women's, minorities, and LGBT rights and issues. And, as Hokey pointed out, Christianity has historically perpetrated atrocities and wars against "infidels." And the "protestant ethic" has promoted scientific and economic progress in the U.S. and the UK.
I personally find more accessible moral guidance from serious literature, plays and movies dealing with age old moral issues in contemporary situations than I do from the Bible.
Ralph, I was struck by the first two words of your post - "I personally" because in those two words you describe the sole repository of any spiritual belief system. People - individual people - are Christian, or Hindu or Muslim, not countries. (Would you describe your car as patriotic?)
Individuals of strong spiritual belief have altered the course of history, whether Mahatama Gandh (Hindu)i or the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. The beliefs of individuals matter, not the proclaimed religious orientation of a country.
Perhaps the only truly original concept in the entire US Constitution is the separation of church and state. In history, almost all governments formed an alliance with a state religion. The state protected the favored religion and the religion blessed the leaders as selected by god. A crooked scam that worked over and over until the birth of secular government.
Humans are humans, get over it.
You're not better because your god is called Thor, or Jesus, or Muhammad, or Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Ethics don't come from the BELIEF in a particular god, they come from being human (humans MIGHT have been CREATED by a god, but the ethics don't come from choosing which god to believe in).
I'm an atheist, and 99.997% of your DNA is the same as mine, and as any other deity-believing individual.
Admitting that one is an atheist says I neither know or undestand the God of creation.
Ethics can come from many things but being human doesn't mean those ethics are going to be good ones as their is plenty of history to proof that point. From rulers who believed only in themselves.
Right, humans aren't perfect. But the OP is suggesting that Judeo-Christian civilizations are "less-evil" than others.
This is utter nonsense.
And I'm not "admitting" that I'm an Atheist, I'm telling you. Being an atheist does NOT mean that "I neither know or understand the God of Creation", it means that "I don't BELIEVE that there is a God of Creation".
There is a HUGE difference.
And, let me tell you, unless I tell people my beliefs, they don't think anythings less (or more) of me. They can't distinguish my "ethical belief system" apart from anyone else's.
This is evidence against the idea that Christians are "better" than others.
I also lived in Japan for four years. They're pretty moral individuals! I lost my wallet **TWICE** and it was returned to a police station with ALL the money and credit cards UNTOUCHED, both times.
Once again: No. Christians aren't better than anyone else. we're all humans.
Get over it.
GET OVER YOURSELF You aren't anybody to be giving advice on what is good and what is bad.
And I'm not "admitting" that I'm an Atheist, I'm telling you. Being an atheist does NOT mean that "I neither know or understand the God of Creation", it means that "I don't BELIEVE that there is a God of Creation".
This has got to be the stupidest thing I've read so far- you must enlighten little old me how Not Knowing and Not Believing is a huge different??
The fact that you got you're wallet back means All Japanese are the only people we can truly count on.
I'm not sure what world you've been living on but there is bad all around this world and believer or non-believer doesn't eliminate any one.
It's impossible to prove a god exists. Thus, even Christians must admit to not knowing.
But the important aspect of being an Atheist that sets it apart from other ideologies is that "we" simply reject the notion that there is a god.
I can't prove a god exists or doesn't exist, neither can you. But YOU go one step and say "God must exist, despite a lack of evidence", and I go the other direction and say "God must NOT exist, there is no evidence".
Whatever you argue, I'm doing what you're doing just in the opposite direction.
I never claimed that non-believers are evil, or that believers are evil - I'm merely saying that "believing" is not what makes one moral.
Ethics are not religiously based. They are universal. Even tribes that have hardly come into contact with humanity have similar ethic codes to Christians (or whoever). In the book "the God Delusion", Richard Dawkins recalls a study where a researcher went about asking people questions to find out how universal morals are. he found out that they're pretty universal.
Religion is not where ethics come from.
Religion is not where ethics come from
As I stated before etchics can come from a number of places., I never made the claim that ethics did come from believing I did how point out I believe better ethics come from those who believe in that someone or something who is better than themselves. We get ethics from our parents, we get ethics from our school, we get ethics from our friends and surroundings but areall these ethics the same? No.
Providing God is something non-believers are trying to do and God or at least the one I follow never told us to prove his existence and frankly it's a waste of time because if God were to be proven it wouldn't change a single thing to many non-believers Because They Aren't Look For God-They're looking to have things their own way-Just Like Adam & Eve.
The one thing people seem to look for are facts like they really mean something only to be presented with facts and have them dismissed.
The Christian God ask that his people Trust Him- clearly that is a foreign concept for those who only trust what they see, taste, touch, etc.
Someone else posed the following question:
"If you were somewhere you never been before at night getting out of your car and a bunch of men were approaching you. Would it be better if these men were coming out of a Bar or a Church?"
YOU never made the argument that Ethics comes from religion, but the OP did.
I'm not here to argue about religion. I'm here to argue the OP's claim that some religions lead to better ethics than others.
I don't think that this is true, and I've made my case.
The Question that you asked is a poor questions. You should ask the questions:
"if you were somewhere you had never been before at night time, and you saw a group of people approaching you at night, would it be better if those people were leaving a Christian Church, A Jewish Synagogue, an Islamic Church, a Shinto Jinjya, a Buddhist Temple, or an Atheist's meeting?"
This would be MUCH more on point with the OP.
Like I said, I'm not here to discuss whether god exists or not. it's hopeless.
The OP is asking if Christians have a better set of morals than others. I answer "no".
Damn. I'm starting to like E.G.R. now. . . . . and I was sure that I just wouldn't.
Everyone has the right to their own Opinion. Campartively speaking my answer would be Yes they do.
"Are Nations Founded on Judeo Christian Ethics Generally More Humane?" Seems I heard or read some place that the Catholic Church burned a million or three
million witches. Or does that not come under auspices of nations.
"No, the reason is simple: any sort of monotheism do not tolerate competition, and thus, automatically is NOT more humane. A polytheistic religion is more humane." Absolutely fantastic observation.
The requirement of obedience to one and only one is the definition of fascism.
Western Europe and North America are more democratic and less authoritarian than nations, where other more fundamentalist religions hold sway. However, this has not always been the case. Mediaeval Europe was a very feudal society, where religion had as much control over the population as it does today in most muslim countries. The fact that this is not so today, is as a result of religion losing its control. Statistically, there are far more atheists in Western Europe, than there are Christians. It is with the loss of religion in Western Europe, that people have gained freedom and democracy. It is not the Church which has given these freedoms to the population, but the loss of faith, and improved education which made people realise that no authority, whether religious or political has the right to dictate morality. And, the humane laws, which enshrine human rights and equality are relatively recent political developments, made long after religion lost its power over the population.
When you consider that Islam is almost seven hundred years younger than Christianity, this might explain why it seems so undemocratic and fundamentalist to the Western mind. Seven hundred years ago, the Christian mind was equally authoritarian. It is because of the loss of control of the Church, that it has had to adapt to the humane and democratic trends of the secular culture it now finds itself surrounded by. Hopefully, Islam may make similar developments, and hopefully it will not take another seven hundred years to do so.
Nice little treatise Nelville Walk. Rings true to history as I know it. Have you read
"Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates: A Novel" by Tom Robbins per chance? For some reason called to mind.
"Interesting, then if a person is their sole authority and is obedient to their conscience, then are concluded to be fascists? Hmmm.....".
What person - living or dead? Religion and perhaps spirituality use external authority
not of the self. Mysticism could be described as finding authority in one's self alone, whether fascist or not is up to the individual. 'He went over to the dark side'.
The values of Abraham and of Jesus who are part of the history of Christianity and Judeo-ism are humane. Jesus spoke of love and peace throughout his life on earth. I think in answer to your question family and unity are important features of living as Judeo or Christian so yes generically people from these faiths are more humane. Though there are extreme and violent sects in Judeo and Christian traditions. England was based on traditional Christian Values and was a very warm and spirited place to live. Italy is still based on strong Catholic values and humane values run through people in Italy where friendship and community are important. So yes nations founded on Christian values are more humane. But there are nations founded on Christian values like Romania in the former eastern Europe where Christian values were part of day to day living but it was radical Christianity and the results were non too human. Sectarian ethnic cleansing was common. So yes in some cases nations built on Christian and Judeo religious values are more humane but not always.
by Susan Reid3 years ago
Since when is America a "Christian" country? I challenge anyone to find a single mention of Jesus Christ in any of our founding documents."God" does not equal "Christ." I swear to God, yes....
by augustine724 years ago
It is quite obvious that Catholics do not follow many things in the Bible. They look at the Church as the one that sets all standards. Why is it so?
by Emile R5 years ago
THIS QUESTION IS NOT MEANT TO OFFEND ANYONE. IT IS A QUESTION ASKED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. I keep running across posts on this site where Christians refuse to admit what sect they are affiliated...
by Captain Redbeard19 months ago
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book...
by Zelkiiro3 years ago
A little bit of history will show you that's not necessarily the case...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQrD1ty-yzs
by Claire Evans16 months ago
Very rarely do I see a forum thread on Islam. I have not seen an atheist who has started a thread on Islam insulting Mohammed or Allah or just speaking out against them. Christianity and Jesus seem to be the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.