Would the world be a better place if there were fewer Christians?

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 132 discussions (2567 posts)
  1. profile image0
    Chasukposted 6 years ago

    But more Buddhists?

    1. HarperDavis profile image59
      HarperDavisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Define "better".

      How would more Buddhists make the world a "better" place?

      Refer to the Asian (specifically, Indian) caste system, namely that of the Dalit ("untouchables").

      The very idea of a particular belief system is just that. Peoples' interpretation of it is what causes much grief.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Doesn't India's caste system fall under Hinduism? And even then Hinduism doesn't encourage castes in and of itself... it just happens to be practiced in areas where castes exist... same with a lot of other religions.

        1. HarperDavis profile image59
          HarperDavisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Dalits are historically Hindus persecuted by Buddhists.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            *Shrugs* Everyone's got to be persecuted by someone I guess... I've never heard of  Buddhists persecuting anyone but if you are going to be persecuted by someone then I guess you could do worse than a group of pacifists.  I do have to wonder though why so many of the untouchables are converting to Buddhism from Hinduism if they are being so persecuted.

            1. HarperDavis profile image59
              HarperDavisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              *****That's the point.*****

              This question of who's better for whom, or, who we could do without, is moot.

              Also, an "untouchable" is born as one. Dalits are not converting in droves, though of course converts exist, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.

              Way to red herring.

              Again, the question of who's better off is no question at all, no matter which example I present.

          2. profile image0
            Chasukposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, no. Dalits have converted to Buddhism in great numbers. Dalis have certainly endured persecution, but primarily at the hands of Hindus.

        2. sen.sush23 profile image60
          sen.sush23posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Melissa, sensible woman, why didn't I meet you earlier? Kindly tell them to get out of that E.M. Forster world of Hinduism as the 'dark, mysterious cave' and a sly brahmin taking his tea away from untouchables, and wake up to realize that, that was fiction of a dim-witted man who spoke before he understood, but saved his name by suggesting that it was all a dream. Must a debate be tainted with such imaginative parley?!

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image85
        oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        If more people practiced Buddhist teachings and Christ's teachings, the world would be a better place for sure.  I think both have great things to offer.  So I still find the question odd, unless you are defining Christianity by its heretics like so many do.  In honesty however, if just Jesus' teachings were followed, this world would be an excellent place to be.

        1. Crissylite profile image74
          Crissyliteposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I like your comment a lot. Christian means Christ like; one who genuinely follows Christ. Not everybody who call themselves a Christian is actually Christlike or born again, and there are many hypocrites out there.  I personally think true believers are like "salt" (adding flavor) and "light." My answer to the question...No!

      3. sen.sush23 profile image60
        sen.sush23posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Though I don't agree with the question raised in this forum, but the caste system is in Hinduism, and it is not anyway part of the religion, and no way any where near Buddhism..

      4. sen.sush23 profile image60
        sen.sush23posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Oh spare me. Why do you have to talk about India as a religion? Can't you get out of that colonial hangover of Orientalism? ...!!!

    2. EinderDarkwolf profile image62
      EinderDarkwolfposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Nah, you would still have to many religions fighting each other.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yes but that would have to be the coolest fight ever... a world of Buddhists standing around doing absolutely nothing but looking flustered. Watching a war among pacifists has to be about as exciting as watching paint dry.

        1. EinderDarkwolf profile image62
          EinderDarkwolfposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Not all religions are pacifists, in fact, most aren't. The world would be no better just because of a different dominating religion.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            It depends on what the new dominating religion would be...  as I said before a world full of Jains would be amazing... a world full of Buddhists wouldn't be too bad... 

            I would say a world full of my own religion (UU) would be wonderful but we would never stop debating and nothing would get done except LOTS of volunteer work...  On the other hand Gay marriage would be universally permitted. Abortion would be legal but the death penalty wouldn't be and there would be virtually no pollution... Of course we would all be driving a Prius and Burkenstocks would be universal footwear.

            See?  When you make across the board "all religions suck" statements you fail to take into account that 1.  Religions are extremely varied and 2. Your idea of sucking is likely someone else's idea of Utopia.  Which leads us to the "There can never be a Utopian society because Utopia means different things to different people" argument... And eventually that comes back to the "Atheists wanting no religion in the world are essentially selfish despots who would shape the world to suit their idea of perfect"...

            Of course you could substitute "Atheists" for "Christians" or "Muslims" or any other group that would like to see another group gone.

            1. EinderDarkwolf profile image62
              EinderDarkwolfposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I'm not saying do away with all religion either. Religion gives hope, and hope is a good thing. I just think an equal spread of all religions (so that they could keep each other in check) instead of a dominating religion, would be better.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                *Smiles* And for that even spread to occur there would need to be more Buddhists!  Ha!  I win!  Nee Ner!

                1. EinderDarkwolf profile image62
                  EinderDarkwolfposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Technically you would need fewer Christians and more of the smaller groups. This may include Buddhists as I'm not sure how many of them there actually are.

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                I wonder why people keep talking about Christianity as a violent religion?  We actually have violent religions in this world.  We have many Christians being killed for their Christianity by others that hate them for being Christian. 

                It seems that the suggestion that Christianity is a like a Crusade from long ago, has really sunk into the minds of people.  I just want to remind people that even the Catholics have backed off of the idea of Crusades.   

                Truth is, the pacifistic Christians being truly martyred are being left out of the mix oddly in this whole discussion.  That is sad, and their very real factual examples show what real Christianity is.  You don't hear about it often.

            2. MarleneB profile image96
              MarleneBposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Awww, MelissaBarrett, I knew I'd find you in this forum. You always shoot it straight from the... eh hem... hip! I have learned never to dispute your words because you are always armed with so much logic that you hit the nail on the head every time.

              My only defense in this forum topic is that we all should show some compassion. I mean, why should I wear a red dress when the blue one fits me better? Am I hurting anyone if I wear a purple dress? Why do I have to be labeled?

              Melissa, YOU get it. I think I'm going to go into the forums and refer to your comments saying, 'What SHE said..." That's still participating in the forum, right?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                I've already got someone saying "yeah what she said" of course I say "yeah what he said".... soon no one is going to be saying anything...

                Come think of it that might be a bit of Utopia in and of itself smile

                1. MarleneB profile image96
                  MarleneBposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Yep. I hear you!

    3. Ruben Rivera profile image81
      Ruben Riveraposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      A lot less people period.

      1. Axialchateau profile image61
        Axialchateauposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        about 1/3 less smile

        1. ShalahChayilJOY profile image60
          ShalahChayilJOYposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Hi Ax,

          Who do you suggest gets eliminated? people that is...

          1. vector7 profile image60
            vector7posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I want to know the suggestion cooresponding to the 1/3 elimination as well.

            Who goes first guys?

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I would say you but something tells me that Buddhism would suffer for it.

              1. Axialchateau profile image61
                Axialchateauposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                According to various sources approximately 1/3 of the world believes in Christianity.  Therefore, if all Christians were to be eliminated, there would be about 2/3 the amount of people, or 1/3 less.

                1. ShalahChayilJOY profile image60
                  ShalahChayilJOYposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Not trying to be rude, but suppose 1/3 of the other people were eliminated leaving 1/3 others an 1/3 of the world still 'Christian' which no doubt includes lots of different denominations

                  Why would you assume that all the Christians would be the 1/3 eliminated? I'm not a Christian per se, but

                2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Wow... thank you for assuming that I can't do basic fractions.  And for the assumption that the only way to reduce the amount of Christians is to kill them.

                  1. ShalahChayilJOY profile image60
                    ShalahChayilJOYposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Melissa, I'm sure she did not mean it that way--that you can't do math. I think she was just trying to add her thoughts to the 'war'.

                    Let's keep our calm like Jesus surely would. Seriously, I do not think she meant anything by it.

    4. Paul Wingert profile image72
      Paul Wingertposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The world would be a better place without religion to begin with. Some people say religion is harmless. Tell that to the victoms of the countless wars, witch hunts, and other wholesale slaughter due to their beliefs. Then there's the "multipy and be fruitful belief. Now that there are about 6 billion people on earth. At this rate, things aren't exactly looking up in the future.

      1. calynbana profile image79
        calynbanaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I don't think religion is the problem, I think our pride is the problem. The I am right and you better not oppose me attitude :p

    5. feenix profile image60
      feenixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Would the world be a better place if there were fewer Christians and more Buddhists?

      That question is dripping with bigotry. It is is the same league as a question that asks, Would the world be a better place if there were fewer blacks and more whites?

      1. EinderDarkwolf profile image62
        EinderDarkwolfposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        It's no less in it's bigotry then being against homosexuality because the Christian bible says to be.

        1. feenix profile image60
          feenixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Say whaaaat?

          1. EinderDarkwolf profile image62
            EinderDarkwolfposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            There's no whaaaat to it. The bible says to kill homosexuals. It's not hard to comprehend. It also tells you to kill all practitioners of witchcraft and any woman who marries and is not a virgin. That's just three groups of people that the Christian Bible wants killed off, 2 of which Christians tend to openly bash and fling hate towards. All your attempting to do is throw people off topic by talking about how it's dripping with hate and bigotry, yet all it really serves to do is try to cover up the Christian hate and Bigotry being thrown around.

            1. calynbana profile image79
              calynbanaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              OT.

              1. EinderDarkwolf profile image62
                EinderDarkwolfposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Not all Christians follow Jesus. Most of them Cherry-Pick what to follow when it's convenient and serves them or their cause, best.

                1. calynbana profile image79
                  calynbanaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I give up on the title of being Christian. I follow Christ :p I am getting tired of saying they aren't being Christian haha

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    LOL that's what I did... doesn't work.  *Smiles* I have no problems with your personal beliefs.  The argument I was making was along the lines of not being able to disown members of a group that you belong to just because they aren't acting the way you think they should. 

                    To illustrate: I can't disown my family when they embarrass me so that gives me a sense of responsibility in their guidance.  That makes me more aware of what is going on with them...  If my sister, for example, is showing signs of extreme hatred for a group and I know she's bought a gun then I kinda need to do something about it.  If I don't and she does something stupid then I have to own that.  That way if I see my cousin doing the same thing I am more likely to stop HIM.  I can't say... oh well a TRUE member of my family wouldn't do that. 

                    So... are you your brother's keeper?  If those who follow Christ are your brothers and sisters in faith are you not at least responsible for trying to watch over them?  Are you not responsible for monitoring the conditions within your faith that might cause someone to act in a way that THEY think is part of God's plan?  Take our sister (?) in faith rdcast here.  She obviously believes in Christ and reads the bible...  That at least marginally makes her Christian.  She is also just as obviously slightly unhinged.  If she does something stupid when the world fails to end on her schedule is it at least marginally our responsibility?  Or do we just say that she wasn't a real Christian?

            2. feenix profile image60
              feenixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I said that the question that initiated this forum is dripping with bigotry and I made no mention of the Bible or any of its contents.

              So, why are you talking about the Bible?

              1. EinderDarkwolf profile image62
                EinderDarkwolfposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Because everyone so far that has mentioned the question being full of hate and bigotry has been Christian. I apologize if your not, but the point does stand regardless.

                1. feenix profile image60
                  feenixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I am a stone-cold, hardcore Christian.

                  That said, and regardless of what is written in the Bible, the question that kicked off this forum does, in fact, demonstrate hatred and bias towards Christians.

                  And as far as I am concerned, anyone who is biased towards others because of their beliefs is one who is also biased towards others because of their skin color or ethnicity.

                  1. profile image0
                    Sooner28posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Yeah because beliefs are inherently part of the physical make up of a human being and definitely not a choice.  So much for personal responsibility eh?

                    According to your logic, no one can disagree with anyone!  This is a ridiculous argument.

                  2. EinderDarkwolf profile image62
                    EinderDarkwolfposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    This coming from a Christian?

                    Christians are Notorious for not being accepting of others beliefs, they aren't even accepting of others sexual preferences.

                    However, I'm not against anyone's beliefs. I'm against forcing beliefs on people. I'm against religious views affecting other people. I'm against indoctrinating young people into religion when they should be free to choose their own religion. I'm against all the hate and bigotry you find in the bible. What people choose to believe is up to them, but what the Christians tend to do towards others shows a complete LACK of acceptance and tolerance. They would rather shove their beliefs on the world then let people make a decision on their own. And of course, everything has to be turned into hate towards them. A discussion in an Atheist forum can't possibly NOT have anything to do with them.

                  3. profile image0
                    Chasukposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Bias cannot be inferred from my question.  My question was phrased with neutrality in mind, in fact.

                    For centuries, Buddhism was the dominant religion, even in India, where Hinduism dominates now. My question was actually inspired by a comment from a Christian friend from New Dehli, who asked me, philosophically, whether I thought his country would have experienced more peace in its history if it had remained Buddhist. I simplified the question and changed it to be more relevant to the participants of these forums.

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Einder, it was directed at Christians.  Would it read as ok by you if it said, "Would the world be a better place if there were less of those that believed and thought as Einder does?'

              2. profile image0
                Chris Hughposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Atheist here. I think the question sounded bigoted and hateful. It made me imagine someone wondering if killing a bunch of Christians or wishing them out of existence would make the world better. I'm not saying that was the asker's intention. Maybe he was asking if the world would be a better place if a lot of Christians converted to something else? I dunno.

                A lot of Christians are good people. I don't dislike Christians. I don't like fundamentalists of any religion.

                I think the world would be a better place if everyone would just chill and concentrate more on being good and less on making everyone else good.

                Just a thought, and I don't actually mean this as criticism of anyone, just my random thoughts.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Chris, I totally appreciate your fair post there, and love that I can totally agree with an atheist on something here.  Thanks for being so fair minded and explain why you think what you do, in a nice and fair way.

                  1. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    oceans, I can understand your feelings about the original post. I felt a bit that way myself coming in, but as I read through the responses and acknowledgments from the O.P., I realized it certainly was not his intent to speak hatefully about any group.

                    Once I understood that he was actually creating a dialogue and attempting to truly understand others' thoughts on this, I found it easier to participate in the discussion.

                    Don't know if that helps or not.

                2. PhoenixV profile image64
                  PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree. The fact that they didnt immediately use abusive ad homs and personal attacks towards your opinions is its en vogue here to use hate speech towards Christians, no matter how innocent it may or may not have been "crafted".

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Chris said... 

                        Chris Hugh wrote:

                        "Atheist here. I think the question sounded bigoted and hateful. It made me imagine someone wondering if killing a bunch of Christians or wishing them out of existence would make the world better."

                    This is more than obviously true.  He doesn't have a persecution complex either.  Its a fact, taken at face value, that you can't miss when you visit these forums.  You don't SEE the part about the Buddhism unless you click on it, and the suggestion keeps on being put out there, again and again.  We all KNOW that some do wish this kind of world, as they have said it outright, or in not so many words. 

                    Of course it CAN BE viewed as bigoted and hateful.  It did right off the bat, as I KNOW these forums, just glancing through...its not reflective of real people in the real world, but still its not right that the ideas are allowed to spread, that are so awful, because that does make impact over time. 

                    Being sorry that some took it the way it looks, doesn't make the problem go away.  Having people use ad hom attacks and putting others down and fighting hard to defend that doesn't help, but it DOES shed light on the value of those people's held worldviews.  They are failing them.  Its not a good worldview that allows  for even the suggesting of what the OP says, nor the behavior of many here being supported.  It is an evidence of its own.  That is something at least, to me.

    6. Jesus was a hippy profile image60
      Jesus was a hippyposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Oh yes, definately.

    7. A Thousand Words profile image77
      A Thousand Wordsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      LoL. Even the Buddhist would tell you no, Chasuk. Life needs balance. Many buddhists are passive people. A world full of passive people would never get anything done. Now, if your question was would the world be a better place if the whole world wasn't influenced buy capitalist, greedy, money hungry, work-work-work, time is money views, obsessed with whats next (technologically), who's the next big thing, etc, etc, and there were fewer Christians and more buddhists? Then I'd say... maybe.  But "buddhist" is a hard term to define 100%. Life probably would be less stressful.

      I have known peaceful Christians, let me say that. However, the more deeply you become indoctrinated with the "Word," and believe your becoming closer to the "Holy Spirit," the more you become convinced that you must share Christ with the rest of the world, and most Christians don't understand that "dust the sand of off your feet and move on" scripture when people don't receive the message, instead of trying to force it on them with legislation from the gov't, etc.

      1. Chris Neal profile image77
        Chris Nealposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Point taken. I know I've been guilty, whether you were thinking of me when you wrote that or not. However, Jesus did tell us to make disciples of all the nations. But just because some people like to argue doesn't mean I should be one of them.

        Serious question, though. When we (Christians)see, not just anti-social or unBiblical behavior, but actual legislation that tells us we have to accept things we know are wrong, or even support them (and I'm not pulling specific examples so please don't reand anything specific into it,) should we keep quiet? Should we not try to influence the laws?

        1. EinderDarkwolf profile image62
          EinderDarkwolfposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          That depends Chris, should you be trying to force your beliefs on to anyone else? A persons sense of right and wrong (most of the time, but not always) is tied to their religious beliefs. Something Romney and Sanatorum have made abundantly clear this election year. Should people be subject to one's religions standards of right and wrong? Or should they be subject to what can be accepted as right and wrong by all sides?

          1. Chris Neal profile image77
            Chris Nealposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Name one thing that can be accepted as "right and wrong by all sides?" Even if you eliminate the extremes, there aren't that many things.

            And everybody is subject to somebody's standard of right and wrong. If marriage to multiple persons becomes the law of the land, should we accept it? Or should we try to change it if we know it's wrong? Should we shut up and disappear, or should we try to influence people and persuade them why it's wrong?

            Many people think that holding a Christian viewpoint means I'm trying to shove it down their throats, but think nothing of trying to shove their viewpoint down mine. Is that okay?

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              There is a difference that you aren't quite getting...

              Legalizing Gay marriage does not force you to marry the same sex.  Not legalizing it forces gays to not be married.  One gives a choice and the other gives no room for any point of view but yours.

              1. Chris Neal profile image77
                Chris Nealposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Legalizing abortion does not force me to get an abortion. Legalizing prostitution does not force me to pay some poor woman for sex. Am I getting this right? What you're saying is that, as long as I keep my head down and don't make waves but don't actually participate in these activities, then when Jesus asks me "Did you read My Commands?" and I say, "Yes," He'll say, "Well, that's okay. At least you didn't actually do anything..."

                Do you still think I heard a voice, BTW?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  *Blinks*  OK... now I have to go back through 37 pages or so of conversation to find out what the hell the circumstances of that statement were and how in the hell it is related to the current conversation... was that even in this thread?

                  Anyway... I'll give you my gut reaction and say that if my faith depended on your conversations with Jesus then my conversation would go:

                  Jesus:  When you saw people being made miserable by people forcing their opinions in MY name did you try to help them?

                  Me:  No.

                  Jesus:  And when you saw two people in love who wanted to be together forever did you try to help them?

                  Me: No.

                  Jesus:  And when you saw the suffering of babies born into the world to live in constant physical agony instead of sending them back into my arms did you fight to keep them in terrible pain?

                  Me: Yes.

                  Jesus:  Even after I gave you a child that suffered physically every day of his short life until I stepped in and brought him home you would still fight to force that on other children?  You would still fight to make other mothers suffer through the pain of watching their child slowly die in front of them every day for their entire existence as you did?

                  Me:  Yes because other Christians said that's what you wanted.

                  Jesus:  Is that how you would want to be treated?

                  Me: No.

                  Jesus:  Did you read my Commandments?

                  And yes... I still believe that hearing voices is a sign of mental illness.

                  1. Chris Neal profile image77
                    Chris Nealposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes? I'm listening to you...

                    Which is more than you've done for me...



                    You're Bible says that? Which translation is that? The New World I Don't Care What You Think I Just Hear What I Want To Hear Translastion?



                    I believe you.



                    I bet your Jesus also tells people to commit suicide if it gets too hard. Never mind that God created humans in his image, and that He made it clear often that it was not for human beings to decide who is and who is not worthy of life.



                    Your Jesus is indeed cruel. I'm glad the real Jesus is not like yours.



                    You: Yes, but since you couldn't possibly have meant what you actually said, I decided  that I know better.

                    At least that's how the conversation would end if you followed it to it's logical conclusion.




                    Badum-BUM! RIM SHOT!

                    Although I'm certainly capable of sarcasm, I don't actually usually talk to people in forums like this. But, you've proven that you're not really listening, so I could say almost anything. However, let me just point out a few things, all of which you would know if you had ever just read my hub -

                    1) My wife has Stage IV uterine cancer
                    2) We have three kids, two of whom are special needs. My daughter is severely autistic.
                    3)I have never heard voices.

                    I think I've had a chance to really think this thing through, whether you've already decided in your head that I have or not.

                    Are you this much fun and easy to talk to when you're working in the mental health field?

                  2. Chris Neal profile image77
                    Chris Nealposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Okay.

                    God is  trying to tell me something, and He's using you to do it. I would just like to point out a few things.

                    1) My wife has Stage IV uterine cancer.
                    2) We have three children. One of them is mildly autistic, one of them is severely autistic.
                    3) I have never heard voices.

                    Had you ever taken five minutes to read any of my hubs you would know this.

                    Never assume.

    8. Chris Neal profile image77
      Chris Nealposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Obviously, it depends on what you mean by "better world."

      And also how you view Christians.

      My answer would be "no." But then I think the world would be a much better place if more of the people who actually call themselves Christian took their faith more seriously and lived it out better.

      1. Rhiannon Schaefer profile image61
        Rhiannon Schaeferposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I agree. I know many good people who are christian: fair, don't harshly judge, don't shove bibles down your throat at the dinner table. But I also know an alarming number of christians that would sooner wrap a rope around your neck and hang you in their back yard than have a decent conversation with someone different.

        It isn't a question of fewer Christians. It's a question of more people needing to stick to and actually KNOW about the religion that they claim to uphold.

        1. Chris Neal profile image77
          Chris Nealposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Amen!

    9. oceansnsunsets profile image85
      oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      What if the question to this forum read,

      "Would the world be a better place if there were less Atheists, or Buddhists, and more of _______?"

      How about, "Would the world be a better place if there were less Jews?"

      Why is this kind of question even allowed on Hubpages?

      Think about how horrifying it is......  What is the suggestion, and can we ask that about any other group and get away with it?  Why is this allowed here?

      Its amazing and alarming.

      1. rdcast profile image77
        rdcastposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Just put on your breastplate of faith and take up the sword of the Living Word, and march your little self,PROUD OF YOUR SAVIOR, into battle for HIS GLORY!

      2. profile image0
        Chris Hughposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        That really puts it in perspective. Would the world be a better place if there were fewer black? Whites? Asians? Persons of mixed race?

        Thanks for the clear thinking.

        I think it's an interesting question though. It is something to think about, why so many people associate Christianity with something bad.

        I guess not all offensive questions are bad. Maybe some offensive things make us think and exchange ideas.

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Why would you equate something inherent about a human being to a particular belief they ascribe to?

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image85
          oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Chris, I think it is because many are very against Christianity for personal reasons.  There also are a lot of lies, assumptions, assertions and untruths and partial truths being used to paint Christianity in a particular light, that isn't reflective of what Christianity actually teaches.

          This has caught on, and there is a true encouragement of some groups out there to demonize Christianity in particular.  Its actually an amazing and great worldview, if you know what Jesus taught.  The people quote things they hate about it, that Jesus would also hate about it!  This is a clear sign to anyone thinking fairly, that they often are actually on the side of Jesus, thus Christianity.  Very often, they have problems with particular people or groups and actions by those that said they were Christians, but acted opposite of Christianity.  All of us should have problems with those people though.  We are actually on the same page very often, and its what is askew, that needs to be looked at, then why. 

          I think Christianity also happens to answer the reasons why, ironically.  That is something that either just "is" or not, and that I can't make true or not.  My hope for all people is that they look fairly and squarely at all the facts for their own sake.  So many opposing views cannot be right.  Some are wrong, but some are being deceived big time.

          1. profile image0
            Chris Hughposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I see a lot of nasty rhetoric against Christians nowadays and it worries me.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I see a lot of rhetoric against Christians for certain beliefs not as a group in general.  That's actually a pretty specific distinction that's fairly important.

              1. profile image0
                Chris Hughposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                I tend to see a lot of hatred against "right wing" people, Republicans, "Teabaggers," Christians and basically anyone who doesn't toe the line of whatever is fashionable at the moment. I live in California, can you guess?

                If people are complaining about certain Christian beliefs they don't agree with and not hating on Christians as a whole, I wouldn't even call that rhetoric. Nothing wrong with challenging stuff you don't agree with.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  My guess on that is because Christianity is the -slightly- dominant religion.  It also has a lot to do with the Christian group themselves putting their religion as the basis for their objections. 

                  If a group of people got together and said "we don't like gays because it's icky"
                  then that would be one thing.  These groups are saying "We don't like gays because our God says he doesn't."  After a while the groups they are opposing have no choice to go after the faith because the "Christian" groups are setting it up so their opposition has to go through God to get to them.

                  That spreads...as such things often do... to the loudest and most noticable representatives of a faith being the only voice of that faith being heard.  Unfortunately that makes the Westbourgh Baptist Church and Rush Limbaugh the voice of Christianity. 

                  It's not completely fair but it is understandable.  If Christianity wants a different representative though... it's going to be up to them to throw one up there.

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image85
              oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I do also.  I saw your other response as well, and I was born and raised in California.  I have lived in a few different states and seen a lot.  What gets me most are the distortions and untruths.  If people could attack legitimate things, that would be so much better.  I tend to agree with them!

              I disagree for instance on murdering and killing people, I disagree on priests or anyone molesting children, I disagree on tv evangelists swindling money from people.  So would Jesus.  Its the strong need I sense from people to go after things that are distortions and not even true.  Its when the discussion gets to be about something that isn't even true of Christianity, but is assigned to it and then this rage grows.  Not a whole lot explains it, but its not without complete explanation.  I hope this  makes people think more deeply about things.

      3. Chris Neal profile image77
        Chris Nealposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        On the other hand, it is a good place to tell people about Jesus!

    10. Civil War Bob profile image60
      Civil War Bobposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Well, let's see...there would be more illiteracy if you removed all the Bible translation societies who also teach people to read and write...obviously, with an ulterior motive.
      There would be fewer deep wells dug in Africa and South East Asia by Christian organizations, so disease, drought, and starvation would be increased.
      Fewer people would be available to meet hunger/disaster needs through groups like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse.
      There would be fewer groups training prostitutes viable skills to get out of the trade and meeting the needs of the children of those folks; particularly in India.
      There would be fewer groups to help people in 100s of refugee camps all over the world.
      No...the world would not be a better place.

      1. profile image0
        Chasukposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I love Bible translation societies. Half of the languages on earth didn't exist in written form before Bible translation societies decided to devise those written forms. I've known few people in my life as dedicated as the men and women who have labored for their entire lifetimes creating new dictionaries. I've known a few of them who were non-believers, by the way, at least they would have been considered non-believers by those Christians who insist on a literal resurrection.

    11. j-u-i-c-e profile image93
      j-u-i-c-eposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The world would be a better place if there were fewer dogmas. Scripture should stimulate thought, not dictate it.

      1. profile image0
        Chasukposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        A great point. Thank you. smile

    12. Sally's Trove profile image78
      Sally's Troveposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      "Would the world be a better place if there were fewer Christians?" was the original question.

      No and no, to both questions. People are people. Labels divide what it means to be human into fractiousness. We all breathe the same air. And too soon, the air will be gone. Good for us...we'll suffocate soon enough, regardless of our religious beliefs.

    13. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      To look at this slightly differently I would like to take this question to mean that if all the people who are now Christian were instead Buddhist would the world be a better place. The answer? Absolutely yes.

      Why? Because Buddhism is tolerant and non violent, Buddha himself stated that he was not sure if his path was the best path and that it was quite possible that other religions would work for you but that he had tried this particular path and it had worked for him and might work for you, Buddhism would have absolutely no time for imposing it's views on others, so we would have gay marriage and all the Buddhists would simply respect that as someone else's business , we would not have restrictions on stem cell research which hold back progress and cost lives and we would not have a continent with rampant poverty and HIV where the dominant religion told people to not wear condoms etc. etc.

      Logically there is no doubt that if there were Buddhists instead of Christians the world would be a much better place. I say this impartially since I am a follower of neither and a student of both.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
        oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Christianity is tolerant and non violent, and if you doubt it, look at its teachings.  Jesus didn't promote violence at all, and instead violence was put upon him and he died.  Same with his followrs.

        If you are referring to particular people that are saying they are Christians but acting opposite of what Christianity teaches, it only affirms the fact in a way.  I won't assume what you are talking about for sure, but I know know what Christianity teaches.  Its a common error in judgement, and many make sweeping statements about Christianity but that aren't based in fact when you look more closely.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          We are not talking about the doctrine, we are talking about whether it would be better if there were more Buddhists and fewer Christians which means their actions count, Buddhism is doing lots of good and no harm, Christianity is doing lots of good and lots of harm. Christians are doing bad things in the name of their faith Buddhists are not therefore Buddhists are better for the world than Christians. Simple.

          1. A Thousand Words profile image77
            A Thousand Wordsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Yea, you know there are certain buddhists that set themselves on fire in protest to something; that is the epitome of selflessness in order for justice to be realized.

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image85
            oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            A lot more people across the world benefit from Christians than Buddhists.  You would see society suffer for sure, if you took out Christians.  I am not convinced that all Buddhists do no harm, and not convinced that as many Christians are doing horrible things as you claim either. 

            Buddhists may be peaceful, but they don't seem to give to others and to the community as whole the way Christians do.  Yes, there are different sides, and I have nothing against Buddhists, except that it doesn't work or win out as a worldview compared to Christianity.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              On the contrary Buddhism has just as strong an emphasis on charity.

            2. j-u-i-c-e profile image93
              j-u-i-c-eposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I recommend you take some time to study Buddhism, oceansunsets. Based on your statements, I can only assume you know next to nothing about it.

              Let me summarize Christianity and Buddhism in a single word each:

              Christianity: "Repent!"
              Buddhism: "Accept."

              One is emotional and guilt-ridden and the other is dispassionate and intellectual. You're welcome to criticize that, if you like, but I can tell you who I'd rather spend eternity with. I don't even have to think about it. So, yes, it does win out as a worldview compared to Christianity. For lots of people. Billions, in fact.

    14. Crissylite profile image74
      Crissyliteposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      This is quite a discussion; a good one. I must admit though, that when I first saw the question without the sub question, I immediately thought of Hitler. I think this type of thinking (would the world be better off without a certain type of people) can be dangerous.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Not always... if a group of people consistently do harm to society in general it is not dangerous at all to imagine a world without them.  As a matter of fact those questions drive beneficial changes.

        For example:  Would the world would be better without pedophiles?

        For the majority of people the answer would be yes. (Pedophiles would likely have a dissenting opinion.)

        The questions that follow the original question are the questions that are most interesting to know the answers to... however if we stop asking the questions because (as would be the case in the question above) the pedophiles are offended then the debate never goes any deeper.

        1. Crissylite profile image74
          Crissyliteposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          A pedophile describes  a person who has a certain behavior and/or dysfunctional thinking. You probably know that It does not exactly count as an ethnicity, culture, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. All pedophiles do harm. All Christians...most Christians and the groups mentioned above do not.

          Wishing that no one would have pedophilia tendacies is one thing. Wishing that people would not exist because of things they have done is another. (I could go on, but it would be way off topic here.) And if this type of question would cause people to want to annihilate all pedophiles (thinking that there is no need for them to exist), it is certainly dangerous. But maybe that's the counselor in me talking. Most acts of oppression, genocide, etc. start off with this type of thinking. In my opinion, this statement should not be used at all.

          As a whole, Christians do not cause harm...especially not consistently. You have some hypocrites that don't really follow Christ but call themselves Christians. Then, yo have cults and other groups who misinterpret the Word of God teach falsely. Either way, just imagining life without a whole group of people, because a few mess up or do harm, isn't really fair to those who are truly good to society. That type of thinking is judgmental and immediately puts everybody in a group in one box, when everyone is not the same.  It's insulting to me because I am a Christian, obviously, & I try to live a good life, don't judge others, but believe in & love Jesus.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            So basically... Christianity has no negatives and does no harm to society in any way shape or form?  Is that the gist of your response?

            Or are you claiming that no Christian has ever done harm to society?

            Or are you saying that no person in the Christian faith has ever caused harm to society as a result of his/her religion?

            1. Crissylite profile image74
              Crissyliteposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Hey, Malissa. My gist is that imagining an ENTIRE religion, culture, or other group of people were not around just because SOME individuals in the group have done harm is not fair to others in the group who do not do any harm & that this type of question/thinking can be dangerous. This is the gist and my main point. 

              But yes, I do believe that the PURE teachings and belief in Jesus Christ are harmless. I know there have been Christians that have been harmful to others. However, that does not mean that Christianity itself is harmful. Nobody's perfect, but I think that most REAL Christians are not harmful. I think that some extreme people scream the loudest, so to say, do not act in love as Jesus teaches, and can represent in a negative light.

              Thank you for responding. I hope I explained my thoughts a little better. Take care.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Untrue. If I can point out an example of how a group of people were following Jesus's teachings to the letter and managed to bring about horrific death and suffering then would you be willing to acknowledge that at least for those victims that the world would have been better off without Christianity?

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image85
        oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Hi Crissy, many others echoed your same sentiment there.  I agree, it can be dangerous, and we have seen too often in history as ideas play out.  The example of Hitler is a key one, and the holocaust didn't just happen one day.  Ideas matter, and how something reads and what it generates in the minds of people matter. 

        No editor or producer would have allowed such a question to be on their newspaper or commercial or even on a billboard, as many would take it in the same way a lot of us have when we first read it.

    15. Jyle Dupuis profile image85
      Jyle Dupuisposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      People will find other reasons to kill each other in the absence of religion.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
        oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yes that is probably true, and is a good point to show that it is people that do these things, not the religions that do them.  Religions can't make a war or kill a person, but they can teach to do that or not.  We know of at least one religion that indeed has a prophet that encourages that of their followers.

        Christianity teaches the opposite of war and murder.  The prophet and apostles not only didn't kill but shed their own blood at the hands of others that didn't want their message to be true.

        I agree though with what you said, they would get rid of religion only to find it didn't solve all their problems, I think that is wishful thinking and something that is just spread around for other reasons.

    16. mischeviousme profile image60
      mischeviousmeposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Human nature would still destroy the peace... Human primates are no different from those in the woods.

    17. PhoenixV profile image64
      PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Nope. Christianity brought hospitals, charity and education and to some degree even our current justice system. You know, stuff like "civilization".

      When the paper-back version of practicing quasi-buddhists get acute appendicitis, the pain and "reality" eventually sets in and they will immediately call 911 and more than likely end up in a hospital that was originally founded by Christianity. Just pretending one is kung-fu does not make one a martial arts expert. Kind of like how juveniles will pat themselves on the back after being publicly humiliated "claiming they taught someone a lesson". lol The proof is in the 500 years of civilized pudding. Christianity got it done.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Actually the foundations of modern medicine lay largely within Muslim and Taoist teachings....  They of course stood on the shoulders of Hebrews and the Greeks... who stood on the shoulders of the Egyptians...

        So you can thank Ra for treatment for that appendix as the Egyptians had the first recorded hospitals... Well before Christ walked the earth.


        As a side note... Pottery that was likely used for the preparation of herbal teas has been found in Asia.  This pottery was over 8 thousand years old which-if accurate-means that herbal teas were being brewed in China 2000 years before the Christian God created the planet.

        1. PhoenixV profile image64
          PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Feel free to appeal to that when it actually counts. I am talking about actual, real, modern, reality, type stuff. Anything can be claimed to have been developed from prior history. If someone needs a kidney they go to a real hospital. If they die from that condition, then they can be "mummified". lol


          Theres a movie that I have always enjoyed starring Joseph Cotten and Orson Welles called the Third Man. In the movie Orson Welles makes a speech: an observation; that has a very similar theme to this:

          In the last 500 years Christianity brought schools, colleges, charity, hospitals and aspects of our Justice system. All the important things that make this world even remotely civilized and tolerable. In the same 500 years, buddism brought us "yoga".

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushruta_Samhita

            I know it's not an Orson Wells movie but I thought a link about a third century Hindu text describing surgical methods still used today might be relevant.

          2. A Thousand Words profile image77
            A Thousand Wordsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            And for all this "civility," there is corruption beyond measure.

            Also, Hinduism brought us yoga. LoL. Get your worldviews right, if you're going to criticize them.

            ALSO, if all the "civilized" people in this world would "meditate" every once in a while, which is what I think you were shooting at, there would be a lot more peace and justice, less judgment and pettiness, more appreciation for our fellow man and nature even. We wouldn't be destroying our planet. There's a number of things we wouldn't be doing. I could live happily without all your "civility."

            1. PhoenixV profile image64
              PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              I think charity, schools and hospitals are more practical and pragmatic than meditation. But on a purely philosophical level, the core principles espoused by Jesus are as valid today as ever. They're workable. But ya know, meditation is good and I dont discount the good things in Buddhism. Karma and caste systems are not workable however.


              Someone cherry picked a verse earlier, about how Jesus was not the Prince of Peace. But a "buddhist" would understand that verse, in a way that " peace is a state of mind and we are not in conflict with each other as much as we are in conflict with ourselves or specifically our carnality.


              So, really it can be claimed that Jesus thoughts in that particular regard align very well with some of Buddhisms better teachings.

              1. A Thousand Words profile image77
                A Thousand Wordsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                You are very much still confusing Buddhism and Hinduism... Caste systems are an erroneous by-product of Hinduism...

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image85
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  This is from a Buddhist site, A Thousand Words....

                  "Brahmanism, the predominant religion in India during the Buddha's time, divided all humans into four castes (attu vanna), priests, warriors, traders and labourers."

                  So he isn't confusing it, and not like you said, Still very much confusing them... How did he initially, that he still is?  Or was it just an exaggeration?  I may have missed something, is why I ask.... I don't think I did though.

                  1. A Thousand Words profile image77
                    A Thousand Wordsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Brahmanism=Hinduism... Buddha reached Enlightenment and thus "created" Buddhism in a time when Hinduism was the dominant religion (it still is)... so AGAIN, he is confusing Buddhism and Hinduism.

                  2. janesix profile image61
                    janesixposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Bramanism is still hinduism.

                    BUT there are some buddist sects that followed the caste system.

                  3. profile image0
                    Chasukposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Jesus was born a Jew, but that doesn't mean that we confuse Christianity with Judaism. Siddhattha Gotama was  born a Hindu, but that doesn't mean that we confuse Buddhism with Christianity.

                    Siddhattha founded Buddhism, but he incorporated none of the elements of the Brahman caste system. The earlier mistake concerned yoga, which I consider a lesser error, if an error at all, since yoga is associated with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.

                2. PhoenixV profile image64
                  PhoenixVposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay, I'm not a Buddhist. So if something like a caste system that is practiced by people is not a "teaching of Buddhism" ,even if they are Buddhists- any similar practice that does not align with another religious leaders teachings is not that religion's or beliefs tenets? Correct?

                  1. A Thousand Words profile image77
                    A Thousand Wordsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    It is NOT practiced by Buddhists, but by Hindus/Brahmanists.