Is the existence of Christianity better for this world

[Ana the Ist]

And yet it was these very reasons that the Left were wiped out in the election. So it seems the majority of people are with me and not you. In fact you don't have to be a Christain to agree with this as many were not Christains who agreed with Conservatives.

I'm uncertain about where Jesus stood on open borders and inflation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The problem is its a category with some definition and meaning. Its not empty and measningless. It has to be filled with something and we find common traits that fill that label.

SECULARISM AS A RELIGION: QUESTIONING THE FUTURE OF THE 'SECULAR' STATE
This article has argued that the secular is a type of religion.
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/WAJurist/2017/2.pdf

Ok so you tell me how can we destinguish secular ideology from Christain belief. I know secularism can mean a number of things such as secular humanism or Wokism. But they are all basically Godless and don't include considerations of a god of order and morality beyond the secular ideas and beliefs. What can we label this destinction with for secular society.

Heres the Ai definition of secularism

Secularism is a political principle and worldview that separates religion from other aspects of human life, especially from the political realm. It can also be defined as the idea of conducting human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, without religion. The term "secularism" was coined by British social reformer George Jacob Holyoake in the mid-19th century. Holyoake intended the term to describe an ethical framework that was independent of religion, while avoiding the negative connotations of atheism.

Secular means more or less the same thing. So secularism is just the application of secular.

Thats why I was qualifying it as secularism, secular ideology, secular humanism ect. These are all secular (non God or spiritual) values, ideas and beliefs as opposed to Christain ideas and beliefs.

Yes some will align with Christainity. The point is that secular ideas and values also allow any ideas and values and as a matter of necessity then becomes the arbitor of what is allowed. In doing so the State redefines religion and belief into its own ideology thus becoming a religion itself.

So if I explain how Christainity does benefit society and someone with a secular or non God ideology objects and claims Christainity is not beneficial how else can we determine the truth without questioning the truth of secular beliefs and ideology that is making this claim that Christainity is no good fro society.

By the way referring to the Ai generated answer on secularism. Seems its a reality in philosophy and sociology and has been for over 100 years.

It seems to me your speaking from a personal POV which is not factual. The fact is at least some commentators in the fields relate the new movement of 'no religion' as a type of religion based on studies of what 'no religion' actually represents for modern society.

How belief is a natural cognition and really theres no such thing as 'No religion' as if its not expressed in traditional terms its expressed in other ways like atheism or secular ideas about metaphysics and the beliefs and behaviours that go with this which are similar to religious belief.

I means even the Ai result mentions secularism as a belief system
Secularism is a philosophical worldview that can be considered a belief system with its own practices and beliefs, and can be seen as a replacement for religion:

Sociological theology explains, in theistic terms of reference, how nonreligion may indeed be stated to be religion. Atheism undertakes the same project as Theism. It frames the ‘secular’ life project as no less religious than the ‘religious’ life project. These naturalistic commitments are as much passionate endeavours to live meaningful lives in community, as are the theistic religious endeavours.
https://thensrn.org/2017/03/21/reflection-no-religion-really-is-the-new-religion/

Secularism, often seen as a replacement for religion, is itself a belief system with its own set of beliefs and practices. Secularism can also be used by governments to justify their suppressive actions towards certain groups.
Secularism: A Religion of the 21st Century

The idea that somehow scientific rationalists have got things right and everyone else is wrong is unfounded and just as much a belief position as they claim about religious belief.
https://theconversation.com/why-atheists-are-not-as-rational-as-some-like-to-think-103563

In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.

A speech by the late David Foster Wallace

David Foster Wallace, who died last week, was the most brilliant American writer of his generation. In a speech, published here for the first time, he reflects on the difficulties of daily life and 'making it to 30, or maybe 50, without wanting to shoot yourself in the head'

www.theguardian.com

Together, these studies consistently emphasize and support the notion that the cultural phenomena typically labeled as ‘religion’ may be understood as the product of aggregated ordinary cognition.

https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/abstract/S1364-6613(99)01419-9

Belief in religion is 'simply a universal part of human nature'

Belief in religion is 'simply a universal part of human nature'

The three-year Oxford University project incorporated more than 40 different studies of nations such as China, Poland and the United States.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This is telling that you equate the idea of a God equals bowing down and giving up some autonomy. This is an outdated view and a typical atheistic idea of what God represents.

Once again you resort to absolute truth claims that there is no way possible that God and Christainity could represent stability and good things for society. The facts are there. Christain beliefs and values have been shown to offer stability and order for families and society.

At the very leasy we could say that some of these Christain ideas align with secular ones and that secular commentators have acknowledged their worth as good social principles and values to order society with.

The evidence shows that humans are naturally predisposed to belief. We have a God shaped hold in our cognition. If its not belief in God then it will be belief in some other metaphysical idea that gives meaning and morality. These are the facts and not your personal opinion which can be biased already due to that priori belief.

Actually studies show that just about everyone naturally and intuitively believe in God or some sort of god or metaphysics of disembodied souls or spiurtits of some sort. But its often redirected to other sorts of beliefs in modern times. But around 80% of society believed in the Christain God only around 60 years ago.

Even more before this. Its been a gradual indoctrination away from God thanks to secular ideology taking over. But this has not resulted in non belief but belief in all sorts of other metaphysical ideas which shows that belief in God is natural and universal and hard to expunge from human cognition.

Ok then we should be able to do some research and see if it does come down to cold hard facts sbout costs and benefits. I mean we can take any simple belief difference. The modern secular ideology claims there is no innate male and female and they are interchangable. Thus there is no fixed roles for parents and families.

Yet the science clearly shows that this is not the case and male and female are innate sexes and are needed for parents for healthy children. Yet secular ideology still believes in the blank slate social constructivist theoy of humans. How is this not based on a belief which denies the science. Look at trans ideology. It claims a male can become a female and yet the science is absolutely clear.

Yet the belief overpowers the science and persist. Thats just two examples. I can show you many where secular ideology believes in anti science and objective reality ideas and yet still push these are the only truth of reality. That's classic belief and not reality.

Just because some Christain values and beliefs are also supported by secular society doesn't devalue them as part of the Christain worldview. But there are many that secular society rejects as mentioned with just a couple above. Abortion is another, SSM, promiscious sex, homosexuality ect.

In fact even some of the agreed values are still rejected by secular ideologues like the truth principles most western nations were built on and are in our Declarations like being made in Gods image. Up until 5 minutes ago secular society also believed in the values for marriage and abortion and objective morality. The sacredness of sex within marriage.

You understand that the AI doesn't necessarily understand what the words it organizes mean...right?

It's just pulling a definition of secularism from somewhere.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We could talk about that, but you want to discuss your poor understanding of American politics...

And did those themes align with the rhetoric of the recent US election you claim the "Left" was "wiped out" in? No not really. No mention of privitazation for starters. (At least not until *after* the election. There isn't a lot that could be privitzed in the US, and the notion of privatizing it is rather unpopular.)

For example, the GOP campaign was largely about Chrsitian identity, "americanism", and related grievances.

Recall that this whole "Left" thing was because you said the "Left" was "wiped out" in the recent US election, but the problem with this claim is that the Democratic party (not "the LEft") is not socialist (or even hard socialist).

And as it always does you defense comes down to things posted in RW opinion media.

But not the capitalization.

And here we come to the heart of the problem. I list some factual history about political positions various groups hold and you disagree with the facts. It is not relevant if you think some group is wrong to hold a position as that is not why I outlined them. I outlined them to demonstrate that you have a poor understanding of US politics.

Which is why you should probably back off making claims about US politics. Stick to "my opinion is" and the like, instead of trying to analyze it.

I think you're making the mistake of associating "the left" with socialism.

The US has a two party system. Those who fall generally on one side of the aisle more than the other can generally be described of as "the left" and "the right" by people both inside and outside of our political system with it's nuances.

 

[stevevw]

I don't know about #1 (that is difficult to judge), but she certainly made the abortion issue more forward than Democratic nominees for president have in the past. That is certainly true.

Not just abortion but a number of exteme views that are far left of the party. But that is where the party was at. They had decended into identity politics to the point of allowing the radical aspects to dominate. Biden even qualified his pick for VP based on identity. The Dems created the mess they ended up in.

And it would probably be higher if so many of us hadn't left the Church already.

Yes that is what I am talking about when people claim to be Christain because maybe once they went to church. But that is the DEms today. They morph into whatever identity is required to win votes.

Oh, no Steve, you've got this backward. These pro-abortion Catholics didn't join the Democratic party and then choose party doctrine on abortion over the Church. The Catholics that favored abortion were more likely to become or stay Democrats.

Thats more or less what I said. Even if they became or stayed as Dems they still would have had to reconcile the contradiction between their Catholic faith and the Dems policy on abortion. But this is a challenge for any Christain.

Thats why its said that you can't be a Dem and a Christain at the same time because of their secular beliefs on a number of issues. At least the Rep are halfway there and their policies often align with Christain beliefs and values.

The parties weren't polarized on abortion decades ago. It was only because those favoring or opposing abortion clustered with other liberal/conservative ideas that the issue became more partisan with the reshaping of the US political parties into ideological groupings unlike before.

The social norm was against abortion and it was against the law. Roe V Wade changed that. But this was a time where progressive ideology was taking over. We had the womens movement, Feminism and the sexual revolution all happening around the same time.

It was the secularisation of social norms that causedd the divide between the Christain underpinnings we based social norms on and the progressive ideology making its stand.

Then from this point secularisation became more and more dominant until today its flipped where secular ideology is the controlling basis for society and no longer Christainity. As a result we seen the opposite over reaction from Christain fundementalist in defending those long held beliefs.

The Democrats became a pro-abortion party because there members were for abortion access, not the other way around. (And the same with the anti-abortion position and the GOP).

The Dems are a progressive party so of course they will allow whatever progressive society wants or becomes popular. Being progressive they are opposed to tradition and conservatism.

The Rep have traditionally been aligned with Christainity in their traditional views on marriage, sex and family. I know at least in my lifetime this has been the case back to the 80's. Before then my parents generation were even more traditional. So pro abortion, SSM, sex outside marriage, Trans are all a good fit for Dem political ideology. But they are much less a fit for the Rep.

Nearly everyone knows that and it isn't a problem. It does make it hard to compare surveys and the actual script should be reviewed, but when delineated properly, ( RvW = abortion by choice prior to viability, very limited access afterwards) a majority of Americans back the "RvW" ruling position.

Hum I still think its misleading. Christains know Gods truth about abortion and its equivelent to murdering an innocent one. So I am not sure the question or even the facts have been clarified to the participants to make an informed decision.

But lets then run with results that most Americans support abortion with little or no restrictions. We can then eliminate these people as giving trusstworthy or at least conflicting results based on their own hypocracy in claiming to be Catholic while supporting unrestricted abortion.

They are not a good example to use as to what makes society and the world better. They are not even sure of their own position and/or don't have the courage of their convictions.

Steve, unless something is obvious, then it is an opinion, even if shared by 100 million or more. If there wasn't differences of opinion on how to interpret text, all denominations would have the same opinions on abortion. That you agree with the RCC doctrine only means that you agreement with them is your personal opinion that their position is "biblical truth". If you disagreed you might go to a different church than the one you do (or maybe abortion might not be a dealbreaker theologically). [Frankly, I never got the obsession of the RCC with abortion.]

Neither did I even though I am RC. Never been to their church for decades. But the truth they base their position on abortion is biblical and supported by most Christain denoiminations.

The idea that everything is opinion and nothing is truth is a postmodernist idea. Now churches are reinterpreting the bible to the point it looks no different for the progressive norms of secular society.

Abortion is clearly wrong on so many levels within the bible truth. There is no way around this. So then people start trying to undermine the bible itself. Then we are back at the same place. We may as well not have a bible.

But there is another way we can determine the truth about abortion. Through science. There you go we have introduced science in again. We can and especially with new tech, have a more detailed understanding we can see whether pro choice unlimited abortion is good for society or not. Or whether the Christain position aligns with a better world.

To me ideologies are ideologies, so I'm already there.

Thats the problem. This is what I was talking about how we cannot seperate ourselves from whatever it is we are trying to determine the truth with. When you say "I;n already there" your actually in a different paradigm to someone who is not where you are at. This is the secular and Christain worldview.

So your already skewing how you see things by not including or trying to understand the alternative worldviews that see things differently to your. You are assuming your position and worldview is already the truth because you have dismissed all other alternative views.

There is almost a mirror like opposite ideological belief between the Christain worldview and the non Christain and especially between progressive secular ideology which tends to be more explicit in defying anything religious especially Christain. Opposite to the point of antagonism. So how can that be a neutral position. But rather an assumed belief position.

Sigh.

1. No persons political opinions will agree with everything a party stands for unless they have complete control over what goes in the manifesto.

Abortion is a major moral issue. Its not like fiscal policy. I think as Christains we have to think about these moral issues in light of Gods word. Plain and simple. Faith comes first then polictics and if you need to vote then align with the party that most reflects Gods word. Plain and simple.

2. No persons theological opinions will match everything in their religion/denomination unless they just founded their own religion.

No but the Catholics doctrine on abortion is a unanimous agreement and studied many times to uphold its accuracy in line with Gods word. Its as fundemental as 'Thou shall not murder'.

Especially when you consider the Dems willingness to allow unlimited abortion for any reason even up to birth. This could be argued as murder without any religious support. Especially now with new tech that is showing the baby even pre 20 weeks can feel pain and has DNA, fingerprints, a heart beat.

At the very least it gives anyone pause for thought and doubt, not confidence and defiance against the possibility it may be wrong. This is part of the progressive lefts ideology that individual rights to sefl come before all else. Even on that basis we can show this form of rights based politics is damaging for society.

3. Disagreeing with your church on party doctrine or vice versa does not make you untrustworthy or a hypocrite (see above).

It does when it comes to Gods word. If you support say sexual freedom without marriage as a political ideology. Then how can you then say you believe in the biblical truth of sex within marriage. I think to be true to yourself you have to align your beliefs with your politics as much as you can.

The problem is its easy to compromise beliefs in todays iudentity politics. I have heard the progressives when they talk about Christ as supporting all sorts of things because Christ is love. Or love is love. Its false prophesy and turning the truth into a lie by using bits of truth and injecting a bunch of ideology in. Thats the progressive Lefts MO. They did it woth Trans by claiming it was for protecting chidlren.

But basically what I hear from you is that we cannot even tell what Christain truth is anymore and all views are acceptable. That doesn't sound like Gods truth.

This (the thread or even my comment about survey numbers) isn't about the details of abortion policy at all and I can see several things objectively wrong with what you wrote above, but let me leave you with one thing you probably don't think about as a non-Catholic.

Ah I am a Catholic.

There is a big disconnect between the laity in the pews and the priests and bishops on sex and family life because the priests and bishops don't have any. Their policies, doctrines, pronouncements, and sermons seem disconnected from the lived reality of the people in the pews. Listing to someone give sermons on things they have no experience with can erode your regard for their positions on that and related topics. That's how so many Catholics end up disregarding Church teaching on these types of issues.

But what I am talking about, Gods truth about abortion and other social and moral issues is clearly in Gods Word. Its not the Catholic priests or heads that have determined this. They found it in Gods word and chose to make it the basis for their position on social morals.

The founding fathers mentioned because we were made in Gods image we had natural God given rights to life. That made human life special and above the determinations of individuals, specials or even entire States.

It seems to me progressive secular ideology is disregarding those truths. Like I said we don't even have to use religion or Christainity to make the case that unlimited abortion is wrong.

 

[stevevw]

You understand that the AI doesn't necessarily understand what the words it organizes mean...right?

It's just pulling a definition of secularism from somewhere.

Yeah. I only just started referring to it sometimes and only when it aligns with other independent sources. I like it because it sometimes gives a pretty good summarised answer.

 

[NBB]

Without Christ there would be no world at all dude, so i guess is beneficial.

 

[stevevw]

I'm uncertain about where Jesus stood on open borders and inflation.

This is a good point. I think the fundemental ideology behind the left and especially with more radicals like Harris is that borders are inhumane. Illegal immigrants are not doing anything illegal but are victims of a mean white world and trying to get a better life. That is also the basis for crime.

Its appealing to Christs love. But I think the left interpret the love aspect differently. Love is love. Love itself is the feeling of inclusion and acceptance no matter what.

But that twists Christs teachings I think. While Christ loved sinners He also called them to reprent so it wasn't the acceptances of any behaviour. Christ also respected the State and understood the need for taxes and regulations to keep the order as far as the practical running of the State.

I think the progressives are appealing to a truth that we should be inclusive and treat eveyone the same. But this is the nobel cause used to sneak in the ideology that theres a certain kind of equality which is equity and only applies to some. Whereas in Christ we are all equal, Jews and Greeks, slaves and free regardless of identity.

 

[timewerx]

Today I watched the final episode of Family Guy Season 22, which explores whether the presence of religion is beneficial to the world. Actually, I don't think I should be serious about a cartoon, but when I think about it, I do doubt the positive impact of Christianity in today's world, and my textbooks are telling me that Christianity hindered human progress during the Renaissance, and I would like to see more debate on that

Since I am not good at English, I decided to simply write down the two questions I asked to make it easier for you to understand：
1 What role does Christianity play in the world today.2 Does Christianity hinder social progress?

I am born in a Christian family, practicing Christian for more than 20 years.

But now, I'm beginning to realize with undeniable facts and evidences that the world maybe have been better off without the three "Abrahamic Religions" - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

So much blood has been shed and chaos and violence caused by these three religions throughout history.

The most humanitarian and progressive nations today are hailing from nations (in Europe) with pagan history. They've been heavily vilified and persecuted by the Orthodoxy in the past yet, today the ones with pagan ancestry are demonstrating the fruits of the Holy Spirit the most.

The situation is just ridiculous. I feel like I've been deceived my whole life. Forget about the miracles. I keep forgetting the devil is also quite capable of miracles (the temptation of the Christ) and making people rich beyond their wildest dreams - "#blessed".

I no longer believe that miracles is the mark of authenticity of Christianity. Even Jesus didn't like the fact the crowd only followed Him around due to the miracles.

 

[BCP1928]

This is a good point. I think the fundemental ideology behind the left and especially with more radicals like Harris is that borders are inhumane. Illegal immigrants are not doing anything illegal but are victims of a mean white world and trying to get a better life. That is also the basis for crime.

Its appealing to Christs love. But I think the left interpret the love aspect differently. Love is love. Love itself is the feeling of inclusion and acceptance no matter what.

But that twists Christs teachings I think. While Christ loved sinners He also called them to reprent so it wasn't the acceptances of any behaviour. Christ also respected the State and understood the need for taxes and regulations to keep the order as far as the practical running of the State.

I think the progressives are appealing to a truth that we should be inclusive and treat eveyone the same. But this is the nobel cause used to sneak in the ideology that theres a certain kind of equality which is equity and only applies to some. Whereas in Christ we are all equal, Jews and Greeks, slaves and free regardless of identity.

Beware of Nobel causes. They can be dynamite.

 

[Astrid]

Without Christ there would be no world at all dude, so i guess is beneficial.

That’s debatable of course, being an assertion of
facts not in evidence.

That the introduction of Christianity to
China caused enormous harm is undeniable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey....me too lol.

So funny, Ana. Sometimes, I wonder why someone like yourself would want to spend time on CF at all.

 

[NBB]

That’s debatable of course, being an assertion of
facts not in evidence.

That the introduction of Christianity to
China caused enormous harm is undeniable.

There lots of evidence, and i have all evidence i would want with the things God has done in my life.

 

[Astrid]

There lots of evidence, and i have all evidence i would want with the things God has done in my life.

same way that people believe is astrology, Bigfoot, ghosts,tarot cards….

On harm done to China by said belief,
it’s been enormous.
And that is a fact that requires no imagination.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That’s debatable of course, being an assertion of
facts not in evidence.

That the introduction of Christianity to
China caused enormous harm is undeniable.

As a person highly interested in world history, and as someone who hasn't studied China's history thoroughly, I wonder what I'd find if I were to do a historical, year by year analysis of the evidences for when, how and who has engaged China in something claiming to be "Christian"?

I'll have to start researching some of the appropriate historical sources because I'm not finding much in my own copy of, A Brief History of Chinese and Japanese Civilizations (2nd Ed.), by Conrad Schirokauer (1989).

Do you suggest any books or online sources, preferably in English, you deem that I should consult for more historically accurate information about Christianity's inroads in China?

 

[Ana the Ist]

So funny, Ana. Sometimes, I wonder why someone like yourself would want to spend time on CF at all.

Probably a rampant and undeserved ego.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Probably a rampant and undeserved ego.

Undeserved? Or do you intend to mean underserved?

 

[stevevw]

Beware of Nobel causes. They can be dynamite.

Of course they are. Nothing is more deceptive and destructive than a wolf is sheep clothing.

 

[BCP1928]

Of course they can. Nothing is more deceptive than a wolf is sheep clothing.

You spoke of ""nobel causes." Alfred Nobel invented dynamite and many people think it noble of him to give out his profits for prizes

 

[Aaron112]

Do you suggest any books or online sources, preferably in English, you deem that I should consult for more historically accurate information about Christianity's inroads in China?

A book hated by millions or billions living in deception
is charle chiniquoys expose. From the inside of the organization, from high up inside the group for five decades, it thoroughly reveals the evils there-in and the purposes for the deceptions.

 

[Aaron112]

You spoke of ""nobel causes." Alfred Nobel invented dynamite and many people think it noble of him to give out his profits for prizes

COOL, really ? That was better than if he kept the profits, right ?