Would humanity be better without the church?

[Nihilist Virus]

Recently my girlfriend had to have her gallbladder removed. When we arrived at the hospital, there was a statue of Jesus ministering to children outside. When we checked in, a volunteer chaplain took us up to the waiting room. Before leaving he asked if we wanted prayer, and she said no.

So it looks like the church is doing some good here. But when the operation was complete, she got the bill. A fairly large bill, even after her insurance did what it could. If the church is doing good works with this hospital, shouldn't it be incurring a net loss? While I don't have the figures, it's absolutely not obvious that this is happening. And the church has closed books to my knowledge. What's the difference between the statue of Christ and a corporate logo? What's the difference between the volunteer chaplain and an intern?

The church as a whole is obviously making a huge profit, as seen by their ability to pay billions of US dollars in settlements and attorney fees after the plan of protecting child rapists didn't work out. So it's not immediately obvious to me that the hospitals they run are any kind of net good to humanity, at least in the economical sense.

What about soup kitchens and homeless shelters? My mom is protestant, and when her church had a food drive the church contributed nothing. It was church members who raided their pantries for food. It was church members who volunteered their time to hand out the food, which of course included an obligatory message. The soup kitchens at least have to be incurring some kind of loss, if not from the donated food and volunteer labor then at least from the land that the building is sitting on... even if they have to pay no property taxes for being there. If the homeless people who are fed and sheltered aren't forced to work for their services received, then this could be said to be a net loss incurred by the church which would correspond with being a net good being done. Does anyone know how soup kitchens and homeless shelters work?

What about missionaries? They presumably provide food, shelter, and education while destroying native cultures and spreading AIDS in Africa. It's hard for me to see missionaries as a net good, regardless of whatever losses they might incur.

I'd be interested in input on what net good the church has actually done for the world, both historically and in modern times. I see it as an institution that has retarded human progress for a very long time and caused an immense amount of unnecessary suffering.

 

[AvgJoe]

This reminds me of the article In His Name.

The followers of Christ have marched forth in His name armed with commandments of love and have turned the world upside down. Organizations working in the name of God's precious son Jesus have fed more hungry, housed and clothed more poor, ministered to more sick, visited more prisoners and educated more illiterate than all the world's other organizations combined. In His name, more broken hearts have been mended, more broken homes restored, more hope given to the hopeless, more widows and orphans cared for than by any other. In His name untold multitudes of alcoholics and drug addicts have been delivered and restored to their households. Prostitutes have been redeemed and wayward children restored to their families. In Jesus name more hospitals have been commissioned, more colleges and universities established, more missionaries funded and dispatched, and more charitable organizations chartered than by any other name. Many years ago an anonymous writer clearly summed up this matter in this following statement:

He was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. Until He was thirty, He worked in a carpenter's shop and then for three years He was an itinerant preacher. He wrote no books. He held no office. He never owned a home. He was never in a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did any of the things that usually accompany greatness. The authorities condemned His teachings. His friends deserted Him. One betrayed Him to His enemies for a paltry sum. One denied Him. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed on a cross between two thieves. While He was dying, His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He owned on earth: His coat. When He was dead He was taken down and laid in a borrowed grave. Nineteen centuries have come and gone, yet today He is the crowning glory of the human race, the adored leader of hundreds of millions of the earth's inhabitants. All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built, all the parliaments that ever sat and all the rulers that ever reigned -- put together -- have not affected the life of man upon this earth so profoundly as that One Solitary Life.​

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This reminds me of the article In His Name.

The followers of Christ have marched forth in His name armed with commandments of love and have turned the world upside down. Organizations working in the name of God's precious son Jesus have fed more hungry, housed and clothed more poor, ministered to more sick, visited more prisoners and educated more illiterate than all the world's other organizations combined. In His name, more broken hearts have been mended, more broken homes restored, more hope given to the hopeless, more widows and orphans cared for than by any other. In His name untold multitudes of alcoholics and drug addicts have been delivered and restored to their households. Prostitutes have been redeemed and wayward children restored to their families. In Jesus name more hospitals have been commissioned, more colleges and universities established, more missionaries funded and dispatched, and more charitable organizations chartered than by any other name. Many years ago an anonymous writer clearly summed up this matter in this following statement:

He was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. Until He was thirty, He worked in a carpenter's shop and then for three years He was an itinerant preacher. He wrote no books. He held no office. He never owned a home. He was never in a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did any of the things that usually accompany greatness. The authorities condemned His teachings. His friends deserted Him. One betrayed Him to His enemies for a paltry sum. One denied Him. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed on a cross between two thieves. While He was dying, His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He owned on earth: His coat. When He was dead He was taken down and laid in a borrowed grave. Nineteen centuries have come and gone, yet today He is the crowning glory of the human race, the adored leader of hundreds of millions of the earth's inhabitants. All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built, all the parliaments that ever sat and all the rulers that ever reigned -- put together -- have not affected the life of man upon this earth so profoundly as that One Solitary Life.​

More this-and-that has been done in Jesus' name than by any other name... right, thanks, but this thread is not about cherry picking. It's about net good. Because as far as I can tell, more children have been raped by the church than by any other organization that existed concurrently. Failing to factor that in just renders your opinion worthless on a thread discussing the net good of the church.

 

[Radagast]

Would humanity be better without the church?

No.

 

[cloudyday2]

Here is an article describing how the Catholic Charities are subsidized by 1.6 billion in taxpayer dollars. There are better links on this issue that I'm having trouble locating (including a page from the IRS website explaining how churches can cash-in on these opportunities).

What bothers me is that the religious charities appear to be charitable when in fact they are subcontractors for the US welfare program. Apparently this has been going on since the 1960s.

Washington Times: Catholic Church Runs America's Welfare State

 

[AvgJoe]

More this-and-that has been done in Jesus' name than by any other name... right, thanks, but this thread is not about cherry picking. It's about net good. Because as far as I can tell, more children have been raped by the church than by any other organization that existed concurrently. Failing to factor that in just renders your opinion worthless on a thread discussing the net good of the church.

All the good that's been done in Christ's name doesn't count? Ok, guess that makes sense to somebody, somewhere.

 

[cloudyday2]

All the good that's been done in Christ's name doesn't count? Ok, guess that makes sense to somebody, somewhere.

The trick is to determine if the church causes good to be done or if it merely takes credit for good that would de done regardless.

Also we need to focus on the church in the current and future world. The good and evil done by the church in past centuries is irrelevant to the future. I think humanity is gradually outgrowing the need for religion. The church and religion in general has become a barnacle on the ship of human progress.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Recently my girlfriend had to have her gallbladder removed. When we arrived at the hospital, there was a statue of Jesus ministering to children outside. When we checked in, a volunteer chaplain took us up to the waiting room. Before leaving he asked if we wanted prayer, and she said no.

So it looks like the church is doing some good here. But when the operation was complete, she got the bill. A fairly large bill, even after her insurance did what it could. If the church is doing good works with this hospital, shouldn't it be incurring a net loss? While I don't have the figures, it's absolutely not obvious that this is happening. And the church has closed books to my knowledge. What's the difference between the statue of Christ and a corporate logo? What's the difference between the volunteer chaplain and an intern?

The church as a whole is obviously making a huge profit, as seen by their ability to pay billions of US dollars in settlements and attorney fees after the plan of protecting child rapists didn't work out. So it's not immediately obvious to me that the hospitals they run are any kind of net good to humanity, at least in the economical sense.

What about soup kitchens and homeless shelters? My mom is protestant, and when her church had a food drive the church contributed nothing. It was church members who raided their pantries for food. It was church members who volunteered their time to hand out the food, which of course included an obligatory message. The soup kitchens at least have to be incurring some kind of loss, if not from the donated food and volunteer labor then at least from the land that the building is sitting on... even if they have to pay no property taxes for being there. If the homeless people who are fed and sheltered aren't forced to work for their services received, then this could be said to be a net loss incurred by the church which would correspond with being a net good being done. Does anyone know how soup kitchens and homeless shelters work?

What about missionaries? They presumably provide food, shelter, and education while destroying native cultures and spreading AIDS in Africa. It's hard for me to see missionaries as a net good, regardless of whatever losses they might incur.

I'd be interested in input on what net good the church has actually done for the world, both historically and in modern times. I see it as an institution that has retarded human progress for a very long time and caused an immense amount of unnecessary suffering.

Assuming that in your OP you're not just centering upon one specific stratum of the Christian Church, such as the Roman Catholic Church, I'd say that Jesus Himself has had some of the same questions as you do, or at least some of the same sentiments. We can see this in various comments He made to His disciples such as His admonition to maintain their "saltiness" while acting and working in the world, and we can see this is implied in the judgements He makes against 5 out of 7 symbolic churches in the Book of Revelation.

Personally, I've been disappointed by fellow Christians more often than I've been impressed by any of their their attempts to "go up and beyond" the call of duty to be caring and truly helpful or in approaching life, and the Bible itself, in an intelligent manner. But, then again, I also realize that fellow Christians are just human beings like me, subject to the same daily grind of a crappy sinful world and various social culture(s) which wash over us day after day tiring day, so with this in mind I try to also remind myself that we Christians can't really be expected to be the Église Extraordinaire at all times, in all places, and in all ways.

Ideally, it would be great if we could, but in no place in the Scriptures is it hinted that in becoming a Christian, a person is to be so influenced by the God the Holy Spirit that he/she is fully transformed into some kind of spiritual super-being from the point of confession in Christ and Baptism onward (Wesleyan doctrine not withstanding). No, with reality being what it is, and with the actual ontology we find in the New Testament, I think it's best to leave that kind of super-human idealism to the movies and to other works of fiction.

Christianity is about real people dealing with real moral evils which can't just be overcome in ourselves or in the World at large by applying simple, practical changes of mind or by an inordinate and harbored expectation for God, Himself, to magically do all of the inner spiritual renovations that need to be done within each of us. Thus, with this being the case, we should be able to look through the entire history of the Church, going all the way back to Peter, and see an Ecclesia of people who ... still screw up while they strive in faith to be better, more Christ-like people. And indeed, that is what we find.

And that's the Church, NV. I know that in some ways, that really sucks, but God is dealing with us as moral agents who are made in His image; He'll guide us, but He isn't going to do for us the hard moral work that we ourselves have to wake up each day and decide to do. That's the Biblical arrangement. Thus, you'll go to church, or the hospital, and find some things in those places that seem to be, dare I say, inconsistent with the overall intentions of Jesus for His Church. And I'm sorry to hear that your girlfriend had to suffer through gallbladder surgery. My mother had that same circumstance when she was alive, and I remember that it was a major ordeal for her go through ...

But would the world be better without the Church? I don't know. Would it be better to have not one single ideology anywhere that admonishes us to even try to learn to "love our enemies"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The trick is to determine if the church causes good to be done or if it merely takes credit for good that would de done regardless.

Ok. I'm sure you'll do the necessary historical research to see if all of this can be clearly discerned, Cloudy.

Also we need to focus on the church in the current and future world. The good and evil done by the church in past centuries is irrelevant to the future. I think humanity is gradually outgrowing the need for religion. The church and religion in general has become a barnacle on the ship of human progress.

I disagree. I think that attempting to focus upon the future in disconnect from the past leads to a truncated form of ontology within the historical complex of our understanding of our human world, such as it is and such as it has been.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

All the good that's been done in Christ's name doesn't count? Ok, guess that makes sense to somebody, somewhere.

Re-read please. That's not what I said. What is your problem?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The trick is to determine if the church causes good to be done or if it merely takes credit for good that would de done regardless.

Also we need to focus on the church in the current and future world. The good and evil done by the church in past centuries is irrelevant to the future. I think humanity is gradually outgrowing the need for religion. The church and religion in general has become a barnacle on the ship of human progress.

While it's true that the misery caused by the church in the past is irrelevant for the future of humanity, there is the issue of retarded progress. Would we be more technologically advanced in the present moment if the church had not been there to oppose scientific progress?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Actually the Religious consistently, in multiple studies, has been shown to have lower morbidity and mortality. It has not unequivocally been connected to practice of religion, but might conceivably be due to increased social support or more adherence to healthy ethical precepts (such as being less likely to sleep around or such and thus have fewer sexual infections, etc.). It is difficult to quantify.

However, this does mean that the mere fact of religious populations decrease the disease burden of that population - which means better health overall. Further, if the health benefits are not intrinsically due to religion but concomittent factors, then evangelism and preaching would be of public health benefit in and of itself - by spreading a form of health education and acting as a conduit for social support.

So I'd say yes. It seems very hard to get people to support secular concerns as opposed to the readiness the religious would support their Churches, I'd think.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Assuming that in your OP you're not just centering upon one specific stratum of the Christian Church, such as the Roman Catholic Church, I'd say that Jesus Himself has had some of the same questions as you do, or at least some of the same sentiments.

I would assume that most Christians would contend that protestants and Catholics alike will be invited into heaven. Not all protestants and not all Catholics, obviously, but my point is that your God presumably considers them *both* to be the church and so I don't reckon he would think much of the artificial divide that the church has placed within itself. That's the assumption I'm working off of. If you think that all Catholics are going to hell, or that all protestants are going to hell, feel free to clarify.

We can see this in various comments He made to His disciples such as His admonition to maintain their "saltiness" while acting and working in the world, and we can see this is implied in the judgements He makes against 5 out of 7 symbolic churches in the Book of Revelation.

Personally, I've been disappointed by fellow Christians more often than I've been impressed by any of their their attempts to "go up and beyond" the call of duty to be caring and truly helpful or in approaching life, and the Bible itself, in an intelligent manner. But, then again, I also realize that fellow Christians are just human beings like me, subject to the same daily grind of a crappy sinful world and various social culture(s) which wash over us day after day tiring day, so with this in mind I try to also remind myself that we Christians can't really be expected to be the Église Extraordinaire at all times, in all places, and in all ways.

I don't understand how the world could weigh you down if you think that you will spend an infinite amount of time in bliss. Do you "believe" it but not really believe it?

Ideally, it would be great if we could, but in no place in the Scriptures is it hinted that in becoming a Christian, a person is to be so influenced by the God the Holy Spirit that he/she is fully transformed into some kind of spiritual super-being from the point of confession in Christ and Baptism onward (Wesleyan doctrine not withstanding). No, with reality being what it is, and with the actual ontology we find in the New Testament, I think it's best to leave that kind of super-human idealism to the movies and to other works of fiction.

Erm, ever heard of that Saul guy who became Paul?

Christianity is about real people dealing with real moral evils which can't just be overcome in ourselves or in the World at large by applying simple, practical changes of mind or by an inordinate and harbored expectation for God, Himself, to magically do all of the inner spiritual renovations that need to be done within each of us. Thus, with this being the case, we should be able to look through the entire history of the Church, going all the way back to Peter, and see an Ecclesia of people who ... still screw up while they strive in faith to be better, more Christ-like people. And indeed, that is what we find.

That's one way of putting it. Another way is that people don't really believe this stuff deep down. Jesusy stuff, as you put it, floats to the surface in certain social contexts, but then that fades away and the real person takes over the rest of the week. If God is real, easily 95% of the users on this site are going to hell. Agape love is about as rare here as a Porsche in the ghetto.

And that's the Church, NV. I know that in some ways, that really sucks, but God is dealing with us as moral agents who are made in His image; He'll guide us, but He isn't going to do for us the hard moral work that we ourselves have to wake up each day and decide to do. That's the Biblical arrangement. Thus, you'll go to church, or the hospital, and find some things in those places that seem to be, dare I say, inconsistent with the overall intentions of Jesus for His Church.

The honorable thing for the church to do would be to dissolve itself and give all of its horded money to the victims of the misery it has inflicted. After all, if it's the true church then it will survive such a thing. Right?

And I'm sorry to hear that your girlfriend had to suffer through gallbladder surgery. My mother had that same circumstance when she was alive, and I remember that it was a major ordeal for her go through ...

Actually it's not a major ordeal these days. They make only a few incisions and inflate the belly with gas so it's easier to maneuver. Only a couple weeks of recovery.

The point, of course, is that I don't see the church incurring any loss so I don't know how it can be said that they are doing good for the world. The Lego company makes a lot of children happy, but they're making a profit off it. Are they doing a net good for humanity?

But would the world be better without the Church? I don't know. Would it be better to have not one single ideology anywhere that admonishes us to even try to learn to "love our enemies"?

Jesus said to love your enemies, but he also said to hate your parents. He also said that washing your hands before eating wasn't important. No cherry picking here please.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

While it's true that the misery caused by the church in the past is irrelevant for the future of humanity, there is the issue of retarded progress. Would we be more technologically advanced in the present moment if the church had not been there to oppose scientific progress?

When did the Church oppose Scientific progress before the 19th century? When Churchmen were busy inventing Science? When Vicars discovered elements or did experiments? When Church patronage supported most early scientific endeavours?
Even Galileo or Bruno are over-rated and people who think this was against Science, really need to brush up on their history.
Even thereafter, we see monks such as Mendell making significant advances. Religious pressure often leads to research and innovation, such as the discovery of alternate stem-cell research lines from pluripotent stem cells, instead of those harvested from foetuses. These are argueably even better and without the controversy, would likely never have been investigated, as they had erroneously bern thought less promising initially.

Anyway, if Evolution had come around in the 16th century say, no one would have had a problem with it. It was more jumped upon bythe spirit of anti-clericalism about in the 19th. I mean, no one opposed the earth being round or such, with the 'flat earth' supporters being a modern phenomenon.

The Church opposing progress is really not a very supportable assertion and much of the arguments made for it, decidedly specious - especially on historic grounds.

 

[cloudyday2]

I disagree. I think that attempting to focus upon the future in disconnect from the past leads to a truncated form of ontology within the historical complex of our understanding of our human world, such as it is and such as it has been.

Past performance of religion is only relevant where present circumstances mirror past circumstances. In many ways we are trailblazing where history has never traveled, so history is not always relevant IMO.

 

[cloudyday2]

While it's true that the misery caused by the church in the past is irrelevant for the future of humanity, there is the issue of retarded progress. Would we be more technologically advanced in the present moment if the church had not been there to oppose scientific progress?

I don't know about the past, but I can't help thinking that the US has way too many churches and clergy. The problem is the tax exemptions enjoyed by churches(property tax, sales tax, and income tax). A non-profit must file records with the IRS, but churches are automatically considered to be tax exempt without filing any paperwork at all. Billions and billions of dollars are lost every year.

Think of all the church buildings standing vacant most of the week that could be torn down and replaced with something more useful such as a Starbucks.

 

[Project Panda]

Recently my girlfriend had to have her gallbladder removed. When we arrived at the hospital, there was a statue of Jesus ministering to children outside. When we checked in, a volunteer chaplain took us up to the waiting room. Before leaving he asked if we wanted prayer, and she said no.

So it looks like the church is doing some good here. But when the operation was complete, she got the bill. A fairly large bill, even after her insurance did what it could. If the church is doing good works with this hospital, shouldn't it be incurring a net loss? While I don't have the figures, it's absolutely not obvious that this is happening. And the church has closed books to my knowledge. What's the difference between the statue of Christ and a corporate logo? What's the difference between the volunteer chaplain and an intern?

The church as a whole is obviously making a huge profit, as seen by their ability to pay billions of US dollars in settlements and attorney fees after the plan of protecting child rapists didn't work out. So it's not immediately obvious to me that the hospitals they run are any kind of net good to humanity, at least in the economical sense.

What about soup kitchens and homeless shelters? My mom is protestant, and when her church had a food drive the church contributed nothing. It was church members who raided their pantries for food. It was church members who volunteered their time to hand out the food, which of course included an obligatory message. The soup kitchens at least have to be incurring some kind of loss, if not from the donated food and volunteer labor then at least from the land that the building is sitting on... even if they have to pay no property taxes for being there. If the homeless people who are fed and sheltered aren't forced to work for their services received, then this could be said to be a net loss incurred by the church which would correspond with being a net good being done. Does anyone know how soup kitchens and homeless shelters work?

What about missionaries? They presumably provide food, shelter, and education while destroying native cultures and spreading AIDS in Africa. It's hard for me to see missionaries as a net good, regardless of whatever losses they might incur.

I'd be interested in input on what net good the church has actually done for the world, both historically and in modern times. I see it as an institution that has retarded human progress for a very long time and caused an immense amount of unnecessary suffering.

One problem I foresee is the core doctrine of the return of Jesus. Essentially Christian's are waiting for Jesus to return and set thing's right, this belief might seriously impair the believer's ability when faced with a world full of problems. Also the act of prayer could even worsen things, leading many believers to rub the magic lantern instead of dealing with the issues at hand.

 

[cloudyday2]

One problem I foresee is the core doctrine of the return of Jesus. Essentially Christian's are waiting for Jesus to return and set thing's right, this belief might seriously impair the believer's ability when faced with a world full of problems. Also the act of prayer could even worsen things, leading many believers to rub the magic lantern instead of dealing with the issues at hand.

On the other hand there are times when people find hope in Christianity that enables them to persevere in the face of obstacles.

 

[cloudyday2]

We could also study the decline of religion in Western Europe to determine if it might have been beneficial.

 

[hedrick]

It depends upon time and place. There are plenty of times when Christianity has made people better. On the other hand, there are times and places where it's promoted intolerance and persecution. Sometimes it does both at the same time.

The way most non-Christians today judge Christianity is by criteria which I think originally came from Christianity. However I think at this point there are non-Christians who are closer to what Jesus wanted than many Christians.