Yes, we’re talking about Christianity, not Christians. A Christian might have done something for any number of reasons. The only time it is relevant when a Christian robs a bank or donates a significant amount of money is whether or not the motivation was from his Christianity, otherwise labelling it as ‘fruits of Christianity’ becomes enormously strange. Do we start labelling everything they do as in the name of Christianity? Does their getting up in the morning and eating cereal now qualify as an effect of Christianity on the world?
That is clearly why motivations only done in the name of Christianity can be discussed as fruits of Christianity. Otherwise, you’re talking about something very questionable. Is Microsoft an effect of Christianity on the world, since of course, Gates, the founder, is a Christian who takes his kids to church? If not under your definition, why not? He’s certainly a Christian. Could it be because … mmmm … he did not do it because of Christian reasons? Isn’t that exactly what I’m saying here?
That is interesting, but I’m not sure what it is supposed to signify.
That’s certainly one way of looking at it, and I understand what you’re saying. I’m talking about something different though, which I think is also valid and which I’m trying to make clear.
Imagine a hypothetical nation. For a long period of time Christianity is the dominant religion there. All the churches are Christian, what schools there are are officially Christian and run by Christians, the government is officially Christian and run by Christians, all major institutions are Christian and run by Christians… all the way down the line. If it’s true that Christianity has some God-given character, wouldn’t we expect that character to permeate the society to some degree? Wouldn’t we expect that character to be reflected in the history of the nation on the whole? It sounds reasonable to me.
Are the donations being made in the name of Christianity? Gates is often among the largest donors (based on profits from Microsoft); can we remove that from the total? I think a pretty large percentage of Europe is still Christian, and it’s bigger than the US. I tend to think there’s something more complex going on there.
Hm… I think it’s very odd that you chose to disagree with the following.
From my experience and based on my understanding, those Christians who do not believe Jesus to be divine, are a minority of Christians, and are typically not considered as Christians by the mainstream.
I guess you so not believe in history. History is change. We have changed from an ancient civilization where war and killing were used as entertainment. That has changed. Many other things have changed for the better. Doesn’t that mean something. You expect people to change like magic because Christianity is “in charge.”
Science has been dominant for some centuries, Has it solved all the problems and answered all the questions. No.
The way to falsify Christianity and the existence of God is to establish how it would be if there were no God. If there were no God, there would be no order in the universe, not only moral order, but natural order, because God is the Source of order, because order is rational.
There would be no rationality in the universe without God, and indeed there would be no universe without God because the universe did not emerge from itself. It emerged out of Nothing.
Now it could be that there is order in the universe, but it is not Christian order, that is based on Love. It could be that it is a legalistic type of order such as Islam has, and atheists might be able to come up with this if they are really serious about morality.
Did I say that–or anything else for that matter–didn’t mean anything?
No I don’t, and I don’t see why you say that.
I don’t think that’s quite the same thing, but I wouldn’t expect it to. You’ve gone to “all the problems” here, and I don’t see how I’ve said anything that would justify it.
I’m just looking at we might expect under the circumstances, and considering how it might be regarded as evidence. I don’t expect people to become angels, but I might expect some edifying influence to have been realized. Isn’t that the whole point of Christianity in one sense, to realize the kingdom of Heaven on Earth, a better society? I’m really having to bang the drum on this, but I’m not saying everything was gloom and disaster and nothing good was achieved either. As I’ve told Korvexius, I don’t think my way is the only way of looking at the situation, but I think it can reasonably be said to deserve a place in the conversation. That’s all.
I don’t see how you could falsify it that way. How could we know that?
I’ve read your opinions in this vein a number of times, but I don’t understand them.
It could be that we just don’t understand what the order is, or if the idea of “order” is even relevant or not. I’ve said a lot about morality lately on here. “Atheism” isn’t an organized movement of the type that is going to develop a moral system though, at least in my opinion.
Imagine a hypothetical nation. For a long period of time Christianity is the dominant religion there. All the churches are Christian, what schools there are are officially Christian and run by Christians, the government is officially Christian and run by Christians, all major institutions are Christian and run by Christians… all the way down the line. If it’s true that Christianity has some God-given character, wouldn’t we expect that character to permeate the society to some degree? Wouldn’t we expect that character to be reflected in the history of the nation on the whole? It sounds reasonable to me.
This isn’t a deep enough set of questions. It basically asks: do Christians run the place? Yes? So why isn’t it paradise? Dominance doesn’t make it so that everyone is actually following the religion seriously. Even if they want to, it turns out people have countless other motivations in society that can be just as strong to them as a religion: money, status, social relationships and hierarchy, etc. That’s why these top-down analyses never work, indeed they can’t. We are talking about the fruits of Christianity, not the fruits of Christians. This is a different question altogether, no?
Are the donations being made in the name of Christianity? Gates is often among the largest donors (based on profits from Microsoft); can we remove that from the total? I think a pretty large percentage of Europe is still Christian, and it’s bigger than the US. I tend to think there’s something more complex going on there.
The majority of Europeans might be nominal Christians, but the place is so blatantly secularized it’s pretty obvious. If I’m not mistaken, the 20 out of the top 50 biggest charities in the US are Christian. And it’s been proven that Christians donate substantianlly larger amounts than secularists.
No it doesn’t. It asks if we would expect that character to be reflected in the history of the nation as a whole. I seem to be having to make this same point repeatedly in this thread.
OK. I hear where you’re coming from here. Thanks.
I’ve noted several times that we’re asking different questions, yes.
I had a feeling that was coming I’m aware of that, and it is an achievement to point to.
That’s why these top-down analyses never work, indeed they can’t. We are talking about the fruits of Christianity, not the fruits of Christians. This is a different question altogether, no?
You responded:
I’ve noted several times that we’re asking different questions, yes.
Therefore, we basically agree on my original proposition. Jesus said that we can tell the truth of something by its fruits. The fruits of Christianity, not Christians, is overwhelmingly positive. I would argue that the fruits of Christians as well is clearly overall positive as well, but that’s not the point: Christianity, by its fruits, merits the pass of Jesus’ criterion. And I think it is a good criterion.
That seems a bit selective and circular, though. It seems as if you are ignoring all of the bad things that happen because Christians wouldn’t do that, and then focus just on the good things as being the fruits of Christianity. It’s a bit like saying that a drug is completely safe, and you can safely ignore all of those terrible side effects because that drug simply wouldn’t do that because it is a safe drug.
There’s nothing circular. I think you misunderstood me. I’m saying take all the good things done in the name of Christianity, and then take all the bad things done in the name of Christianity, and the overall result will be overwhelmingly positive.
I’m aware of that, and it is an achievement to point to.