PaulS

So, in general (in the main), I don't think Christianity stops at just teaching children they are born with the capacity for cruelty, destruction etc, but worse, that this is their base nature as 'sinners', born into sin. They are not worthy of God unless they believe certain beliefs.

Yeah, that seems pretty harmless. Unfortunately, I don't think that is the Christian position in the main. I would also teach children that the human capacity for destructive behavior, of which we are all capable, is just as fundamental as the human capacity to love. The former is not a default behavior that we are inherently ruled by.

I tried to help my mother understand why I don't believe in Hell, with similar logic. But she couldn't process it. I told her that by her understanding she should expect me to go to Hell as I didn't believe Jesus died for my sins or that I needed to believe that. In fact, I said I would want to go to Hell simply to demonstrate solidarity with all those poor wretches that other Christians think deserve eternal torture! That being the case, how could she be happy for all eternity in Heaven, whilst knowing her son was suffering eternal torment. Luckily for her, I was baptized at 14 when I 'chose' to accept Jesus (like a 14 year old can appreciate such with all of their life experience!) and that's all she needs to satisfy herself. As for "... nobody today really believes their child is born evil" I beg to differ - there are plenty of Christians still believing that message and passing it on. Today I see teaching children this harmful message as child abuse, but because it is 'Christianity', people are free to harm their kids with it. I was raised in a bible-believing, Jesus-accepting household. I was taught that I was born a sinner and that if I didn't ask God or Jesus for forgiveness and accept Jesus into my heart, I would be condemned to Hell for all entirety and forever separated from my family. My sister stayed true to the faith, married young and moved to Mexico as a missionary (they run a cafe there and convert Mexicans if they can). I on the other hand joined the police force at 18yrs and learnt about justice, mitigating factors, risking your life for people you don't know, etc, and from that experience, I could never understand 'God and Mercy', as I had been taught, ever again.

Maybe. Or maybe he's living his judgement of it. Maybe, but maybe he's not aligned with his dharma, and instead is farming!

I've always loved that story and take a lot from it in regards to a philosophy about how to consider what happens in one's life, but even the farmer still takes action in his life - he farms. Presumably he views farming as beneficial in some regard or another, or why else farm? Why not sit around meditating, or hunting, or working in a factory? So similarly, I was asking how others view Christianity - having some benefit or not? For what it's worth - I agree with you - maybe it has been beneficial, maybe it hasn't. But I think more accurately it's a case of perhaps sometimes it is beneficial, and at other times, no. But I still take your point - even in those times, whether such is beneficial or not, is still a 'maybe'.

We participate in life and we either consciously or subconsciously rank where we sit on the 'life satisfaction' scale. We all sit at different spots. A poor and destitute person may feel euphoric about life and a rich person may feel suicidal, but at the end of the day we all make judgments about our life experience, so this is what I see as simply as 'better or worse'. So, has Christianity contributed to better or worse for people's life experience, is what I am asking (but more on a wholesale scale, like entire cultures). I guess in a deterministic universe that doesn't make sense, but in an indeterministic one it is still a fair observation I think - Probabilistic causation.

No problem.

Incongruous? How so? I've re-read all that I've written here, but failing a misinterpretation based on maybe your own personal bias (I know much is lost in not having a face to face discussion), I can't see how I've contradicted anything I have said. Is it because I am asking the questions that perhaps you have pre-supposed my views? I asked questions such as what people thought about Christianity doing any good in the world. I asked what others thought about Christianity maybe contributing to the world become a better place - if it was responsible for making the world a better, fairer, place, or could/would/might that have happened anyway? Etc (see initial post). I then said your post reminded me of the Inuit/priest story - my intention being that the indigenous Inuit deduced he was better off before receiving the Priests understanding of God/sin/hell. Not sure how you interpreted it. Then I pretty much agreed with you that much pre-Christian indigenous culture had much to offer, but I went on to say that such is often lost to history by the overlaying dominant culture of the day (usually Christianity). Then I clarified what Rom thought I was asking by saying "I think what I'm asking is that do people see beneficial understandings and teachings from Christianity, that don't exist outside of Christianity, being shared with the world, so that they are regarded as a 'positive' development, that wouldn't have otherwise came about except for Christianity?". That's not a loaded question, it's just a question. So I guess I'm not really sure why you are confused, unless you thought I was pushing the barrow for Christianity in general, but I really can't see where you get that from in my posts.

The point was the Inuit didn't ever understand God/sin/hell like the Priest was telling him how he 'needed' to. I think most can imagine the God/sin/hell message Christian priests would have taken to the Inuits. Agreed. Good question. Are Christian beliefs more valid? Maybe in some instances, but overall I don't think so. Cool.

I do. No.

I simply used the terms 'minor' and 'dominant' in the context that one culture, even if it was once upon a time the dominant culture for that region, ultimately it was dominated by a more dominant culture, hence it being minor and not the major (dominating) culture that won through in the end. Doesn't make it right - but just making the point that some more dominant cultures basically obliterated the previous culture. Indigenous Australians were the dominant (only) culture in Australia for about 90,000 years. Then along came anglo saxon culture and it obliterated indigenous culture.

I think what I'm asking is that do people see beneficial understandings and teachings from Christianity, that don't exist outside of Christianity, being shared with the world, so that they are regarded as a 'positive' development, that wouldn't have otherwise came about except for Christianity?

It's a good point - too often, in our ignorance, we don't know about the strength of these 'minor' cultures and too often understand the world from the point of view of 'dominant' cultures. Well, at least maybe I do anyway

That's a good point. I was applying the term in a broad-brush approach but you're right - it is so broad that even some Christians don't believe other Christians are Christian! Those stages make a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing. Taking into account Kellerman's post also, maybe it's a case of some cultures benefiting from Christianity, whereas others were better off without it. Perhaps it depends on the actual fit with the community it is being introduced into?

Your post reminds me of the following quote: Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.' Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'

There was a statement made in this thread about Nordic peoples perhaps managing to "somehow managed to absorb the best of the Christian teaching, like creating decent social support structures, minimizing inequality, focusing on what's best for everyone, whilst rejecting the worst". I've never really given it that much thought, but what do people think about Christianity maybe, or not, being responsible for dragging the world forward? Is it Christianity that is responsible for making the world a better, fairer, place, or could/would/might that have happened anyway? Do people think the world was perhaps a dark and loveless place pre-Christianity? Is Christianity responsible for decent social support structures, equality, focusing on the good of the community, etc? Just ruminating.

Hard to say I think. One glaring omission in the empathy stakes I have with Christianity (and I recognize it is not all Christianity, but it is a lot of it), is the lack of empathy these types have toward their fellow human beings and loved ones who they think it is quite okay for them to suffer an eternal, never-ending torment, simply because they didn't believe the 'right' things in this lifetime. That seems to blow empathy out of the water in my view, but then again, I haven't conducted any studies to demonstrate it. But maybe it is possible to hold a high-degree of empathy but to let it be overruled by other dominant emotions, such as whatever emotions their religion provides them with? I think the potential is there both for religion to attract empathetic-leaning people as well as to create empathetic-minded people who are raised in religious communities. But I would be interested to see if similar studies show other types of community also contributing to building empathy. I wonder if it is 'community' in general morseo than religion that encourages and attracts empathetic minds, its just that religion has been the majority community to date, so to speak?

No problem. I do sincerely thankyou for trying anyhow.

Beanieboy, To me it sounds like you would be a lot better for not participating in such a forum. I hope you're in a good place these days and can put these experiences where they belong...in the past. Cheers Paul

Thanks Kellerman. I wasn't asking for any 'proof' - just interested to know how you determined that spirituality goes well beyond just your personal neural responses. I'm not all that unfamiliar with the response that *some* people have this way of knowing while others don't, which is partly why I ask the question - I'm just seeking to clarify how it might not just be more neural responses, individuality seeming to me to be the key rather than 'spirituality' that is only knowable by some for some reason. For me personally, your answer doesn't adequately address that, but that's okay. I'm only asking the question.

Quite possibly, but how do you differentiate between a neural response and an 'other' response - e.g. spirituality? Or how do you recognize that your response to spirituality isn't in fact just a neural response to your perception?

Not sure if you meant to add your own comments or not, Rom, but it certainly does encourage the question - is not spirituality also 'just' another human experience, like awe? Certainly with the wide and diverse understanding of spirituality between individuals, it does seem to be an individual experience, just like awe is.

Not to distract from this thread, but this section (Progressive Christianity) simply tries to ensure general, supportive discussion about progressive Christianity reserved for those who consider themselves in general agreement with the 8 points. The important thing, as I believe anyway and will try to manage accordingly, is that there is an opportunity for PC's needing some supporting discussion, to be able to without being discouraged. Rom, if your comments were inappropriate, then there would be an issue. But as per what I've usually seen from you, these are genuine discussion questions, in line with this particular topic and not ill-intended. Being responsible for this forum is not a precise science, so I hope others understand where I'm coming from. Peace & good will. Paul

I think you're right, John. It's easy to laugh at this stuff, but really it is scary to think that so many Americans are so convinced of these beliefs. I'm sure they are a minority, but a very dangerous minority nonetheless - like the mob that stormed the Capitol carrying christian flags and banners. What if they had succeeded? What if Trump has succeeded in overturning the election? Would the US eventually be experiencing a Theocracy? Is such that far off? And how twisted is the thinking that their version of God put Trump in power (with, to put it mildly, all his character flaws), but somehow God was defeated this time around when Biden was put in power! I think this is the poison that is religion.

Without a doubt there are millions, if not billions, of people who quite rightly would feel that the world is not getting any better, based on their personal perspective and actual experience in particular. But we are getting better, in lots of ways. Life expectancy has increased tremendously across the globe, including in Africa and Asia and the world as a whole average. Child mortality rates have plummeted in the last 100 years - even in India where families lost 50% of their babies only 100 years ago, today experiencing rates of 5%. Global income inequality has been on a steady downward trend for several decades. This is mostly a result of developing countries such as China and India where hundreds of millions of people have seen their living standards improve. In fact, for the first time ever since the Industrial Revolution, about half of the global population can be considered global middle class. Politically, throughout most of human history people lived under oppressive non-democratic regimes. As of today, about half of the human population is living in a democracy. As for conflict, while the early 20th century was especially brutal with two world wars in rapid succession, the postwar period has been very peaceful. For the first time ever, there has been no war or conflict in Western Europe in about three generations, and international organisations including the EU and the UN have led to a more stable world. I think we're getting somewhere, but there's still a long way to go.