I don't want to inflame anyone, or offend them. However...do you think the two religions of Christianity (following its inception around the 1st century CE), and Islam (following its inception around the 7th century CE) have had a net positive or net negative effect throughout history? Please explain your reasoning.

I think both have had a net negative effect, though in recent times I would classify Christianity as more positive and Islam as more negative than what they were in the past. More people have been killed in Jesus's name than in any other. However, Christianity currently is the focal point of much charity. Islam was the most peaceful religion around until recently. Now, there seem to be a lot of Muslim kooks killing people, creating a more negative effect.

That's pretty hard to quantify - I think the positives are on a very individual level and on the whole, pretty small, whereas the negatives are not only affect huge numbers of people, but are exceptionally bad.

Poeple who are true chrsitians have had a positive effect. Jesus told us to do good to others and help others. There are chrsitians who have done just that. Many food banks are run by chrsitians, there are chrsitians who have ministires that feed poor people in third world countries, there are rehab centers run by christians. I have also met some chrsitiasn by their kind, considerate, humble attitude, have made a difference by showing kindness to others. An act of kindness can help brighten up someone's day if they are going through a tough time.

There are mnay people who have been delivered from addictions through the power of God, thus the chrsitians who led them to salvation made a positive difference.

During the time of slavery, many chrsitains partook in the underground railroad, and to great lengths to help slaves escape to freedom. The Quakers were a chrsitians group who greatly partook in the underground railroad movement. People helping slaves to freedom, would put manure over their wagons, as the salve would hide in the back. When being persued by bounty hunters, their dogs couldn't smell through the manure, plus bounty hunters were reluctant to dig through that manure. It took dedication on behalf of those chrsitians who would go through that just to get someone else to freedom.

Christians make a positive impact, whent ehy go to work or school and be the light that they have been called to be.. Showing kindness to others, having a positive attitude, by having integrity and honesty, by unselfishnss, by have maaners and good language, they shows others the way of righteousness.

of course, there has always been hypocrites who don't live the life. Tey have done wicked things in the name of chrsitianity. but since they are not truly living it, it shouldn't surprise you that they don't make a positive impact on society that they are suppposed to make.

Christians and the Christian religion are two seperate things. The religion may tell people that killing is wrong (same as in Islam) though individuals who follow those faiths often ignore those aspects of their religion that tell them not to kill.

J_man, you talk of the good things which Christians have done. I could just as easily state hundreds of good things that other religions have done as well, and just as many bad things for both. The religion preaches goodness (mostly), but it really only matters if the people who claim themselves as Christian actually follow the religion as it is stated.

of course, there has always been hypocrites who don't live the life. Tey have done wicked things in the name of chrsitianity. but since they are not truly living it, it shouldn't surprise you that they don't make a positive impact on society that they are suppposed to make.

Every person who kills and claims to follow Islam are in fact not following the religion. If we exclude those people who are not following the religion, then all that we are comparing is the religion as it is written.

I think it would be true in both cases that there were or are people who misrepresent the religions respectively.
I believe people look for what they want out of something and only use that of what they need to fulfil their needs.

Whats the name of that jurk who has a baptist church but protest at soldiers funerals?
Prime example.
Salam Mass, another prime example.

These religions are obviously meant to teach lifes examples through worship.
All to often there are those in the religion that will see the examples as a way of life.
Take it to far and get deluded in how they want to see it and not how it was meant to be.
While the examples given were meant to be used in every spectrum of life. They were not meant to be used the exact same way repeatedly.
Combine the repetitiveness with tradition and there are bound to be people who get confused.

I'm sure we all know that confusion is the source of many a misdeed.

Speaking as a Christian I know from personal experience that God does make himself known to you. So there is no way to be confused once God makes his presence known. However there are still those who walk the walk so to speak and have yet to make Gods acquaintance.

Whats the name of that jurk who has a baptist church but protest at soldiers funerals?
Fred Phelps.

Speaking as a Christian I know from personal experience that God does make himself known to you. So there is no way to be confused once God makes his presence known. However there are still those who walk the walk so to speak and have yet to make Gods acquaintance.

I am curious of your thoughts on a similar matter. In your opinion, does it really matter what religion you are a part of? The religious texts are all man-made from many generations prior to our own - texts which are filled with many man-made errors. Even the bible goes so far as to state that women should not speak in church, which I feel was probably added at some point by a chauvinist.

If there is a god, do you think s/he would really care which set of man-made text we read from?

Taking it one step further, why should an all powerful being care about us at all? Especially if it could duplicate or eradicate us in an instant.

I am curious of your thoughts on a similar matter. In your opinion, does it really matter what religion you are a part of? The religious texts are all man-made from many generations prior to our own - texts which are filled with many man-made errors. Even the bible goes so far as to state that women should not speak in church, which I feel was probably added at some point by a chauvinist.

If there is a god, do you think s/he would really care which set of man-made text we read from?

Taking it one step further, why should an all powerful being care about us at all? Especially if it could duplicate or eradicate us in an instant.

I look at your last question this way.
The all powerful being made us out of his own interest. So he had interest in us before he made us.
I can not explain further. Emotions are the reason and there is no way to rationalise emotions enough to give a logical answer.
I can give you a illogical answer that has an understandable meaning.
Emotions are life, so to speak. All of our actions are first compelled by what we feel, only later to be sorted out by logic.
We grow from the time we are born to the time we die emotionaly. Modified in a sinse.
God wants us to expeiernce life through our emotions so he can share in them with us. In essence that is life and there is no greater form of happieness then to know the creator of it.
God shares in this happieness with us once we are Christians.

I think the verse you are talking about with woman, is saying woman shouldnt preach in a church. In the time it was writen woman didnt get to much respect so they couldnt really lead men to well.
Pretty much like you said.

What religion is the best?
I would say anyone that leads to the salvation Jesus Christ has to offer.
I think God would care the most about any text that meantions the Crucifixion of his son Jesus.

I look at your last question this way.
The all powerful being made us out of his own interest. So he had interest in us before he made us.
I suppose that's a reasonable answer. Also I respect that you're not trying to give rational for what God might think.

I can give you a illogical answer that has an understandable meaning.
Emotions are life, so to speak. All of our actions are first compelled by what we feel, only later to be sorted out by logic.
We grow from the time we are born to the time we die emotionaly. Modified in a sinse.
God wants us to expeiernce life through our emotions so he can share in them with us. In essence that is life and there is no greater form of happieness then to know the creator of it.
God shares in this happieness with us once we are Christians.
I don't think I see eye to eye with you on this, but arguing over this will get us nowhere.

I think the verse you are talking about with woman, is saying woman shouldnt preach in a church. In the time it was writen woman didnt get to much respect so they couldnt really lead men to well.
Pretty much like you said.
If you can find that passage, take a close look at it. It's interesting. The message is choppy, but the sentences flow perfectly if you simply delete that passage about women not talking.

Borg, the answer to your question probably depends on the viewer.
I, personally, would think the two religions spoken of, have had a negative effect on the general brotherhood of the world population.
A viewer, with the prospective of a believer, would feel that their religion is of a positive nature with any negatives attributed to external influences.

Borg, the answer to your question probably depends on the viewer.
I, personally, would think the two religions spoken of, have had a negative effect on the general brotherhood of the world population.
A viewer, with the prospective of a believer, would feel that their religion is of a positive nature with any negatives attributed to external influences.


Hey Dan, how are you?

I don't think I have replied to any of your post in quite a while.

I agree with what you have said but I also think there is an abundance of people who get it right and do the right thing.
the same may be true about those who get it wrong. I think the difference would be we are more prone to see the wrong then we are to notice the right.
If these people had no religion, they would still be doing things in a negative manner. It's human nature. Some of us see it and distract ourselves from it. Others of us don't and neglect to treat those around us as we would want to be treated.

Its a ripple effect, doesnt matter what organization, people may have. The jurks are always noticed the most and more frequently.

I happen to be the only one to vote for the "net positive effect", I felt like going against the grain. Forgive my rambling...

Religion has been one of the most important components of civilization, from the ziggurat to the Vatican. It has governs masses, brings inner peace and direction into people's lives, and provides motivation to keep going. After the fall of Greece and Rome, Europe was largely growing into a Christian conglomerate while the Arab world, taking pages out of the Greece and Rome's books of success, moved forward making many academic and social advances to civilization. Not soon after Europe was out of the Dark Ages and faced success while the Islamic world is in decline.

If you look at the current state of the world, and certain things that have come due to these religions, you see a lot of bad. Restraint on scientific and social progress, war, confusion, but you also see a lot of good. I've met a lot of Christians in my day and have seen the effects their faith has had on them, to put it shortly, the effects are remarkable. Also, as Borg pointed out, Christian charity is perhaps the largest medium for charity out there.

Look at now, look at The Crusades, look at the Inquisition, look at the Islamic invasions of Europe, you see bad. But history taken as a whole, proves (in my eyes) that these two faiths have had a positive impact on people and civilization. Inv is right, that other forces or religions would have come along to make people do good or bad, but the fact remains that some of the greatest achievers in history were inspired by their faith. Things such as exploration of the New World, many art movements, and etc were partially due to religious piety.

Oh, and I'd like to see documentation for the claim: "More people have been killed in Jesus's name than in any other."

Rambling over.

The jurks are always noticed the most and more frequently.
"Jerks"...

I agree with Evakian. Both religons have had a profound effect on the world. In today's world, religon, specfically Islam, has been taken over by maniacs. When you see people like Osama Bin Laden associate themselves with Islam, the idea of Islam netting a positve effect is a far shot. Evakian said it best:

I happen to be the only one to vote for the "net positive effect", I felt like going against the grain.

Religion has been one of the most important components of civilization, from the ziggurat to the Vatican. It has governs masses, brings inner peace and direction into people's lives, and provides motivation to keep going. After the fall of Greece and Rome, Europe was largely growing into a Christian conglomerate while the Arab world, taking pages out of the Greece and Rome's books of success, moved forward making many academic and social advances to civilization. Not soon after Europe was out of the Dark Ages and faced success while the Islamic world is in decline.

Great post Evakian!

I can imagine a much better world with no religion (after all, religious claims are falsehoods dressed up as truths to my ears) and I can just as easily imagine a much worse world with no religion (North Korea is evidence enough to utterly shatter visions of a godless utopia).

[QUOTE=WindWip]
If there is a god, do you think s/he would really care which set of man-made text we read from?

QUOTE]


I believe there is a God and I believe God really cares which set of text we read from. I believe The Bible is the word of God written by men inspired (breathed into) by God. If I didn't believe God cared about which text I read or what religion I followed I wouldn't be a Christian but would instead be a general deist.

I believe there is a God and I believe God really cares which set of text we read from. I believe The Bible is the word of God written by men inspired (breathed into) by God. If I didn't believe God cared about which text I read or what religion I followed I wouldn't be a Christian but would instead be a general deist.

Why would a creature who created the universe be concerned with something so seemingly trivial?

The Bible is God's message to man. Do you consider man trivial?

"Jerks"...

Thanks.

The Bible is God's message to man. Do you consider man trivial?

In comparison to God, yes I consider man to be very trivial.

The Bible may be God's message to man, but you have to consider firstly that it has been altered over the years a great deal. Secondly, you have to believe that the original message was from God, and not man's invention. Third you have to believe that THIS is the true version of text, rather than the hundreds of other religions which all claim the same thing.

First, there is no such word as firstly.

Second, I don't think it has been altered a great deal over the years. Translators consistently go back to the original Greek and Aramaic texts, to the Septuagint, etc., when they do their translations.

Third, I do believe the original message was from God, written by men inspired by God.

Fourth, I do believe The Bible, rather than those other books, is the true word of God. If I didn't believe that I wouldn't believe in my religion.

First, there is no such word as firstly.

first·ly ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fûrstl)
adv.
In the first place; to begin with.
Usage Note: It is well established that either first or firstly can be used to begin an enumeration: Our objectives are, first (or firstly), to recover from last year's slump. Any succeeding items should be introduced by words parallel to the form that is chosen, as in first... second... third or firstly... secondly... thirdly.

Second, I don't think it has been altered a great deal over the years. Translators consistently go back to the original Greek and Aramaic texts, to the Septuagint, etc., when they do their translations.

The texts were written hundreds of years after the events occurred. That gives a fair amount of room for human error.

Third, I do believe the original message was from God, written by men inspired by God.
All and good... but if you don't mind my asking, why?
Fourth, I do believe The Bible, rather than those other books, is the true word of God. If I didn't believe that I wouldn't believe in my religion.
Again, why is The Bible the correct information?


Hyperbolic doubt helps with issues like religion.

[QUOTE=Frogger, Do you consider man trivial?[/QUOTE]
==================================================
Yes, when I consider all that exists separate of man.

Do you consider man trivial?

Every time I look up at the stars.

http://snowfire1.homestead.com/files/you_are_here_galaxy.jpg

first·ly ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fûrstl)
adv.
In the first place; to begin with.
Usage Note: It is well established that either first or firstly can be used to begin an enumeration: Our objectives are, first (or firstly), to recover from last year's slump. Any succeeding items should be introduced by words parallel to the form that is chosen, as in first... second... third or firstly... secondly... thirdly.



The texts were written hundreds of years after the events occurred. That gives a fair amount of room for human error.


All and good... but if you don't mind my asking, why?

Again, why is The Bible the correct information?


Hyperbolic doubt helps with issues like religion.


Actualy the Septaugint which is the old testament translated to Greek was translated before the new testament was writen.

Following the Septaugint the first Vulgate was commissioned sometime after 366 AD by Damasus. Translations were taken from the Septaugint and early Hebrew text.
Following that in the late 1500's to the mid 1600's the King James version was writen over the course of 1 Queen and 2 Kings.
It was originaly translated from Hebrew text into English but the Bishops of the time prefered the Vulaget, so the King James Version was aultimately translated from the Vulgate
Currently the RCC uses a bible known as thwe Vulgata. While the King James Version is still in use Protestants are wising up to the accuracy of the New International Version. Which was translated by 100 specialist with over 40 denominations and useing all original text from more then six sources, including the dead sea scrolls.

So considering the New International Version was translated from Text writen by Hebrews and Jews more then 2 thousand years ago, I would say it really is fairly accurate.

Believe, believe, believe, of course everybody believes their religions and their books are the true ones, It doesn't matter what anyone believes, because if there is a God out there it doesn't matter what each group of people in this grain of a grain of a grain of sand (if compared to the endless universe) believes, the "god" would exist whether you believe in it or not. I think religion is fine, but just keep it to yourself, don't go preaching around your "true" religion, just wait until someone asks you, "can you tells us about your religion", then they can only blame themselves, for all the bullshit that will come out of your mouth, and they will have to listen, for they asked.....

Just out of simple curiosity...

There is the Catholic Bible, an Orthodox Bible, and Protestant Bibles.

Does anybody know how many Bibles are there in total?

Does every Christian sect has its preference for a particular Bible?

Some times I tend to think that several sects tailor the Bible to their particular views.

Does anybody know how many Bibles are there in total?


It would probably number in the hundreds. BibleGateway.com, an online Bible resource, has 20 English versions alone.

Just out of simple curiosity...

There is the Catholic Bible, an Orthodox Bible, and Protestant Bibles.

Does anybody know how many Bibles are there in total?

Does every Christian sect has its preference for a particular Bible?

Some times I tend to think that several sects tailor the Bible to their particular views.


Kind of yes.

Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant has for the most part stayed the same bible.
Only real exception is that the Catholic and Orthodox bibles have more books in them then the Protestant bibles.
The Old testament is the Jewish bible in essence, so there is some confusion between catholics and orthodox has to where the Jewish bible stops and the Christian bible starts.

And of course you have Later day saints, the teachings of martin Luther and so on.

The Old Testament is basically a history of the Jewish peoples. It is divided into various sections. The first five books, the pentateuch are accepted as those books written by Moses. Other sections deal with Israel and Judah under Kings and Judges, the diaspora, and social commentary.

The New Testament is the history of Christ and his apostles.

In between the two testaments is the apochrypha, a set of books that some include as inspired by God but others consider to be too sketchy or without enough provenance to be included. These are books like first and second Maccabbees and Johanna and the Elders. Most protestant bodies do not accept the apochrypha.

Just out of simple curiosity...

There is the Catholic Bible, an Orthodox Bible, and Protestant Bibles.

Does anybody know how many Bibles are there in total?

Does every Christian sect has its preference for a particular Bible?

Some times I tend to think that several sects tailor the Bible to their particular views.I once had the HTML Bible. Does that count? ;)

Actualy the Septaugint which is the old testament translated to Greek was translated before the new testament was writen.

Following the Septaugint the first Vulgate was commissioned sometime after 366 AD by Damasus. Translations were taken from the Septaugint and early Hebrew text.
Following that in the late 1500's to the mid 1600's the King James version was writen over the course of 1 Queen and 2 Kings.
It was originaly translated from Hebrew text into English but the Bishops of the time prefered the Vulaget, so the King James Version was aultimately translated from the Vulgate
Currently the RCC uses a bible known as thwe Vulgata. While the King James Version is still in use Protestants are wising up to the accuracy of the New International Version. Which was translated by 100 specialist with over 40 denominations and useing all original text from more then six sources, including the dead sea scrolls.

So considering the New International Version was translated from Text writen by Hebrews and Jews more then 2 thousand years ago, I would say it really is fairly accurate.

The Old Testament (from which the Septuagint was made)was originally a collection of selected writings composed and edited by the Hebrew-Jewish community from as far back as 1200 BC, so the translation that you are referring to (300-200 BC) comes after there was plenty of time for discrepencies and changes.

Not only that, but the original documents included prophetic oracles as well, which were cherrypicked and the ones that were not thought to be credible were tossed out, though I'm sure you already knew that.

The Old Testament (from which the Septuagint was made)was originally a collection of selected writings composed and edited by the Hebrew-Jewish community from as far back as 1200 BC, so the translation that you are referring to (300-200 BC) comes after there was plenty of time for discrepencies and changes.

Not only that, but the original documents included prophetic oracles as well, which were cherrypicked and the ones that were not thought to be credible were tossed out, though I'm sure you already knew that.

That wasnt really my point, because it was writen before the New Testament, that would mean that there is text, original text that translations were made from.

The existence of original text is believed to be found in the Tractate Megillah Talmud. There is recorded that Hellenistic Jews have writen the text so there is some confusion. But who wasnt Hellenistic back then?
Other then the Maccabees

My point was that there may have been other texts that were mixed in with the original text; plus if people were handling the paper then it would not last 1000 years without being transcribed, and when it is transcribed there is a chance that someone might have changed some of the words or added something of their own.

Well, it looks like Ive taken the outsider stance here. Islam has brought the world many of its greatest technological and sociological advancements. Personally, I think peoples memories are too short. Ill grant that Christianity has brought some good to the world, as faith is an important part of peoples lives, especially when they have nothing else. However, Christianity has always been marked by bloodshed ever since its beginning as the Christian cult. There have been persecutions both by and against Christians, inquisitions, holy wars, and civil wars. Conversely, Islam has been a religion of unification, drawing people from all walks of life together.

However, I will give Christianity props for making good use of movable type. Thank you Martin Luther.

Just my 3 cents.

Islam has brought the world many of its greatest technological and sociological advancements.I'm not sure I agree, but Arabic culture certainly has, my favourite being arithmetic notation.

However Christianity certainly has. Medieval monks remained literate and preserved ancient texts throughout the dark ages. The school system and Western academia itself, which I unfashionably respect a great deal, was developed by Christian monks.