[LadyCailin]

I contest that organized religion, particularly Christianity has done net positive to the world though. From the crusades til now, Christianity has always seemed to demonize other groups, and for people in those groups especially (non-Christians, gays, women), the church has not done any good for them whatsoever.

But even I accept your argument that they had, why is organized religion the only way to achieve that good? Why not provide societal benefit through secular and people focused governance, for instance? Why does the teachings of thousands of years old people have to do anything with it, even if we do cherry pick them and only listen to the parts that we as a modern society agree are good? When you draw your philosophy from a book that says at the end “don’t change this or you’re going to hell”, then it’s little surprise that extremists arise with what are actually fairly reasonable interpretations of the Bible.

[sethc2]

See, but even your straw man is based on that post schism period. And the church is what taught us that even those traditionally “on the fringe” should be valued and not discarded. You’re taking up the position the church convinced the world of to argue against her. I really do think your beef (and a legitimate one) is with evangelical Christianity (and possibly Roman Catholics but probably less so). You should read up on where those traditions arose from.

The question really is did Jesus rise from the dead?

Was Plato actually on to something when he said there were more “real” things which made our reality look like shadows.

The reason the church will continue to be is because there is no higher symbol than that of Jesus. There is no getting beyond that idea. Once you see it, there is no going back. So I’d be very careful reading old books if I were you.

Even quantum mechanics is starting to make us realize we might not understand what really constitutes reality. That at the deepest levels there is two eternally existing relationships.

[BoiledCabbage]

> The reason the church will continue to be is because there is no higher symbol than that of Jesus.

Do Hindus agree? Do Muslims? Do Buddhists? If not, are they wrong? Why?

The statement you made is an opinion of a group, stated as a fact. There is nothing wrong with groups having opinions, but they shouldn't be pushed to others as facts. That's the source of many past and present conflicts.

[sethc2]

Oh don’t get me wrong. I know this is my opinion. And I don’t think Hindus and Muslims don’t have very high symbols and good world views.

I’m just saying from what I’ve seen the symbol that Christ is it is very high and explains the world well. I’d love to have discussions over coffee with people with different cosmological explanations of the world.

The question why this isn’t something to be discarded is because a billion people share my opinion and we aren’t unreasonable for having it.

The idea that the most powerful king took up the side of the poor and needy, and aligned himself with them is an idea that I can’t see being defeated. The hero looking like he lost only to win once for all, to set the captives free is a story that is endlessly being recreated in books from people of all world views.

True though, to many, Christ is the symbol of what they’ve seen in American Evangelical Christianity and that symbol might just die out, but the one taught in the 1st century till now I can’t imagine ever dying out.

[sethc2]

A lot of christians foolishly think there is not any truth beauty or goodness in other world views and refuse to learn from them. There is a lot a Christian can learn from Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, even Mormons, and probably a whole ton of other religious beliefs. They can learn from Greek myths, eastern myths and so on.

I actually just wish non christians would just at least take the story of Jesus as a myth or legend that they could still learn from like other enduring myths. That would at least give the idea behind it the respect it deserves given its huge influence. The story of Moses even if just fiction is still a powerful story. I mean have you never read a book like Les Mis or LOTR or something and not seen the power those stories have for good?

[pedrosorio]

> The reason the church will continue to be is because there is no higher symbol than that of Jesus. There is no getting beyond that idea. Once you see it, there is no going back. So I’d be very careful reading old books if I were you.

Many countries in Europe have >50% of young people who identify as non-religious [1]

Don't the declining numbers of religious people in Europe contradict that statement? Younger generations in these traditionally Christian countries are very aware of the symbol and idea - and many are in full agreement with many of the values you mention, except they just don't believe the mystical part (and refuse many of the conservative stances from the church).

If this happened in countries that have had Christianity as their foundational identity for hundreds of years, why can't it happen elsewhere?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/21/christianity-n...

[nickelcitymario]

> Why not provide societal benefit through secular and people focused governance, for instance?

Because they weren't. That's the point. The culture at the time didn't care to support anyone but the most powerful.

Could a non-religious approach have fixed it? Maybe, but none emerged that did so. Not 2000 years ago, anyway.

So Christianity entered the scene at a time when no one was doing these good things, and gave people a reason to rally behind them.

Even today, statistically speaking, Muslims give far more of their income to charity than any other group, and if I'm not mistaken, Atheists ranked last. (Christians only marginally performed better, which says a lot about the state of modern Christianity.)

So why is that? I think it has to do with tribalism. You can't form a strong tribe around NOT believing stuff. Not believing in something isn't enough of a reason to form strong social bonds and take on major projects.

Does that mean you can't come up with a good secular belief that people can rally behind? Of course not. Liberalism was a secular idea that made massive changes. Same for democracy. But you need a flag to rally around.

"Disbelief" makes for a poor flag. It's not much of a rallying cry.

What's more, the rationalist/atheist community tends to be very strongly individualist. Individualism, almost by definition, isn't particularly interested in things like hospitals or caring for the poor.