Did Christianity do anything unique in history?

[CplFerro]

I listened to a broadcast recently about how the idea that Christianity uniquely allowed science to develop to the degree it has in the West was debunked. It got me thinking, is there anything Christianity did in history that was unique, that uniquely changed civilisation for the better? Or would any other dominant religion have done just as it did?

 

[John Jones]

I listened to a broadcast recently about how the idea that Christianity uniquely allowed science to develop to the degree it has in the West was debunked. It got me thinking, is there anything Christianity did in history that was unique, that uniquely changed civilisation for the better? Or would any other dominant religion have done just as it did?

Well, there is that date thing. AD/BC.

I'm happy to see that CE/BCE are taking their places.

 

[mactonite]

I would say that a unique situation would be missionaries feeding the hungry in poor nations. Of course their main function would be to preach the gospel, however a secondary function would be to show compassion to the local people. In that sense, missionary work has likely been beneficial.

 

[Bishadi]

I listened to a broadcast recently about how the idea that Christianity uniquely allowed science to develop to the degree it has in the West was debunked. It got me thinking, is there anything Christianity did in history that was unique, that uniquely changed civilisation for the better? Or would any other dominant religion have done just as it did?

well consider going directly against jesus as pretty unique;

Matt 16: 20 Then did he charge his disciples that they may say to no one that he is Jesus the Christ


ie.... perhaps the best example of anti-christ (against truth) can be found by observing christians. (they must hold a creed that is against jesus' teachings)

funniest thing i ever realized


kind of like what a 14 yr old said once on a forum;

If jesus died for our sins, what happens now; he didnt stay dead!


that one cracked me up for a week

 

[Cainkane1]

I listened to a broadcast recently about how the idea that Christianity uniquely allowed science to develop to the degree it has in the West was debunked. It got me thinking, is there anything Christianity did in history that was unique, that uniquely changed civilisation for the better? Or would any other dominant religion have done just as it did?

The Christian church conquered and enslaved indigenous peoples and in some cases hurt the cause of science by supressing freedom of dissent. The Mayans used to have books of medicine, literature, philosophy, architecture etc. The catholics burned everyone they could lay their hands on. They did the same to books written by the Cathars etc. If the Christians had been able to conquer Islamic countries they would have done the same thing to their books also.

Christians are good at burning priceless material. There was a written language in the canary Islands which was destroyed. The inhabitants of easter island had written material but thankls to the missionaries not any more.

 

[AvalonXQ]

well consider going directly against jesus as pretty unique;

Matt 16: 20 Then did he charge his disciples that they may say to no one that he is Jesus the Christ


ie.... perhaps the best example of anti-christ (against truth) can be found by observing christians. (they must hold a creed that is against jesus' teachings)

If you believe that that is what Jesus wanted his disciples to do going forward to today, you clearly haven't actually read the gospels. Jesus directed his disciples in a way that controlled the spread of the message during his lifetime. Then later he told his disciples to spread his good news to everyone.
So modern evangelism is certainly not "against Jesus' teachings". It's, in fact, required by Jesus' teachings.

 

[elbe]

I was going to suggest there being a lot of great christian themed art, but it's not the only religion to produce art so it's not exactly unique.

 

[Hokulele]

If you believe that that is what Jesus wanted his disciples to do going forward to today, you clearly haven't actually read the gospels. Jesus directed his disciples in a way that controlled the spread of the message during his lifetime. Then later he told his disciples to spread his good news to everyone.
So modern evangelism is certainly not "against Jesus' teachings". It's, in fact, required by Jesus' teachings.

If you accept that the ending of Mark is in fact part of the Bible. The scholarly consensus seems to be that this was added after the fact.

 

[Marduk]

ie.... perhaps the best example of anti-christ (against truth)

what etymology are you using to get "truth" from "Christ"

 

[D'rok]

Liberal Democracy is secular Protestantism.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If you accept that the ending of Mark is in fact part of the Bible. The scholarly consensus seems to be that this was added after the fact.

That's a good point. But even in the absence of the Great Commission of Mark, it's still clear that Jesus' admonishment to secrecy was temporary and eventually gave way to evangelism.

 

[Bishadi]

If you believe that that is what Jesus wanted his disciples to do going forward to today,

it seems he was clear in quite a few spots as to what HE wanted (per sciptures of course)

Mark 10:17 And as he is going forth into the way, one having run and having kneeled to him, was questioning him, `Good teacher, what may I do, that life age-during I may inherit?'

18And Jesus said to him, `Why me dost thou call good? no one [is] good except One -- God;

19the commands thou hast known: Thou mayest not commit adultery, Thou mayest do no murder, Thou mayest not steal, Thou mayest not bear false witness, Thou mayest not defraud, Honour thy father and mother.'

As it seems he knew people would use his name in vain:

Matt 15:7 `Hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,

8 This people doth draw nigh to Me with their mouth, and with the lips it doth honour Me, but their heart is far off from Me;

9and in vain do they worship Me, teaching teachings -- commands of men.'


So per bible, he said, dont call him christ, he said he aint 'good" (god) and to follow the rules (commands)

So if you want to go against jesus, then so be it as i know better per the bible and what makes basic common sense.

you clearly haven't actually read the gospels.

notice i back up what bible says with bible.

otherwise why debate the theology. I look at what make logical sense giving jesus the cudos of being honest over being a liar. Now do i believe many use his name, his works and even continue to bs based on theology? Absolutely! But i dont discount jesus for it!

Jesus directed his disciples in a way that controlled the spread of the message during his lifetime. Then later he told his disciples to spread his good news to everyone.

sure he did


John 14: 29 `And now I have said [it] to you before it come to pass, that when it may come to pass, ye may believe;

30 I will no more talk much with you, for the ruler of this world doth come, and in me he hath nothing;


he knew he wasnt the last and told people it over and over and over and over, within the very literature you said i dont know.


please be fair before contesting otherwise i can be real nasty when i judge a liar

So modern evangelism is certainly not "against Jesus' teachings". It's, in fact, required by Jesus' teachings.

evangelicals are oosually closer to dante's fear mongering than anything jesus taught.


Jesus said no false witness. So if you never met jesus, you might want to stop conveying false belief (ie... yu can believe what you want but to false witness is against truth)

You aint a witness, so please be fair and lets appreciate what jesus did versus put his name in the dirt for personal belief.

OK?

 

[D'rok]

Scripture fight!

 

[Bishadi]

what etymology are you using to get "truth" from "Christ"

NO!..... you got me on that one as it means annoited in many of the old text.

i see it that any can be square up with truth (per se annointed) and live, walk and breath with the integrity of empathy, honesty and the self responsibility of being just 'true'.
(we all can even forgive others for what they do to us (turn da utter cheek; do not let what atrocity you experience affect your next action; to forgive)


so in a real sense, to me, i believe anyone can be just that 'good'

ie.... you can walk on h2o too, when frozen (just like the rest of us)

 

[AvalonXQ]

So per bible, he said, dont call him christ, he said he aint 'good" (god) and to follow the rules (commands)

Sorry, no.

When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

There are plenty more of these if you want them.
If the Jesus of the Gospels was not the Christ, the Son of God, and God, then the Jesus of the Gospels was a liar.
Your out-of-context attempts to twist Jesus' rebuke of the rich young ruler don't change that.

 

[Bishadi]

Scripture fight!

cute

i apologize if i get boring hashing over the old stuff

i would think anyone that would put their lives on the lines for a belief would know what they are talking about before claiming some of the stuff religion created

 

[AvalonXQ]

i would think anyone that would put their lives on the lines for a belief would know what they are talking about before claiming some of the stuff religion created

Some of us do know what we're talking about.
We're usually those who have read the whole thing through, several times, understand the meanings behind the difficult verses, and don't try to turn rhetorical flourishes into meanings that contradict clear text.

 

[Bishadi]

Sorry, no.

do you question jesus or is it possible the interpretation was incorrect (translation)?

meaning, could he have said it is he whom i speak of

as then #20 was quite clear (he charged) just like he continually is speaking of another, of a day when, of the last.

There are plenty more of these if you want them.
If the Jesus of the Gospels was not the Christ, the Son of God, and God, then the Jesus of the Gospels was a liar.

we all children of the garden (god)

we are all equally of the body of existence. (heck you could be breathing the very oxygen jesus did)

So you and i are both 'children of god' that only needs both to comprehend that we are alive within the body of the trinity all- mass, energy, time (existence itself)

Your out-of-context attempts to twist Jesus' rebuke of the rich young ruler don't change that.

i aint debunking jesus i consider religious adherants are prone to tradition over maintaining the focal quest of truth and honesty. (christlike)


for example; do you expect jesus to return and finish the job or is it possible he was talking about what is to come? (that last, most all religious doctrine represents to be 'awaiting')

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Of course christianity did something unique.
How many religiouns have a still alive 2 year old thread regarding the "evidence" to its validity

 

[Bishadi]

Some of us do know what we're talking about.
We're usually those who have read the whole thing through, several times, understand the meanings behind the difficult verses, and don't try to turn rhetorical flourishes into meanings that contradict clear text.

then if i said that you are bound to carbon and most all life ever born is/was bound to carbon, then to point out the most prevelant isotope is Carbon-12 which basically means that all life you ever even heard of as far as human beings is bound to 6 electron, 6 protons and 6 neutrons (the chemical description of C-12)

would that mean you are branded 'upon the head'? (now aware)

rev 22: 4 and they shall see His face, and His name [is] upon their foreheads,


can you help with that "difficult verse"?