Did Christianity do anything unique in history?

[Gandalfs Beard]

You've become infected with the ideas of primitive militant atheism. This mental deficiency still survives in atheist states, like North Korea, but eventually it will collapse as well, as it did elsewhere.

"Religious wars" got nothing to do with religion per se but with the usual grab for worldly power. In the past, strong political dissent was oftentimes expressed by choosing different religious affiliation.

Transubstantiation is just a symbolic ritual -- no one gets his head chopped off, as it was the case during pagan rituals.

Witch Burnings were directed at persons accused of practicing the Olde Religion, Pogroms were directed at Jews, the alleged Christ Killers, Crusades were directed against Muslims because they controlled the Holy Land and Cathars because they were heretics. All committed in the Name of your God, as were many of the ostensibly "Good" deeds done by the very same people in the Name of your God. All these Slaughters were in essence "Blood Sacrifices" in the name of your religion.

There is no distinction between "worldly power" (i.e. politics) and religion in a Theocratic State, and much of Europe was indeed a Theocratic State until the Revolutionary Period when "Enlightenment" principles finally emerged from the cocoon of their "secret societies" (late 18th to early 20th century).

As an Agnostic, I generally don't like the pejorative application of the term Delusion, but in the case of Obviously Militant Theists like yourself, clearly the term Delusional is the only applicable word to describe the mental deficiency that the majority of humans have been afflicted with for thousands of years and unfortunately still survives among many even in today's ostensible "secular democracies." I doubt this state of mind will ever collapse as long as people cling to their religious beliefs like a security blanket.

Transubstantiation is in fact the literal Magical conversion of Bread and Wine to Christ's Flesh and Blood (that's basically what the word means), and has been a part of the Catholic and Orthodox Eucharist Traditions for well over a thousand years (if not dating back to Early Christianity); though the word itself didn't come into use until the 11th and 12th centuries.

And in fact, one of the many doctrinal disputes of the Reformation surrounded the controversy of whether the Eucharist was a Literal or Symbolic act. So a Majority of Christendom practices either Literal or Symbolic Ritual Cannibalism depending on their beliefs.

Christianity was founded in the Great Pagan and Monotheist Traditions of Blood Sacrifice (yes, it's in the Tanakh--Old Testament to you--also). Indeed Yahweh favoured Abel's Blood Sacrifice over Cain's Vegetable offerings. And indeed, Jesus allegedly offered himself up as a Blood Sacrifice to appease the Deity and become The Redeemer of Mankind. There is nothing at all unique in Christianity surrounding the ancient idea of offering a Blood Sacrifice to appease a Deity.

So please try not to display such ignorance on a site dedicated to intellectual discourse.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

That may well be. I'm not comparing the general flexibility or other merits of world religions. I'm suggesting an answer to the OP, which is that the large body of music produced for explicitly sacred purposes by the Christian religion is unique in that it wouldn't have existed if Christianity hadn't become prominent or had taken a different form.

My evidence for this is that no other religion does, in fact, have a comparable musical culture. I'm trying to suggest reasons for this, one of which is the comparitive openness of ritual structure in Christianity. In the absence of prescribed ritual behaviour in the new testament (one suggested prayer, one pretty informal ceremony), there's space to drop hymns, anthems, oratorios etc. into the mix.

Where, in fact, is your evidence that "no other religion has a comparable musical culture?"

Music and dancing have been a common staple of religious practice the world over, from indigenous pagan rituals, to Sufism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, and beyond.

http://hinduism.about.com/od/audiomusic/a/bhajan.htm

http://traditions.cultural-china.com/en/17Traditions3467.html

http://www.submission.org/music.html

http://www.mideastweb.org/culture/sufi_music.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/alt/koreanmusic/religious.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanic_music

I'll let you use google to find info on Native American ritual music, African ritual music, Japanese Shinto ritual music, Tibetan ritual music etc etc. You really should educate yourself before making assertions that are ridiculous on the face of them (just trying to help , google before you type).

GB

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I'm sure the doctrine isn't rigid, but the rituals are - in fact as far as I understand it there's a kind of pride in the fact that the observances are maintained in their original form despite the various diasporas, pogroms etc. Which is fine if you like that sort of thing but it's not going to encourage a lot of original composition.

Except that isn't true. A large number of Jewish religious songs have varying different tunes. I know it may not sound like much, but really, within Christianity there is only one tune for a hymn, with Judaism there might be a dozen.

Just because you always light the menorah in the same way doesn't mean the religious rituals stifle creativity. In fact, the entire religion is largely based on discussion and debate. Whereas a number of Christian churches look down upon questioning and will not allow debate it's actively encouraged in Judaism. Only the most rigid groups will stifle any form of debate, and even then it's only on some issues.

 

[Matt the Poet]

Where, in fact, is your evidence that "no other religion has a comparable musical culture?"

Music and dancing have been a common staple of religious practice the world over, from indigenous pagan rituals, to Sufism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, and beyond.

http://hinduism.about.com/od/audiomusic/a/bhajan.htm

http://traditions.cultural-china.com/en/17Traditions3467.html

http://www.submission.org/music.html

http://www.mideastweb.org/culture/sufi_music.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/alt/koreanmusic/religious.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanic_music

I'll let you use google to find info on Native American ritual music, African ritual music, Japanese Shinto ritual music, Tibetan ritual music etc etc. You really should educate yourself before making assertions that are ridiculous on the face of them (just trying to help , google before you type).

GB

I am in no way suggesting that other religions don’t have a musical culture at all. That would, indeed, be ridiculous. I am perfectly aware of the things you list.

What I am suggesting is that the musical culture of Christianity is related so intimately to the way that this religion embedded itself within the cultures that it found itself that it is a genuinely unique (and, regardless of what you might believe about the religion itself, positive) contribution to global civilisation.

Other religious musical traditions also make a positive contribution to global civilisation, but in a fundamentally different way because they have a fundamentally different (unique, one might say) approach to the business of individual creativity and its relationship to what they perceive as the divine – as well as to music itself.

None of the sacred musics you have listed have given rise to the same sort of historical body of work, traditions of performance (secular and sacred) and ongoing commitment to new composition. The Hindu tradition comes close in that there is a certain amount of new composition, but not much of a preserved repertoire (in fact, as far as I know - and yes, I've looked - the Christian musical tradition is the only one that developed a notation system sufficiently complex to develop such a thing). The wikipedia entry on Shamanic music admits itself that it is not a 'musical performance' and is basically made up by the practitioner on the spot. The Eastern traditions you mention also don't valorise new composition and instead are careful to preserve old forms. There are new Sufi songs, but again, these are generally location and time specific and there's a lot of improvisation involved

There is nothing in any of these cultures remotely analogous to, say, the multiple settings of the Te Deum, the many choral anthems of C. Hubert Parry orthe contents of the New English Hymnal, just as there is nothing arising from Christian musical culture analogous to ragas, drones, chants etc.

 

[Matt the Poet]

Except that isn't true. A large number of Jewish religious songs have varying different tunes. I know it may not sound like much, but really, within Christianity there is only one tune for a hymn, with Judaism there might be a dozen.

Just because you always light the menorah in the same way doesn't mean the religious rituals stifle creativity. In fact, the entire religion is largely based on discussion and debate. Whereas a number of Christian churches look down upon questioning and will not allow debate it's actively encouraged in Judaism. Only the most rigid groups will stifle any form of debate, and even then it's only on some issues.

Where have I said that creativity is generally stifled by other religions? Or that Christianity is uniquely free in this regard?

All I’m saying is that if you have a situation where your ritual forms (which is not the same as your doctrine) are heavily prescribed, there simply isn’t the space or the need to add a new piece of music.

Take for a classic example the ‘Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols. I am not aware of anything in any other religion where you have a ritual form that allows you basically to drop any nine pieces of music you like into it.

Hymns can and do, btw, have different settings, although there’s usually a ‘mainstream’ one, a lot of the English ones nailed down, IIRC, by the collection efforts of Ralph Vaughan-Williams.

 

[JohnJohn]

This is one of the things that's so very, very wrong with religion. Are you seriously telling us it's wrong to think about it, to use our brains to come to rational conclusions? Your dismissal of "mere intellect" is obscene and says a lot more about this particular argument and your belief than you realise.

God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and truth. You cannot understand the things of God if you are resorting to mere logic.

Anyway, I don't believe in religion. It is man made.

 

[Helen]

God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and truth. You cannot understand the things of God if you are resorting to mere logic.

You're probably right. I can't even understand that first sentence of yours.

 

[tsig]

OK, probably being a bit glib on the Bach, but I do think that art is the right place to look for an answer to the OP – nearly everything else that might count (philosophy/morality) is very similar to lots of existing religions, quite possibly because it was largely nicked from the Greeks and Romans and bolted on to what was a fairly minimal set of original precepts.

I would argue that Christian Muslim art, particularly music, is unique and driven by the structure of the religion. It’s reliant on a personal and emotive, relationship to the ‘divine’ that inspires devotional creativity, but it’s also taken a legacy of public, communal ritual worship from Judaism that means that what is created has a place and a time to be performed and shared.

I can’t think of any other dominant religion that balances those two sufficiently to create the sort of culturally significant output you get from Christianity Islam. We’d still have art, of course, but I don’t think we’d have anything like the same kind of art.

No special pleadings please.

 

[tsig]

God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and truth. You cannot understand the things of God if you are resorting to mere logic.

.

I agree. Reason and the belief in god are incompatible.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

God is spirit and must be worshiped in spirit and truth. You cannot understand the things of God if you are resorting to mere logic.

Anyway, I don't believe in religion. It is man made.

At least you're not trying to prove God empirically, which is a step forward for a Christian Apologist.

But if you believe in a particular God, and you worship that God, then sir, by definition you are practicing Religion.

GB

 

[my_wan]

I've been thinking about this question since it was posted here. I think I finally came up with one. It's not unique now, but probably was at the time.

It attempted to codify the first set of written laws that was independent of, and not dictated by, any acting leader of the time.

That's actually debatable, as it may have simply been justification for the rules of the time, and became too sticky and/or useful for following leaders to reject. Thus leaders merely claimed their eminence as an act of God to get around the details. The Bible certainly doesn't restrict violence framed in such a way, it is instead predicated on it.

So perhaps religion provided the justification for the codification of the first laws.

 

[my_wan]

Oops, the OP specified Christianity. It wasn't Christianity as we know it that did that.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I am in no way suggesting that other religions don’t have a musical culture at all. That would, indeed, be ridiculous. I am perfectly aware of the things you list.

So you didn't really mean it when you said that: "My evidence for this is that no other religion does, in fact, have a comparable musical culture."

What I am suggesting is that the musical culture of Christianity is related so intimately to the way that this religion embedded itself within the cultures that it found itself that it is a genuinely unique (and, regardless of what you might believe about the religion itself, positive) contribution to global civilisation.

What does this even mean (other than Christian Music is stylistically unique and a net positive)?

Other religious musical traditions also make a positive contribution to global civilisation, but in a fundamentally different way because they have a fundamentally different (unique, one might say) approach to the business of individual creativity and its relationship to what they perceive as the divine – as well as to music itself.

So are you just trying to say that Christian Music is stylistically unique? Or are you special pleading like Tsig suggested? Indeed you seem to be not simply arguing for stylistic uniqueness, but the superiority of Christian Music because somehow it is "more individually creative." That's quite subjective is it not? And hardly something that you can demonstrate empirically, not to mention a rather arrogant statement.

And how does Christian Music have a "different relationship to the Divine" than other Religious Music?

None of the sacred musics you have listed have given rise to the same sort of historical body of work, traditions of performance (secular and sacred) and ongoing commitment to new composition.

Really? Then why can I witness in any Cosmopolitan area traditions of performances in secular and sacred settings by various Ethnic groups of their "historical body of work" ?

The Hindu tradition comes close in that there is a certain amount of new composition, but not much of a preserved repertoire (in fact, as far as I know - and yes, I've looked - the Christian musical tradition is the only one that developed a notation system sufficiently complex to develop such a thing).

Again, I'm not sure how you can justify the statement about a "preserved repertoire" given the regular performances of various Religious Musics I can witness .

And again, your suggestion that the more complex Western notation system is superior and due entirely to Christian music rather than also secular Western music traditions strikes me as supremely arrogant. The Complex Western Notation system may perhaps be unique, but cannot necessarily by ascribed strictly to Christian influence, nor is "complex notation" necessary for "preserving repertoire."

The wikipedia entry on Shamanic music admits itself that it is not a 'musical performance' and is basically made up by the practitioner on the spot.

So the performances of ritual Shamanic music I can witness aren't really "performances" because it is improvised and intended not strictly for performance but ritual?

The Eastern traditions you mention also don't valorise new composition and instead are careful to preserve old forms.

This contradicts your statement about the lack of "preserved repertoire" in other religious musics. And modern musicians (especially in the broad category of World Music, a lot of which is produced by religiously devout people from other traditions) don't seem to have any difficulty creating new compositions based on religious musical traditions.

There are new Sufi songs, but again, these are generally location and time specific and there's a lot of improvisation involved

What's your beef with improvisation?

There is nothing in any of these cultures remotely analogous to, say, the multiple settings of the Te Deum, the many choral anthems of C. Hubert Parry or the contents of the New English Hymnal,...

This appears to be merely pointing out stylistic uniqueness, yet I detect that arrogant hint of superiority again.

just as there is nothing arising from Christian musical culture analogous to ragas, drones, chants etc.

Gregorian Chants anyone?

To sum up: I see no problem with agreeing with you that there are unique stylistic differences between Western Christian Music, and other Religious Musics.

But that's not really what you're trying to say is it?

Rather you seem to be trying to claim a SUPERIOR uniqueness for Christian Music, but without actually directly stating that because you know that sounds arrogant. Hence your trouble in clearly defining your position.

GB

 

[Matt the Poet]

Rather you seem to be trying to claim a SUPERIOR uniqueness for Christian Music, but without actually directly stating that because you know that sounds arrogant. Hence your trouble in clearly defining your position.

GB

In what way do I seem to be doing this?

My position, stated as clearly as possible, is:

1) that one unique thing that Christianity 'did in history' is give rise to a large body of distinctly identifiable artwork that would not have existed without it

2) that within this it is Christianity's musical tradition that's most easily differentiated from that of other religions.

3) that on balance, the existence of this musical tradition is a good thing.

The second point, I thought, might be one that sparked an interesting discussion - it is kind of debatable, people could draw parallels between aspects of different religious musics and I would have been interested to explore them. Plainsong and Ragas is a pretty good example - they had rather different purposes but both work in 'modes' rather than what we now think of as keys and both had similar kinds of early notation system.

The third is also eminently discussable, I thought - imagine you have the choice to erase Christianity from history at the cost of all the music it has produced. I am a vocal atheist, but that particular trade-off would give me substantial pause before flicking the switch (and, yes, since I appear to have to say this out loud, you may assume that any religion and its artistic tradition can be substituted into that sentence).

Not for one minute did I believe people would fight on the grounds of the first. It is self evident that different religions produce specific kinds of art. Nor did I think people would believe I was claiming that other religions don't produce art, because I would have to be an idiot to do so. I did worry that people might think I was claiming some sort of superiority for the Christian musical tradition which is why I was very careful not to use language that suggests this, and I would be intrigued to know where I slipped up.

 

[JonathanQuick]

The Christian church conquered and enslaved indigenous peoples and in some cases hurt the cause of science by supressing (sic) freedom of dissent. The Mayans used to have books of medicine, literature, philosophy, architecture etc. The catholics (sic) 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.

The left is always eager to rewrite history. Please go to YouTube.com and search Klavan on the Culture. Watch the three minute video titled reality versus culture. It has your name all over it. Come to think of it, so does the movie Apocalypto. It was all about those kind, benevolent South Americans, who practiced slavery, and sacrificed children at their altars.
Lovely stuff.

Maybe you hadn't heard, but atheists like Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao and Pol Pot starved, tortured, and otherwise murdered about 100,000,000 human beings. Please don't even try to tell me they "didn't" do it because of their atheism. That's too goofy for even leftists.

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

Ah, if ONLY Christians had always been as good, and as pure as atheists have always been. I was born at a Catholic hospital. It is called Saint Mary's. My wife was born at Saint Joseph's.

Tell me, were you born at an atheist hospital? If so, what was the name and where is it?

Where is the nearest atheist soup kitchen? Home for orphans? Home for unwed mothers?

Many ivy league colleges were created by Christians. Many of them.
Where is there an atheist college? Please tell me.
What good things did Isaac Asimov, and Richard Dawkins do for those less fortunate?

I know they wrote book after book and always had their hands out for speaking tours and money. But what did they do for OTHERS that was charitable in nature?

Let's not forget the Christian scientist named Copernicus. He first suggested that the earth rotates around the sun, this Christian.

Then there was George LeMaitre, who advised Einstein of the Primordial Atom, which we now know as the Big Bang.

In between were many, many other intellectual Christians and men of God whom leftists choose to ignore and belittle.

And how about the number of Jews who have been awarded the Nobel Prize! Riddle me that, lefty.

Jews are God's chosen people you know.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

In what way do I seem to be doing this?

My position, stated as clearly as possible, is:

1) that one unique thing that Christianity 'did in history' is give rise to a large body of distinctly identifiable artwork that would not have existed without it

2) that within this it is Christianity's musical tradition that's most easily differentiated from that of other religions.

3) that on balance, the existence of this musical tradition is a good thing.

The second point, I thought, might be one that sparked an interesting discussion - it is kind of debatable, people could draw parallels between aspects of different religious musics and I would have been interested to explore them. Plainsong and Ragas is a pretty good example - they had rather different purposes but both work in 'modes' rather than what we now think of as keys and both had similar kinds of early notation system.

The third is also eminently discussable, I thought - imagine you have the choice to erase Christianity from history at the cost of all the music it has produced. I am a vocal atheist, but that particular trade-off would give me substantial pause before flicking the switch (and, yes, since I appear to have to say this out loud, you may assume that any religion and its artistic tradition can be substituted into that sentence).

Not for one minute did I believe people would fight on the grounds of the first. It is self evident that different religions produce specific kinds of art. Nor did I think people would believe I was claiming that other religions don't produce art, because I would have to be an idiot to do so. I did worry that people might think I was claiming some sort of superiority for the Christian musical tradition which is why I was very careful not to use language that suggests this, and I would be intrigued to know where I slipped up.

You slipped up by not simply posting your very clear 3 points to begin with. They are clear, they don't sound like you are arrogantly arguing for the superiority of Christian Music.

However, It all boils down to an even clearer point: Western Christian Music is Stylistically Unique from other Ethnic Religious Musics (including the Christian Music produced in many other cultures).

And yes, the Fantastic Artwork, Architecture, and Music commissioned by the Church is probably among Christianity's most positive contributions to the world, as are the Religious works of art and music commissioned by other Religious/State authorities (China is a good example here).

So in the end it's not really a point for the Uniqueness of Christianity; it's a point for the Uniqueness of European Cultural Artistic and Musical Traditions. In other words: It's not Historically Unique that Christianity produced a body of "distinctly identifiable artwork," because most Religious Traditions in History have produced "distinctly identifiable artwork."


GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

The left is always eager to rewrite history. Please go to YouTube.com and search Klavan on the Culture. Watch the three minute video titled reality versus culture. It has your name all over it. Come to think of it, so does the movie Apocalypto. It was all about those kind, benevolent South Americans, who practiced slavery, and sacrificed children at their altars.
Lovely stuff.

Maybe you hadn't heard, but atheists like Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao and Pol Pot starved, tortured, and otherwise murdered about 100,000,000 human beings. Please don't even try to tell me they "didn't" do it because of their atheism. That's too goofy for even leftists.



Ah, if ONLY Christians had always been as good, and as pure as atheists have always been. I was born at a Catholic hospital. It is called Saint Mary's. My wife was born at Saint Joseph's.

Tell me, were you born at an atheist hospital? If so, what was the name and where is it?

Where is the nearest atheist soup kitchen? Home for orphans? Home for unwed mothers?

Many ivy league colleges were created by Christians. Many of them.
Where is there an atheist college? Please tell me.
What good things did Isaac Asimov, and Richard Dawkins do for those less fortunate?

I know they wrote book after book and always had their hands out for speaking tours and money. But what did they do for OTHERS that was charitable in nature?

Let's not forget the Christian scientist named Copernicus. He first suggested that the earth rotates around the sun, this Christian.

Then there was George LeMaitre, who advised Einstein of the Primordial Atom, which we now know as the Big Bang.

In between were many, many other intellectual Christians and men of God whom leftists choose to ignore and belittle.

And how about the number of Jews who have been awarded the Nobel Prize! Riddle me that, lefty.

Jews are God's chosen people you know.

WOW! Talk about selectively viewing and rewriting History. Project much?

So in your terms, Christianity's History of Atrocity is justified by the history of Atrocity in other Religions.

GB

EDIT: By the way, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot didn't murder people because they were Atheists. They were fighting Revolutionary or Civil Wars.

 

[JonathanQuick]

WOW! Talk about selectively viewing and rewriting History. Project much?

I do not project at all. Rather than speak in meaningless generalities, why don't you try saying what you mean.

America was NOT, repeat NOT founded by atheists. Why don't you name for me the most wonderful country that WAS.

Every coin and every bill of currency in your pocket states "IN GOD WE TRUST". The Pledge of Allegiance states "ONE NATION, UNDER GOD."

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer, as does every session of the Supreme Court. Rewrite and project those, why don't you.

So in your terms, Christianity's History of Atrocity is justified by the history of Atrocity in other Religions.

Again and again, leftists and atheists put their words and their prejudices into the mouths of people they demean and hate. YOU said "Christianitii's History of Atrocity is justified", not I. YOU make references to every evil of Christians, and dismiss 60,000,000 killed by atheists.

EDIT: By the way, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot didn't murder people because they were Atheists. They were fighting Revolutionary or Civil Wars.

So it's QUITE ALL RIGHT when atheists murder and starve and torture human beings, but it is absolutely HORRIBLE when a Christian does.

Where does murdering and butchering innocent unborn babies fall in your pre-eminent Majesterium of Atheist Morality? I'll wager you think that killing innocent babies is quite acceptable. You call it "choice" even though the baby's father has no "choice." The grandparents have no "choice". Most telling of all, the baby has no "choice."

But what do you care?

 

[Matt the Poet]

You slipped up by not simply posting your very clear 3 points to begin with. They are clear, they don't sound like you are arrogantly arguing for the superiority of Christian Music.

However, It all boils down to an even clearer point: Western Christian Music is Stylistically Unique from other Ethnic Religious Musics (including the Christian Music produced in many other cultures).

And yes, the Fantastic Artwork, Architecture, and Music commissioned by the Church is probably among Christianity's most positive contributions to the world, as are the Religious works of art and music commissioned by other Religious/State authorities (China is a good example here).

So in the end it's not really a point for the Uniqueness of Christianity; it's a point for the Uniqueness of European Cultural Artistic and Musical Traditions. In other words: It's not Historically Unique that Christianity produced a body of "distinctly identifiable artwork," because most Religious Traditions in History have produced "distinctly identifiable artwork."


GB

OK, well I maintain that there is nothing in the language or tone of my previous posts that suggests I was arguing for superiority, but this is a matter of perception so there’s nothing to be done.

Your point appears to be that you agree that Christian musical culture is unique, but that somehow this doesn’t count as a valid answer to the OP because it’s not uniquely unique? Seems a bit…semantic.

You also seem to be doing your best to separate out the religious influence from everything else. Your phraseology suggests that the Church was simply some sort of commissioning body working within a pre-existing artistic tradition, asking artists to create religious pieces when they might otherwise have been writing songs about trees and flowers.

A more accurate picture would be to say that the Church (again, like any other religion) was creating its own tradition by creating both physical and psychological spaces within which its individual members could express their own deeply and honestly held religious feelings and convictions through art.

My point being that Christianity (like any religion) has been intimately involved in shaping European musical and other artistic traditions, to the extent that if it had taken a different form then not only the culture, but the creative psychology of the individuals producing that culture, would be profoundly changed and art would be produced and consumed in a very different way. This is evidenced by the fact that – as you correctly say – where Christianity does take a slightly different form you get a palpably different tradition.

You can’t unpick the religion from the culture and the culture from the individuals in it – which is why I don’t think you can ever pinpoint a ‘uniquely unique’ contribution at all.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

I do not project at all. Rather than speak in meaningless generalities, why don't you try saying what you mean.

America was NOT, repeat NOT founded by atheists. Why don't you name for me the most wonderful country that WAS.

Every coin and every bill of currency in your pocket states "IN GOD WE TRUST". The Pledge of Allegiance states "ONE NATION, UNDER GOD."

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer, as does every session of the Supreme Court. Rewrite and project those, why don't you.



Again and again, leftists and atheists put their words and their prejudices into the mouths of people they demean and hate. YOU said "Christianitii's History of Atrocity is justified", not I. YOU make references to every evil of Christians, and dismiss 60,000,000 killed by atheists.



So it's QUITE ALL RIGHT when atheists murder and starve and torture human beings, but it is absolutely HORRIBLE when a Christian does.

Where does murdering and butchering innocent unborn babies fall in your pre-eminent Majesterium of Atheist Morality? I'll wager you think that killing innocent babies is quite acceptable. You call it "choice" even though the baby's father has no "choice." The grandparents have no "choice". Most telling of all, the baby has no "choice."

But what do you care?

Typical Christian Apologetics attempt to derail the thread. What the hell, I'll bite:

Many of the atrocities committed by Christians were committed openly in the name of Christ (and I'm not just picking on Christians, same goes for atrocities committed in the name of any religion). The Atrocities committed by the "evil dictators" (and yes they were pretty "evil") you mentioned weren't committed in the name of atheism, so suggesting that atheism was the cause of those atrocities is illogical.

And again, the only reason you Christian Apologists try to pull this BS is to make you feel better about all the atrocities committed by Christians in the name of Christ, that's called Justification.

All that God Stuff on coins and in the pledge was added much, much later, and many of the Founding Fathers were Deists (no-one claims they were "atheists" so that is a Straw Man). And all those Congressional Prayers and such are clear violations of the Separation Clause of the Constitution, so what's your point? The US was founded as a Secular State.

You think the choice of a Foetus should over-ride the choice of the carrier of the foetus. Excuse me, but I think a person should have a choice in whether or not to host another organism parasitically living in their body.

GB