What Has Religion Done in 2011?

Post Reply New Topic

No, kid, this is not what I'm looking for.

How about something more like:

(01/17) 100 ascetics from the Christian, Hindu, and Sikh religions pray together and eliminate the HIV from existence.
(03/22) The Holy Roman Catholic Church sells of all of its real estate, and buys enough food to feed everyone in Africa for the next 20 years.
(04/02) The Watchtower Society finally publishes a prediction that comes true, thus vindicating their failed apocalyptic predictions of 1907, 1914, 1917, 1918, 1922, 1925, 1938, 1941, 1942, 1969, 1975, 1984, and 1995.
(05/30) The miraculous regeneration of the lost limbs of over 100 maimed military veterans is broadcast on live TV.
(06/21) A fifth Gospel, written by Jesus' mother, is discovered in the Vatican Archives, and contains intimate details of the life of Jesus before his Ministry.
...
(12/31) Jesus returns, thus fulfilling all prophesy.

Can you do that? Can you provide a list of actual accomplishments, rather that just a brag sheet for your own personal cult?

I think it would be good if religious institutions made available to the public the work they do to help the problems in the world. Charities like Christian Aid could disclose their efforts. But also the church, mosques etc should disclose what they do for their communities.

They may already do this, I do not know, but if they did they may improve their reputations.

^ I could go along with that, especially if they would also publish an independently-audited financial statement that lists their incomes, expenditures, holdings, and how much they paid in taxes.

But that would require religious institutions to exercise honesty ...

Maybe religion did play a part in developing societies and civilisation. But I reckon if that is true it was because those in charge recognised the need for a universal belief system. Control someones beliefs and you control their behaviour. I personally would love to go back to the times prior to civilisation because I presume humans were living a freer life and beliefs were open and discussed, instead of dictated.

I thought they don't pay tax in the US. I am not sure if the same applies in England but over here religion has taken a back seat and keeps itself quiet for the most part.

I agree though, religion has had it too good for too long and should start to made accountable. Perhaps someone like PriceWaterhouseCooper could go in and have an audit.

Churches are supposed to pay payroll taxes, just like any other business.

If the "Occupy" people would only realize how much money goes into churches without any benefit being passed along to the "99%", they would pack the churches from narthex to nave seven day a week.

Maybe you should tell them and they can add that to their to-do list.

ID is not a religious position. There are ID proponents who are agnostic and non-religious. It is not an investigative tool either. It is an inference to design in the natural world from independently given design patterns. To wit, ID says is that certain natural phenomena (e.g. bacterial flagellum) were not produced by random chance but by an intelligently guided process. It is not a surrogate science. It applies the methods of forensic science, archaeology, and probability theory to natural phenomena to determine if they emerged by random chance. If the ID arguments are valid they do not say anything about the nature of the designer, although theists do make the inference that it is God. It is possible that the designers are inter-dimensional beings. Accepting ID does not commit you to a religious position. Creationism OHOH may be a religious position depending on how it is defined. It seems to mean different things to different people. If creationism means biblical literalism, then it is a religious doctrine. But it is not an alternative to science. YECs only discard science when it conflicts with biblical literalism. They do not accept certain scientific theories but they do not reject science in toto. If creationism means accepting that God created the universe, then I would be a creationist. Creationism so defined does not hold itself up as an alternative to science. It's a metaphysical conjecture. There are non-religious people who take this position too. Paul Davies is one. A deist could accept that God created the universe.



I'm not dismissing scientific discoveries, I'm dismissing the criteria the OP is using to place science above religion. An atheist like the OP does not believe that life persists beyond death. If atheism is true the discoveries of science could only have a relative significance. Scientific advances are "far-reaching" but only in a relative sense. Ultimately, all scientific knowledge will perish, along with universities. Christians, Jews and Muslims, OTOH, believe that life continues beyond physical death and that our actions have eternal significance.



Biblical literalism is not a science; it is a religious doctrine. It's also religious illiteracy. The scriptures were never intended to be interpreted entirely literally because they are not written entirely literally. I do not embrace YEC. It is a foolish doctrine cooked up by illiterate heretics.



How could I be reasonable person as long as I'm religious? According to you, I'd have to abandon religion to be a reasonable person.

Please, define YEC.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Young earth creationism. And did you have to quote the entire post?

Yes.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I have. The ones I spoke to thought that I was trying to convert them to Christianity.



They don't know me very well...

At one time your 10 percent church tithe included free socialized medicine.

Your response seems to be the paradigm no matter what. I guess this my fault for taking the time to post.

Have a great day Fjord, and others.

Indeed.

Many of us here at WP study history, including the history of various churches, cults, and other faith-based organizations. We can see where they have attempted to mislead believers and non-believers alike for the financial gain of their leadership. The leaders of these group would do well to understand that proclaiming the "virtues" of any one religious organization when that organization's entire history is well-documented and easily denounced is a futile exercise.

Maybe they can impress the ignorant, the fearful, and the superstitious, but they can not impress the rest of us by merely bragging about how many people have been swayed by their lies.

And what time was that? Which church in which country?

Most important, why did that church's leaders stop providing this alleged "free socialized medicine" and start keeping all that money for themselves?