Layman

Untrue. I have clearly shown the Christianized transformation of the Roman world on this issue and demonstrated the continuing contributions of Christianity to American Charity.

There is nothing disingenuous about it. The historical founding of those charities is precisely the point--they were Christian motivated. The fact that Christnaity's influenced is waining or has wained is irrelevant.

Not in the least. The top three organization charities in the U.S. were founded on expressly Christian origns. The top two continue to be expressly Christian organizations.

I'm not a fundamentalist. Nor is this an apologetic piece. And I've proved my case.

Layman

Sure you did. Just as you lied about my position in this thread. You still can't admit you distorted what my original point was. Even though I clearly showed you did so by tracking my statements from my first post through the time you posted.

Sauron

No, you have failed to connect the dots to America in any way. Moreover, your claims about Rome and Greece are not as solid as you have claimed.

Repetition is not research, Layman.


It is VERY relevant. If those charities are continuing to exist and take donations today, even after abandoning the christian origins, then obviously something else is motivating people in society. That's the point you don't want to admit: that there might be a non-religious secular social ethic in place, that has superseded christianity and supplanted it years ago. Therefore, the growth in those organizations, as represented by your figures on dollar donations, is not creditable to christianity.

Your argument of 'christian roots' makes as much sense as crediting modern astronomical advances to Babylonian astrology.

1. You mentioned way more than three charities.
2. You ignored the dollar value of contributions to non-social charities.
3. You did not provide relative scales to judge the contribution - absolute dollar values are irrelevant in such a situation.

You're sloppy, Layman. When it comes to your faith, you're willing to accept a level of intellectual laziness in the argument that you would not tolerate from a skeptic.


You're right - it's more like cheerleading. Empty chants done to rally the troops.

Maybe to your mother - but not to anyone else.

Sauron

Evidently not, since I clearly showed above the names of the authors. You know - the ones you said I lied about?

But keep on hand-waving. It's fun to watch.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

Layman

[quote]Originally posted by Omnedon1:
[QB]No, you have failed to connect the dots to America in any way. Moreover, your claims about Rome and Greece are not as solid as you have claimed. [QUOTE]

Sure I did. See above. And my claims about the Greco-Roman world were rock solid and backed up by top scholars. You've offered not evidence to the contrary.

My point was one of historical development. "Connecting the dots." And, as a matter of historical fact, those charities were initiated by Christians acting on their Christianity.

Actually no, I admit that Christianity's influence is on the wane. That, of course, does not mean that all of its influence will wane in simultaneous timing. By showing that it was Christianity that brought the idea of Charity into the Roman world, and that this carried through the Middle Ages into very recent history, I've shown that Christianity is the predmoninant reason that such an ethic came to exist in the first place. I never claimed that the commitment to charity would decline at the exact same rate that Christianity did. I think its likely that Christianity's influence as a religion will decline faster than all of the effects is has enacted in Western Society.

Moreover, as the data I have posted shows, religion remains the predominant motivation for charitable giving. And even if the Red Cross is now a secular charity, the Salvation Army and Young Mens Christian Assocation remain explicitly Christian. Churches remains the single biggest contributor to social charities in the country other than the government. The ties between Christianity and charity may have diminished, but they remain strong.

Yes, I did. I mentioned a number of evidences. But it gets tiresome to keep repeatinig all of them to you.

Only partially. The information on the top three charities came from a website that wasn't devoted only to social charities. Nor have I--or you--found any information challenging their supremacy. But I am focusing on charities devoted to assisting direct human needs.

Actually, I provided sources on both the relative and the dollar figure. My sources showed that the top three charities were Christian-founded ones. The top two remain explicitly Christian. That is a relative assesment and I provided a dollar figure. My sources also showed the relative scale of contribution to social charities by Chrisitan charities was higher than any other, as well as providing the dollar amount. And the source I had said that religion remains the primary reason for giving to charities in this country.

But why is the dollar amount irrelevant? We are all familiar with the fact that $1.4 billion is a lot of money. A tremdneously significant amount of charity. Ditto for $600 million. Or for $9 billion or more.

Actually, if you look around, a lot more work and sources and evaluation went into this piece than is typical on this board.


[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

This is nothing but a bare denial. I've shown, from the first sentence of my first post and many posts thereafter, that you have lied about my focus in this thread.

If you are female, then I'd say, "Be a woman." The point wasn't to distinguish between men and women or judge their honesty--if anything my prejudice would tilt in the opposite direction you allege--but between acting like a child and acting like an adult.

Either way. Just fess up.

E_muse

It would be a pity if the subject of this thread became a 'two horse race' so to speak. It would appear (and I say this with respect) that 'old scores' are playing a large part in the nature of the debate.

So here goes.

I find these points interesting. Is it helpful to look at the impact of Christian thinking on the West in general in seeking to understand this?

It would appear to me that Christianity has had a significant impact on Western society in many ways. This very Internet site is one such evidence.

I notice an ad banner flashing at the top of my screen declaring - "Culture Jam Those Darned Theistic Memes!"

From this alone it would seem to me that the 'dots' which join early Christianity to modern America are fairly obvious! Christian thinking is still seen to have a strong influence on Western society.

Neither is missing what stares you in the face.

How does the quote from James Still begin? Something like this...

Emphasis mine.

How do James Still's comments contradict those made by Layman at the beginning of this thread, which were:

Earlier on in this thread juiblex argued with me that even social factors such as the death penalty were the result of a Western Christian ethic.

I say, let's look at what we do know rather than distant historical events which remain ambiguous and whose historical objectivity can be obscured by interpretation.

My question is, if Christian influence on modern America is so predominant and so obvious, then why should I see its influence on charitable giving as an exception?

Sorry to cut the quote short but I think there's a need to break this one down a bit.

You seem to suggest that because Christianity has lost its influence on motivating charitable giving, that there must only be one other choice - hence your use of the term 'something else' rather than saying 'other things'. Why? You are arguing that secularism is the only alternative to Christianity?

With respect - I think it demonstrates how personal issues have muddied the nature of the debate!

I could easily rephrase that last paragraph as:

It is VERY relevant. If those charities are continuing to exist and take donations today, even after abandoning the christian origins, then obviously other factors are motivating people in society.

Why must I see secularism as the only viable alternative? How does that promote free thought?

Secondly, you seem to be using the idea that because an organization is secular that this forms the basis for some hypothetical secular social ethic. Of course, even if an organization becomes secularized, this says nothing of the motivations of all those people who are donating into it. That would be ridiculous and extrapolating events beyond reason. Many giving into it may be unaware that its ethics have changed.

As for 'secular charitable giving'.... I think that the manipulative power of advertising is as an effective tool as ever for persuading people to do things. I think that most ordinary people on a day-to-day basis will not be governed by many of the philisophical principles studied on these threads.

If advertizing agents worked on the assumption that society was based on a non-religious secular ethic they probably wouldn't get very far. They look at how people think and then conjure up images that will hit home otherwise the leaflet goes in the bin or the channel gets changed! Have you seen those adverts/leaflets with the emotive images on them?

Causing people to feel guilty still works you know. Something else which the secular social ethic has inherited from its theistic forebears!

Manipulation through advertizing is a part of secular society isn't it?

And of course what you don't admit (because you want to win the arguement), is that even if modern charitable giving exists on a non-religious secular social ethic, that it owes its existence (evolutionary wise) to the pre-existent Christian form.

Isn't it amazing how atheists are happy to trace aspects of their behaviour to apes and justify human behaviour on such grounds but if it is suggested that aspects of their behaviour find their roots in theism (which invariably they must), they go into denial! I wonder why that is? I smell a logical fallacy going on here.

But then you haven't defined what a secular social ethic is either or why it must be the only viable alternative.

Demonstrating the weaknesses in your opponents arguement can't provide a basis for your own.

As for the secular social ethic....

You use the term 'superseded' in relation to it (although you state that its existence might only be the case). Supersede simply means to replace something with something else. People only usually replace something if what they are replacing it with is considered 'better'. Your comments suggest that a secular social ethic must be better a priori even before it has been defined or fully known to exist!! That's clever!

I know, isn't it silly! It's rather like crediting human morality and society to our days as apes! Wasn't it Dangin who said I should do that...?

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Sauron

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

Sauron

Of course christian thinking has had a strong influence on Western society. No one is disputing that.

The question on the table, however, is about one particular aspect of Western society: the charitable impulse. a person cannot simply claim that since christianity has influenced western society, then it must (by default) be the source of the charitable impulse as well. Not everything in the Western society is derived from christianity; for example, science and democracy are not.

Each particular attribute of modern Western society that you want to link to christianity has to be proven, one attribute at a time. To do otherwise (i.e., to just assume that all things good in Western society must invariably come from christianity) is both fallacious and simple-minded. And it's a tactic that the fundies use, to reassure themselves that their religion is relevant today.

This, in fact, is exactly the approach that James Kennedy (of Coral Ridge Ministries) has taken. He claims that science, democracy, anti-slavery, the modern status of women (vs previous status as a secondary citizen) etc. etc. all are derived from christianity. According to him, christianity is responsible for every major social and scientific advance in western history. He claims that it is because of Christian missionaries that many Hindu women are no longer being burned alive, in suttee. And (contrary to the text of the bible and to the history of the United States), he further states that Christianity was actually the "death knell" for slavery. He has even said that the science of oceanography and genetics are due to christianity.

What Kennedy does is find some obscure reference to a christian who mentioned something about "God's creation in the seas" or "God's thoughts on women" prompting them to study a science or propose a social change. But the idea, science, or social change has grown so much since then that it is hardly recognizable when compared to the original.



Nothing is "staring me in the face".

As I indicated: no one is disputing the general impact of christianity on Western society.
The question on the table, however, is about one particular aspect of Western society: the charitable impulse.


Huh? Where did I use the word "only", or say that there was only one other possible motivation? I did not. There might be one. OR six. Or a dozen. But whatever the number, the point remains: if the donations are still coming in even after the organization has it is not christianity.

For example, when the Sept 11th attacks came, and the donations came pouring in, there may have been several reasons for people to donate. A sense of empathy for the suffering of a fellow human being. A sense of civic-mindedness. Peer pressure. As a way of saying "thank you" to the firefighters and police who worked tirelessly and (in some cases) lost their lives. OR, the feeling that the best way to take revenge against the attackers was to rebuild homes and families
immediately, and not let the attackers "win". There were many reasons given, as to why people donated time and money.


It is more logical to believe:

THAT

a. people donate to an organization today, because of whatever public persona that organization puts forth through its advertising, its association with fundraising or notable causes, or through the word-of-mouth of friends or family;

THAN TO BELIEVE THAT

b. people donate because of the historical origins of that organization.


For example, I doubt that 1 person in 100 today would know that the founding cause of the REd Cross was to give aid to the dead and dying on the battlefield. If you ask someone what the Red Cross does, they'll tell you that it conducts blood drives, guarantees the safety of the national blood supply, provides disaster relief for victims of earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters; helps people who are homeless from fires, and conducts First Aid, CPR and water
safety training. So when people are donating today, they're donating because of the current issues and current needs that are "in their face".


You may have a point there.


Why wouldn't they?
It works for selling diamonds. Or managed care facilities for the elderly. Or for donating to non-human causes (such as PAWS).

People's sense of family obligation, or social responsibility, gets advertised to quite frequently.


You must believe that guilt only exists because of religion. You're wrong.


[quote]
Manipulation through advertizing is a part of secular society isn't it?
[quote]

Yes, and charities include money for advertising and fund drives in their budgets. In fact, many of them will sub-contract out to telemarketing firms to do fundraising.


I never said that these organizations did not have a christian origin. That's never been in dispute; so no need to create a strawman here.

But when the pace of donations is still strong, even after these groups have changed their emphasis and distanced themselves significantly from their christian origins, then some other motivation(s) or force(s) must be at work.


No, that's your own confusion you smell.



1. I never claimed that there was only one viable alternative. You misunderstand what I said.

2. Once again: I do not need to present an alternative argument. I am merely pointing out that Layman's argument is insufficient for the task he wishes to employ it. Critiquing the holes in his argument does not obligate me to propose an alternative theory.


No, it does not. From <a href="http://www.dictionary.com:" target="_blank">www.dictionary.com:</a>

su·per·sede (spr-sd)
tr.v. su·per·sed·ed, su·per·sed·ing, su·per·sedes
To take the place of; replace.

I have deleted the rest of your comments, since they were based on your erroneous definition of supersede.

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

E_muse

And I would like to know why I must see it as the exception to the general rule.

We have:

1. The statement that the West has been predominantly influenced by Judeo-Christian ideas.
2. Clear teaching on charitable giving exists within Christianity - particularly in the teachings of Jesus.
3. Western society is charitable.
4. Many of the organizations in this work were born out of Christian ideals.

As for your comments about science and democracy - you are making a truth statement here. In the past it would seem that science was born out of the idea that one should expect to find order and structure to the universe and that we should be able to understand its functioning. This belief was supported by the idea that the world was created. What evidence exists which demonstrates that Christianity (or at least theism) was not responsible for these things that you mention?

But I'm not saying that all things good derive from Christianity.

It has been demonstrated that the idea of charitable deeds to one's fellow man is clearly taught by Jesus.

It has been stated that such teaching has been the major influence on Western society.

Western society is charitable.

Most thinkers would want to explore this apparent connection to test its veracity I would have thought.

Sorry, never heard of him.

No dispute there then. I would question whether it must be based upon an impulse though.

This is how I understood your term something else.

I have no arguement with this. But I do not think that this forms the basis for a secular social ethic. People give and have differing reasons for doing do.

The impulse to give can be for different reasons and on very different philisophical systems.

Agreed, this unlikely. They are more likely to give because they support the work which is taking place.

I didn't say that. I'm saying that a secular society still relies on the old emotions of guilt and fear to effect a response from people!

Charity has been seen to be helpful and therefore it is believed that it should continue.

Fair enough. We are agreed on this.

But it would be helpful.

You've ommitted parts of the definition!!

Again - from Dictionary.com (from where I originally took my comments):

Emphasis mine.

My definition is not erroneous and I think that my general comment that people only replace something when they consider the replacement better is generally true and upheld. However, I may have missed your intent of meaning.

If you re-read my original post you will find that I only used terms such as 'Your comments suggest.....'

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>