Is modern Christianity "good" or "bad" f

[_wenglund]

Since there are more secularist on this board than MA&D, I would like to reasonably discuss whether Christianity, in general, and LDS in particular, are "good" or "bad" for society.

In order to effectively answer the question of this thread there would first be required that we come up with a mutually agreeable standard(s), and second that we come up with mutually agreeable ways to measure using that/those standard(s), so as to determine what is "good" or "bad" for us individually and collectively.

One might think that with such diverse points of view in the world, it might be virtually impossible to come up with mutually acceptible standards.

However, economist would suggest that ultimately we are driven by a desire to be happy. Educators all over the world would suggest that most people have an inate motive to grow in knowledge and abilities--i.e. we are inclined towards maturation. Medical practicioners would suggest that, for the most part, we desire to be healthy. And, the very social nature of societies would suggest that, by and large, we desire to have fufilling interpersonal relationships, or in other words we desire to love and be loved.

Granted, these four things may mean somewhat different things to different people. In certain cases, what may make one person "happy", may not make another person "happy". What may be considered "mature" to one person, may not be "mature" to another, and so on and so forth.

Even still, I think there is enough in common in what these things mean to us so as to still make them useful as mutually acceptable standards. Agreed?

Also, I would suggest that these four things are interdependant. Happiness is to some degree contingient upon one's maturation, health, and the love one experiences. Likewise, one's maturation is contingient upon one's happiness, health, and loving relationships, and so on and so forth. Agreed.

If so, then I would submit these four thing combined might be our mutually acceptible standard. Agreed?

The question then remains: how do we measure the happiness, maturation, health, and love, of individuals and societies?

Well, since economist are the ones suggesting that we are universally driven by the desire to be "happy", then wouldn't it make at least some sense to use economic measurements of "happiness"--i.e. at a macro level measure happiness via the strength of the respective economies? Likewise, wouldn't it make some sense to measure "maturation" in terms of growth in knowledge and abilities? Wouldn't it make sense to measure health by looking at a variety of medical measurements--such as longevity, physical and mental wellness, etc.? Wouldn't is make some sense to measure "love" by looking at the strength of interpersonal relationships, particular in terms of families?

What do you think?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Trevor]

Since there are more secularist on this board than MA&D, I would like to reasonably discuss whether Christianity, in general, and LDS in particular, are "good" or "bad" for society.

This question is practically impossible to answer, given the state of our knowledge about religion in general. Christianity can be used for good and ill. Christianity motivated abolitionists and inquisitors. Mormonism, likewise, can be used for good and ill. I wasn't happy in the LDS Church, but I hardly think that my attitude toward it should define what it is and what it is worth for everyone.

[_Mercury]

considering that Mormonism is not christianity your argument is flawed.

[_karl61]

the first standard for a modern christian church should be that it doesn't use fear as a motivating factor as perfect love cast out fear. Of course that maybe the peak but some may say it is the foundation. If it is found to use fear it ain't about love.

[_harmony]

the first standard for a modern christian church should be that it doesn't use fear as a motivating factor as perfect love cast out fear. Of course that maybe the peak but some may say it is the foundation. If it is found to use fear it ain't about love.

Which is why a discussion about the Catholic church back in the days of the Inquisition would likely be as problematic as a discussion of the Mormon church during Brigham's blood atonement. But whatever fears drive Catholics and Mormons today are likely to be less physical and more esoteric in nature.

Personally, I think Wade's premise is sound. However, I think the one-size-fits-all approach of the current LDS leaders creates a task that the church is simply unable to fulfill. Without allowing for differences manifested by culture, personality, and other factors, the church loses its effectiveness. Cookie cutter baptisms, standardized interviews, correlated teaching materials have all played a part in the minimizing of the effectiveness of the gospel in the lives in members, investigators, and the world in general.

Our leaders do not lead. We're stuck in a timewarp that's 50 years old, and until our leaders either die off or find a way to connect with what is real for the members outside of the exalted mansions in Utah, we'll remain there, hamstrung and dying slowly.

[_harmony]

considering that Mormonism is not christianity your argument is flawed.

Mormonism is not Protestantism. Protestantism has tried to control the definition of Christianity, without success. Catholics worship Christ and Mormons worship Christ. Just because they don't worship the same way Protestants do doesn't mean they aren't Christian.

This is an old argument, Merc. Shelve it for the sake of the discussion, please.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

the first standard for a modern christian church should be that it doesn't use fear as a motivating factor as perfect love cast out fear. Of course that maybe the peak but some may say it is the foundation. If it is found to use fear it ain't about love.

Amen, brother!

Perfect love casteth out fear.

[_moksha]

Let's not limit this to just Christianity, for many religions throughout history have had an impact on society. It would seem to me that religion is more for the benefit of the individual than a society. Obviously from history, when religion exerts its control over a society, it does so to the detriment of society. While it may provide society with a set of guidelines, it also creates a barrier for other advances to take place in society.

However, when religion benefits individual religionists, it can be an influence for good for a very long time. To borrow from Karl Marx's idea, "that Religion is the Opiate of the Masses", we could observe that even for those struggling, religion can bring happiness and acceptance to their lives. It can have this positive feeling for those in more fortunate circumstances as well.

[_Mercury]

This is an old argument, Merc. Shelve it for the sake of the discussion, please.

Good points. BUT...

In order for the discussion to be framed in its proper context one must have a clear definition of christianity. Mormonism is christian-like in the same way the Unification church is christian.

[_wenglund]

I do appreciate the several pertinent and on-topic responses.

However, I had hoped for more indepth argumentation particularly from secularist. But, it appears that this board is more interested in KA's clevage and alcoholic drinks than this topic, so I will content myself with whatever discussion it generates on the other board. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-