Practical Benefits of Religion

Post Reply New Topic

Land itself had value, but so did the goods created by the labour of slaves on some of that stolen land.

Those people certainly would have claimed to be Christian, whether or not they qualify by your standards isn't relevant to the conversation.

You're really just showing the typical white supremacist attitude towards colonialism and utterly failing to get the point in the process. Gaining access to the resources of their colonies allowed the economies of the colonial powers to grow much faster than the states (European or otherwise) without colonies. Protestantism isn't a significant factor compared to the increase in available resources. Gold, tobacco, cotton, timber and other valuable trade goods taken from the New World contributed to the GDP of those colonial powers.

And yes, if you go insisting my ancestors and their descendents should be grateful to have had their homeland stolen and their civilization destroyed you really can't complain when I refer to your views as racist.

Last edited by funeralxempire on 16 Feb 2020, 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I would say that we own ourselves and are free to harm ourselves if we wish to do so. I.e. self harm should never be punished. Whether or not promiscuity is good or bad depends on one's values and they can be different for each person.

I know little about this period but I believe that the German princedoms had no colonies and did pretty well for themselves. So while colonies did make major contributions to some nations they do not appear to have been a necessity.

Notice how the balance of power shifted from Central Europe to Western Europe from the 1500s into the 1800s. German's position improved during the Second Industrial Revolution, but the HRE/Austro-Hungarian steadily declined throughout that whole era. The shift in trade routes was one factor, Central Europe/Eastern Europe/Western Asia was no longer able to benefit from being 'on the road' to Western Europe, but that was only a part of the decline.

You could say they did pretty well, as in they weren't constantly starving, but they were falling behind and increasingly backwards.

I don't know the answer to this, but what about in terms of academia? You hear of many more German academics than say Spanish and Portuguese. While I know that Germany became a leader in academia in the late 1800s early 1900s I don't know about the pre-industrial age...

I'm not certain, to be honest. Germany was a bunch of divided and competing petty states so it's not entirely reasonable to discuss Germany, but instead to focus on the major chunks individually; France surpassed the Austrians as the cultural centre of Europe during that era though.

It most certainly is relevant. If those claiming to be Christians are lying about being Christian, you cannot make an objective claim that the problem is Christianity. It has nothing to do with a standard, but rather objective reality. Christianity is defined by Jesus’ teachings. Were colonists acting on those teachings or not? The assumption here is that colonization is inherently evil, which I do not believe to be necessarily true.

Another problem is gold etc. didn’t just leap out of the ground into Native American hands to be ripped away by colonists. Someone had to get the idea where to look for it, invent tools to dig it, make the effort to refine it, possess the artistic vision and ability to turn it into something beautiful, and have the intelligence to market it in order to profit from it. It’s not racist to point out the natives lacked these values, nor is it racist to point out that natives ultimately treated colonists with contempt and hostility. They always benefited when they worked cooperatively with their new friends. Where they failed was in their inability at the time to understand Europeans, sometimes being manipulated into becoming pawns in European power struggles played out in the colonies, such as between the British and the French. The colonists themselves were even caught between warring nations over issues that didn’t concern them, nor did they want to be a part of it. Part of the American Revolution was putting an end to such conflicts.

In the end, and it took a long time, Native Americans were given their own land and guaranteed the right to govern themselves with US government support. I can’t speak for all tribal governments, but I know the Choctaw tribe near my home struggled with government corruption with casino revenue doing little to 1) employ Choctaw people or 2) give Choctaw people disposable wealth to improve conditions on the reservation. If anything, said wealth went to lining the pocket of their “duly elected” chief. When I drive through the reservation, it looks pretty rough out there. And then getting to know Choctaw people themselves and finding out about all the child abuse and incest that happens—well, it certainly doesn’t paint a positive picture for life on the reservation. My friends who left the reservation always did much better for themselves, and never once have I ever seen them mistreated by “the white man.”

I’m not saying the Choctaw people are savages who can’t possibly take care of themselves. I’m saying their leaders are either corrupt or lack a sense of what self-rule means. In any case, they do better for themselves working within the greater society than keeping themselves isolated. The idea that life would be better without people of European ancestry is absurd.

The failure of colonialism was in Western European failure to acknowledge the needs of their colonists and provide support. The Spanish enjoyed greater success over a longer period of time than the British. It was British greed that ultimately threatened their influence in Africa and India. It was giving former colonies their independence that spurred friendly relations with the UK. I guess that’s what happens when you get spanked by your own in America and Africa.

So, what you're saying is that Christians who don't live up to your standards aren't actually Christians, therefore the vast majority of Christians don't count no matter how they themselves identify? That's a laughable defence that a reasonable person would be embarrassed to trot out because of how obviously dishonest it is.

I didn't blame colonialism on Christianity, although spreading the Christian faith was among the motives used to justify it.

You're aware that much of the gold stolen by colonials was stolen from Mesoamerican peoples who had the ability to extract it themselves, right? The Spanish couldn't have seen and reported vast quantities of gold if the people they were invading hadn't extracted it themselves. Your argument that the gold wasn't stolen because some amount of work went into stealing is hardly reasonable.

At times they enslaved and worked the locals to death, later they relied on slaves from Africa. Either way, theft was what was occurring.

As for the 'should be thankful' angle, it seems you're completely incapable of seeing why a group of people might care about their sovereignty and ability to control their own destiny and manage their own resources. You might see having one's own lifestyle stolen and replaced with the one you find most comfortable to not be a problem, but that's your own bias. You might not have a problem with kids being stolen from their homes and given to Christian residential schools where they weren't allowed to speak their own language and were subjected to rape and other forms of abuse as beneficial, but that's your own biases showing again.

You can rant all you like about how we're savages who should be grateful for having genocide perpetuated against us, but if you don't see how ignorant and dehumanizing that is you should probably keep your fool mouth shut before you further expose yourself.

Either someone is a Christian or one isn't. It doesn't matter what my standards are, and I made that clear. If I dress up in a police uniform, does that make me a police officer? Or if I wear a white coat, does that give me the right to perform open-heart surgery? What you're saying is anyone can dress up like a Christian, call themselves a Christian, proceed to do things that Christians shouldn't do, and now ALL Christians are to blame for things no Christian actually did. Surely you can see the absurdity of that.


I was referring more to British colonialism as the backdrop to the United States. The abuses of the Spanish are well known and documented, although I wonder if some modern texts about the Spanish aren't somewhat exaggerated.


Ok, but what about North America? The French and British went a long way to improving the lives of the Indians through trade.


When they failed to take advantage of all that the Europeans had to offer and responded with hostility? How is that supposed to make their lives any better?


No, it's OBJECTIVE. Refusing nice things that improve your life and give you the advantage of improved quality of life, longevity, health care, etc. is supposed to be logical?


Ok, so explain to me where in the New Testament Jesus instructed his disciples to deprive others of their own language and to rape them. Explain to me where Jesus told us to subject others to abuse. I need to know so I can cure my own bias.


What genocide? And who's calling you savages? I explicitly said I wasn't calling you savages. From what I've seen coming out of the Choctaw political scene, there's rampant corruption with no one to blame but their leaders. Which...I guess isn't that much different from a lot of governments, but when what you hear about something you swear would only happen in a third world country, only to find out it's happening literally right next door, it's a bit unsettling.

Callisthenes, I never struggled with finding a good moral compass or self-discipline outside religion, but I always "envied" the peace of mind, sense of belonging and reliance on a "higher power" some religious people get.

But seeing how this thread went on a tangent and some of the... wonderful sentiments expressed here, I don't feel I'm missing out. You can't pick and choose, you have to take the whole package.

Religion often ends up as a tool and with human nature being what it is, it's often used in the worst possible way. As Cervantes put it: "People are as bad as God made them and usually worse"

Analogy failure. If you become a cop and commit crimes after that, you're still a police officer even though you're also a criminal. Christians who fail to live up to Christian moral codes are still Christians because Christianity inherently accepts the notion all Christians are sinners who can only try to live up to the ideals. You don't have a reasonable argument on this point no matter how unwilling to concede you are.



How exactly was perpetrating genocide going "a long way to improving the lives of the Indians"?

The British at least would have set a limit on invasion, one of the main causes for the American Revolution was that colonials felt entitled to steal all indigenous land. Regardless, after that the policies pursued by both Canada and the US was one of forced assimilation, removal and wholescale genocide. If that's what you call 'improving' you really must have a rather creative definition.

Further, slavery was common in the US and British Caribbean colonies. The Brits weren't saints, they were one of the main perpetrators of that system of exploitation and murder.




How dare they treat those kind, benevolent foreign invaders like invaders? Well, you see, when you try to take over someone else's homeland through force of arms, they'll resist because that's what people do. Clearly they didn't respond with enough hostility since the invaders succeeded.




No, it's actually not objective. You're judging it based on the values of the culture you grew up in. Yes, it may well have been a harder life, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been a less fulfilling, less rewarding life. Perhaps you should go talk to some former students of the residential school system in Canada or the US and try to tell them they should be grateful for the better life they were given. We might have the possibility to own more trinkets, but if that's a better life clearly you've been drinking the firewater.




I didn't blame Christianity, I merely said the perpetrators were Christian. You're dishonestly whining again.



Basically you're describing a problem that emerged since colonialism and insisting that it's proof that we can't be trusted to manage our own affairs. I'd argue that's tied to the harms colonialism has inflicted.

Perhaps you feel people should be grateful to have had genocide inflicted upon them, to have had their entire civilization destroyed and to be left to struggle in a new culture that treats them as second-class citizens. If you don't understand the experience of colonialism from the perspective of those who were harmed you're really not in a reasonable position to lecture about whether or not it improved our lives. Most people would be wise enough to at least stop spewing their ignorance when it's pointed out. I'm not going to waste more time correcting your racist ignorance but your absolute unwillingness to even consider the perspective of those harmed by the colonial experience makes it clear that describing your opinions as racist is absolutely fair.

Yes you are right you cannot choose and pick. The discipline in religions comes from the supposed reward/punishment in the afterlife. Since I cannot accept the latter I must base discipline on something else. I sees some disciplined religious people though and it feels that they have something I lack. Mainly a check against anger and arrogance.

Just wanted to jump in here and point out that these colonizer (as well as the clergy and Pope who were cheering them on) miserably failed to follow the example of Jesus. In fact the vast majority of Christians throughout history have failed miserably at following the example of Jesus. As to how much you can deviate from the example of Jesus while still being labeled 'Christian' seems like an arbitrary matter of semantics. If one disagrees with Jesus on everything but calls oneself a Christian it does not seem right. On the other it is expected that even the best Christian will not follow Jesus perfectly. It seems the line must be somewhere between these extremes, and it seems to be arbitrary where we draw it. Either way the disagreement appear to be semantic.

What worked for me was building self-discipline and a code of conduct on self-respect which automatically includes (basic) respect from others. And I consciously made an effort to consider different perspectives (instead of shutting them down) and cultivate compassion until it became a habit. It's actually easier to do when you don't think you're in possession of some ultimate "truth" and it makes it easier to see others as worthy as respect as you are.

While I don't disagree, I'm not sure how much it matters when discussing whether or not someone qualifies as a Christian. Bad Christians are still Christians. If one is the member of a church, it seems fair to accept their self-identification as a Christian at face-value instead of bickering that they most certainly aren't because they fail to meet one's own personal standard of who is a Christian. If one wants to insist that the majority of baptized Christians throughout history weren't, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that those people cease to be members in good standing of a branch of the Christian faith.