posted
I just love it when someone tries to give us Christians a blak eye- again and again. Gives me reason to yell a little.
First of all, I've read plenty of history books that hardly talk at all about death, disease, or how many people died from anything. So, there are plenty of history books out there that will not say one word about Christians killing more people than disease.
Second, from what I know of history, it looks like disease wins every time - even in times of war (often especially in times of war because war spreads disease).
Third, Yes, Christians have done a lot of killing. But, as I often ask- is it Christianity, or a severe misuse of Christianity. Aside from "Thou shalt not kill" being one of the rules we are supposed to live by, there is plenty of evidence the early church was a pacifistic organization. Apparently early Christians did not want to kill anyone. The early church came to life when the Romans were declaring war on practically everyone, and when murdering in an arena was a common sport. The Romans saw themselves as the civilized ones. In reality, it was Christianity that came along and started to civilize Rome. It's only when worldly standards started to creep into the church that the church became a government that supported armies, war, and found excuses for murdering their neighbors.
So, stop blaming God for all your problems, and blame yourselves for not living by God's laws. Thou shalt not kill.
Posts: 479 | From: Owosso, MI | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Salamander: Their anti-Christian bias is not only showing but it has pulled down their pants in a public place and is mocking their genitalia.
Salamander, do you mind if I use this for my sig line?
People who blame everything on Christianity annoy me. It's like the allegation that "religion is bad b/c it starts wars." Personally, I think it's pretty rare for religion to start a war. Wars tend to start over some mundane purpose - usually money or land. Religion may be used to justify the war, but it probably isn't the direct cause.
-------------------- A Viennese fellow is walking along the Karntner Strasse and notices a banana peel lying in his path. "Alas," he sighs, "now I must slip and fall down!" Posts: 506 | From: Missouri | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Salamander: If it helps to convince your friend, tell them that I'm an agnostic deist (which is about as non-Christian as you can get while still acknowledging some level of spirituality) and I think the idea of Christianity causing more deaths than all/any disease entirely ridiculous.
You can also add that this atheist also finds the statement in the OP to be offensive. Christianity has killed more people than disease? All disease? Ever? Including for the millions of years before Christianity eve existed?
The only way this could eve possibly work is if one attributes all diseases to acts of God. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of bullNFBSK.
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it safer to say "my way or the highway" has killed more people than any disease? Just a thought.
Posts: 4811 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Rogue1stclass
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales
posted
Yeah, it doesn't really pass the practicality test, does it?
I mean, you pretty much die of two things, violence or disease. And even today, with modern sanitation and vastly improved ways of wrecking violence on our bodies (both deliberate and accidental), disease kills more. One or two hundred years ago? No question, disease is far more destructive, killing younger and healthier people. The average lifespan around this time was under 40, even in peacetime. And this is pretty much what it was like for all of human history. History which extends twice again as long as Christianity has even been present.
Even if you are just counting any one disease, I don't think it can hold up. Malaria, for instance, kills like 2 million people a year. While the actual number and percentage of total population will vary considerably, it's safe to say that people have been dying in large numbers from this disease for as long as there have been people and Plasmodia. So, yeah, I think 6000 years of malaria will certainly outdo 2000 years of Christianity, regardless of how brutal Christians may have been.
And no, no mainstream history book worth its price is going to print such a thing, as it is at best a completely unverifiable anecdote and at worst a blatant lie.
What my friend probably did was misremember the oft quoted "truism" that most of the world's conflicts are rooted in religion. While this is crap too, it's at least more believable and as such might be mentioned in a history book or class.
Posts: 195 | From: Florida | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BeachLife: See there's a difference between what someone or some religion did, and what was done under the name of that religion. I could call myself a budhist and act like a budhist, but it doesn't make me a budhist. And if I killed someone it doesn't mean they were killed by Budhism.
Sorry, Beach, but that doesn't wash. I have tried that exact argument here before, but have been turned into Malruhn-ala-flambe for suggesting that exact thing. If someone wants to call themselves a Christian and murder their parents, not believe in God and eat babies, they are a Christian.
At least here they are.
-------------------- Opinions aren't excuses to remain ignorant about subjects, nor are they excuses to never examine one's beliefs & prejudices...
Babies are like tattoos. You see other peoples' & they're cool, but yours is never as good & you can't get rid of it. Posts: 5622 | From: Jax, Florida | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Malruhn, Beach's arguement wasn't like yours at all. The reason you were flambe'ed was that you would not allow for the fact that not all christians agree with your rules. Besides, it's by faith, not by works, babe. Remember? And my own personal problem with your stance is that you seem too worried with what a person can't do instead of what they should be doing.
Beach's argument is that you can't blame a whole religion on the actions of a few believers. Like Westboro Baptist. Or the Inquisition. What Fred Phelps does is certainly not what I'd call a Christian act. Nor would be putting non-belivers to death. It doesn't mean that the Westboroians (?) and the Inquisitors aren't/weren't Christian.
Darn that pesky free will.
Posts: 4811 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cobra4J: Second, from what I know of history, it looks like disease wins every time - even in times of war (often especially in times of war because war spreads disease).
quote:Originally posted by Ganzfeld: (Even during wartime, more people have died from disease than from getting killed by weapons. I suppose a few of those you could blame indirectly on people but it's still no contest.
quote:Originally posted by Errata: Even when people went to war (for Christianity or other causes) it was disease that ended up killing a big chunk of them.
I have always wondered about statements along those lines. If people are placed in a position where it is much more likely to get a disease, WW I trenches for instance, and the only reason they are there is because of the war, can’t you still attribute their death to the war? I watched a documentary on the digging of the Panama canal and when they talked of the malaria deaths, it was spoken of in the sense of people making a sacrifice to create something larger than themselves. So the deaths were seen as a “if we weren’t digging this they would still be alive, therefore the canal killed them”, even though it was a mosquito born parasite.
-------------------- Never waste a good panic. Posts: 160 | From: Hayward, CA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by robinsonjeffersfan: ... caused more deaths than ... Fascism (60 Million Jews, Gypsy, Homesexual and Disable)
Can I get a cite for this number. My understanding was that there was about 6 million through camps and about another 7 million through "cleansing" outside of camps. The number seems a little high.
It sounds like somebody's mixing up the toll from the camps and cleansing with the total death toll from WWII, which I've heard reported as 50 million. Or trying to add the two figures together, which may be double-counting, depending on what the 50 million includes.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead Duck: I have always wondered about statements along those lines. If people are placed in a position where it is much more likely to get a disease, WW I trenches for instance, and the only reason they are there is because of the war, can’t you still attribute their death to the war? I watched a documentary on the digging of the Panama canal and when they talked of the malaria deaths, it was spoken of in the sense of people making a sacrifice to create something larger than themselves. So the deaths were seen as a “if we weren’t digging this they would still be alive, therefore the canal killed them”, even though it was a mosquito born parasite.
You can attribute it to both war and disease. Just like you can attribute other deaths to both war and bullets or war and explosives, etc. But the fact that so many of the deaths in the Christianity column can also be tallied in the disease column just points out how wrong the statement is. There were a hell of a lot of other wars throughout history, and war isn't the primary cause of disease even though disease was a primary cause of death in war.
Posts: 2018 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead Duck: I have always wondered about statements along those lines. If people are placed in a position where it is much more likely to get a disease, WW I trenches for instance, and the only reason they are there is because of the war, can’t you still attribute their death to the war? I watched a documentary on the digging of the Panama canal and when they talked of the malaria deaths, it was spoken of in the sense of people making a sacrifice to create something larger than themselves. So the deaths were seen as a “if we weren’t digging this they would still be alive, therefore the canal killed them”, even though it was a mosquito born parasite.
You can attribute it to both war and disease. Just like you can attribute other deaths to both war and bullets or war and explosives, etc. But the fact that so many of the deaths in the Christianity column can also be tallied in the disease column just points out how wrong the statement is. There were a hell of a lot of other wars throughout history, and war isn't the primary cause of disease even though disease was a primary cause of death in war.
What you say is true, but my point is if a person dies in a conflict from what ever cause shouldn't that death be attributed to that conflict? It is the more people die of disease in war than from bulletsstatement I take exception to. Just because the cause of death was disease the root cause was being in a conflict, or living in the area of conflict.
-------------------- Never waste a good panic. Posts: 160 | From: Hayward, CA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Salamander: Their anti-Christian bias is not only showing but it has pulled down their pants in a public place and is mocking their genitalia.
Salamander, do you mind if I use this for my sig line?
I'd be honoured
-------------------- "victory thru self-deception" Posts: 2211 | From: Western Australia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Salamander: Their anti-Christian bias is not only showing but it has pulled down their pants in a public place and is mocking their genitalia.
Salamander, do you mind if I use this for my sig line?
I'd be honoured
I have to admit it is a keeper
-------------------- Never waste a good panic. Posts: 160 | From: Hayward, CA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dead Duck: What you say is true, but my point is if a person dies in a conflict from what ever cause shouldn't that death be attributed to that conflict? It is the more people die of disease in war than from bulletsstatement I take exception to. Just because the cause of death was disease the root cause was being in a conflict, or living in the area of conflict.
Sub-categories
You would definitely record all deaths associated with a war, regardless of the cause. However, you'd run different tallies for those that died directly from armed conflict and those that died indirectly (disease, accidents, etc).
So basically, I believe you can include deaths by disease as a subset of deaths caused by war but I don't think you can include deaths by disease as a subset of deaths caused by Christianity -- unless you can make a strong case for Christianity being the root cause behind the spread of the disease. Disease spread by missionaries could, for instance, be attributed to Christianity but I wouldn't consider European settlement unless you could substantiate that the primary motivation was religious.
Regardless, I still think Christianity can't compete with disease. It wouldn't even come close.
-------------------- "victory thru self-deception" Posts: 2211 | From: Western Australia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK after reading Salamander's last post I can see we probably believe the same thing since I believe that even though the early explorers brought disease with them the subsequent deaths can not be laid at the feet of the Catholic church. And the primary point of this thread is did the Christian religion cause more deaths than disease which is bullNFBSK. Also does the modern church get credits for helping people throughout the world?
-------------------- Never waste a good panic. Posts: 160 | From: Hayward, CA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah, we're in rabid anti-Christian waters with this friend from the OP -- no points for the modern church helping people!! Or the old one, for that matter.
Although as Canuckistan alluded to, you could possibly blame Christianity for all death since they claim their deity was responsible for creating everything. That tree that fell over and killed someone? God created it. That nasty bacterial infection? God created bacteria as well. Eaten by a wild animal? Woah... there's God yet again!
The only catch being that in order to accept that, you'd need to be a Christian yourself. An atheist (for example) couldn't accept that "God created everything, therefore God is responsible for all deaths" since it would require that atheist to accept the existence of the Christian God.
So, other than Christians embarking on a rather abstract guilt-trip, the rest of us are stuck with using actual data to compare the number of people dying in the name of the Lord vs those dropping off the perch due to a nasty disease.
I realise this has been a largely pointless post but I figured I'd add it to the thread anyway
-------------------- "victory thru self-deception" Posts: 2211 | From: Western Australia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you people are missing the POINT! Every death from disease IS a death from Christianity. If it weren't for the anti-science opression and ignorance of Christianity, we would have cures for EVERY SINGLE DISEASE by now INCLUDING christianity. Therefore, if Christianity has killed even one person through something other than disease, Christianity has killed more people than every disease because deaths from disease are a subset of deaths from Christianity. Since Christianity is founded on the death of Christ, that right there is AT LEAST one person that Christianity has killed through some means other than desease (namely, crucifixion), thereby making deaths from disease a PROPER subset of deaths from Christianity (in otherwords, the amount of deaths from disease are not simply less than or equal to the amount of deaths caused by Crhistianity, they are strictly less than).
And so with geometric reasoning and indesputeable logic I have proven once and for all that Christianity truly is TEH EBIL.
(btw, is that phrase of your own making Salamander?)
-------------------- "Dear Lord, please protect this rockethouse and all who dwell within..." Posts: 1093 | From: Japan | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As much as I'd like to lay claim to "teh ebil", the creation of the term had very little to do with me
I just picked it up from somewhere... possibly one of the many IRC channels I used to haunt. I think it was drummed up by putting together two common purposely mis-spelt words.
-------------------- "victory thru self-deception" Posts: 2211 | From: Western Australia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is your friend attributing smallpox being spread in the New World to religion? There is sort of a basis for that... in that a grtoup deliberately gave the heathen Indians smallpox infected blankets. But, most people would classify that as disease. Likewise it was mentioned above that more people die of disease than violence in war-- but once again, does your friend consider the root cause of war-time diseases to be the religious claims that motivate the war? Are sanitation (lack of) practices being blamed on Christianity? Christianity really didn't tell people to ignore the rats and throw human waste into the streets of cities. It just would take a really bizarre twisting of blame to make Christianity responsible for enough death.
Posts: 457 | From: Sacramento, CA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samantha Vimes: Are sanitation (lack of) practices being blamed on Christianity? Christianity really didn't tell people to ignore the rats and throw human waste into the streets of cities.
No, although the superstition that led people in Europe to kill cats, allowing plague-carrying rats to flourish, had its roots in Christianity.
Not that I agree with the OP, or think that Christianity was responsible for the plague. Ignorance and superstition, whether associated with Christianity, another religion, or no religion, have killed many, many people.
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Rogue1stclass
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales
posted
Here's a fun page that tries to count the number of deaths in the various atrocities throughout history.
Of the top ten, 4 involved Christianity, even if only periferally. In one of them, the Stalin purges, Christians were some of the victims.
The Black Death was just part of an (Old) Worldwide pandemic of plague spread to the west by the Mongol invasions. It hit Europe so hard because 1) Europeans had no resistance to the disease and 2) they lived in more densely populated areas. I don't think the cat superstition made much of difference, since cats can spread the plague, they just would have become another link in the chain between rats and humans.
Likewise, the depopulation of American native cultures by disease would have happened anyway for similar reasons. American natives had no resistances to European diseases, and even had contact been perfectly friendly and peaceful, smallpox, plague and such would have still passed on to them and run amok. The deliberate passing out of smallpox infected blankets, incidentally, is largely a myth.
However, even counting both of those, the Holocaust, and the Roman persecution of Christians (why the hell not?) along with the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch-hunts, and the more common associated Christian atrocities, we might be pushing a couple hundred million deaths. Malaria has killed more than that in just the last century.
Posts: 195 | From: Florida | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- How homophobic do you have to be to have penguin gaydar? - Lewis Black Posts: 8322 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention all the people Christianity has sent to hell. (I said not to mention it. Sorry. )
Posts: 4922 | From: Kyoto, Japan | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Rogue1stclass
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lainie: Psst, Rogue, you forgot your link.
Yeah, I also screwed up the figures on malaria deaths. Don't quite think I'm over 100 years old.
posted
Disease still killed more people than religion did, even during the Crusades. Even if the smallpox blankets were motivated by religion, it was the disease itself that nearly wiped out Native American tribes.
As bad as the Inquisition was, only a minority of those accused of heresy were actually put to death. Those who recanted were punnished, often the penalties lasted their entire lives.
Posts: 223 | From: Long Beach, CA | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great thread to read... Salamander - love your work.
As to the original post though...
Many things have died in the name of many gods throughout recorded history, but more things died before the gods even had a name and shall consider to do so long after they have names no longer remembered.
At the true end of the planet Earth, death will be there to turn out the lights.
-------------------- 'Do not follow in the footsteps of the wise, seek instead what they sought' Matsuo Basho Posts: 97 | From: Adelaide, South Australia | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Salamander: If it helps to convince your friend, tell them that I'm an agnostic deist (which is about as non-Christian as you can get while still acknowledging some level of spirituality) and I think the idea of Christianity causing more deaths than all/any disease entirely ridiculous.
You can also add that this atheist also finds the statement in the OP to be offensive. Christianity has killed more people than disease? All disease? Ever? Including for the millions of years before Christianity eve existed?
My reading of the OP was that it wasn't more than all disease, but more than any one disease. However, it is certainly open to your reading as well. And I am sure far more people have died of tuberculosis than "Christianity."
-------------------- "Hillel says yes, naturally, and Shammai says no, and Maimonides is perplexed, and what do I know?" Julius Lester Posts: 5780 | From: Suburban Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Rogue1stclass
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales
posted
The actual statement was "any disease in human history". I don't know if she meant any as inclusive or not, but even giving her the benefit of the doubt and a very generous definition of what makes a Christian death, I don't think there is anyway it can hold up.
I mean, smallpox and malaria both killed hundreds of millions people just last century. That alone probably exceeds the number of Christian related deaths in all 2000 years of the religion.
Posts: 195 | From: Florida | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
quote:First I would like to just point out that it is apparently a fact that organized religion has killed more people than disease. Sad but true.
I love pro wrestling and all, but some people just shouldn't comment on politics.
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Canuckistan: We have a sighting! (Well, at least on a variation of the OP):
quote:First I would like to just point out that it is apparently a fact that organized religion has killed more people than disease. Sad but true.
I love pro wrestling and all, but some people just shouldn't comment on politics.
Obviously went to same school as person mentioned in OP. OK so we pick Avian Flu which has killed less than 1000, AFAIK, and compare it to deaths from religious causes. HMMMM OMG religion wins! For now. Wait till the first pandemic and Avian Flu will even that up real quick. Mother Nature, God, random cosmic events whatever you want to call it will always kill more than we can.
-------------------- Never waste a good panic. Posts: 160 | From: Hayward, CA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would probobly blame (to a point) a disease death on something else if that something else lead to the disease..
For example if you shoot me but I survive but the wound becomes infected and I die I would still say that you killed me because you essentially caused the disease.
That said its pretty obvious this is false, even if you only counted the last 2000 or so years it would be almost certainly be false, and at best be impossible to determine based on different factors.
Coming from a person who is not a big fan of religion*, particularly organized religion, and an atheist, you can tell your friend that this sounds ridiculous and ask him/her to show you just one history book (and not "the history of evil christians!") that makes this claim. History books print things that are untrue all the time but something this obviously false (unless she is drastically misinterpreting the passage) I just cannot see any reputable history book printing.
*There are plenty of good religious people, but lots of bad ones too, and I feel that because of the large amount of problems religion causes it is a hinderance on the world.. That said I do not believe if religion disappeard the world would be a happy wonderous place, we would find something else to fight about, and I would never suggest religion should be outlawd (though I do wish it had less of a hold on politics then it does, at least here).
-------------------- "All people are responsible for the good that they didn't do" Posts: 4774 | From: Virginia | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
Salamander, do you mind if I use this for my sig line?![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[fish]](graemlins/fish.gif)
)
