Europeans actually went in the opposite direction, they thought bathing and fresh air was bad for you.

@BillZbub

If they had told the truth and removed all the parts to do with god or priestly ritual, it wouldn't be much of a religion would it?

Indeed. (Yep, made perfect sense.)

This is why the truth matters. If they had been told that cleanliness was important because is would lessen the chance of disease, and had nothing to do with god or priestly ritual, they wouldn't have abandoned it. (Hope I'm making sense here... very tired at the moment)

I think Jesus' disapproval of the ritual cleanliness stuff in general contributed to the idea that cleanliness in the external sense was not important.

Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

And so forth. It wasn't so much that they forgot, but rather that they were told it didn't matter.

Which is where that whole plague thing comes in. If christianity had remembered the jewish religious (but not really religious if you think about it) taboo on handling corpses (and of course "don't sh*t in the camp"), the plague might not have spread nearly as quickly.

Well, ritual cleansing several times a day was built into their religion. The Jews had a lot of religious observances that were also just good hygiene. Somehow, the Christians forgot about all the 'wash your hands' and 'don't shit in the camp' commandments when they took over.

Then there was Ibn-Sina. Due to his research into medicine, thousands of live were saved. He also came up with the idea of valves before William Harvey, though he couldn't prove it due to a ban on cutting people open. Read more about him and his Canon Of Medicine here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Sina
Another great scientist Rhazes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhazes
Plus, the Muslims were also better at basic hygiene. They had better sewage systems in the Middle Ages than Europe did in the Victorian Era. Lets face it, London was basically a cesspool.

Christianity has helped destroy at least as many enlightenments as it has helped create.

The library at Alexandria is nodding its head in agreement right now.

That's certainly true. I concede the point. :)

A scientist in Cairo(I've sadly forgotten his name) built the world's first glider. He jumped off of Cairo's tallest building. His flight lasted twenty minutes(a contrast to the Wright Brothers' 14 second flight). He crash-landed. He then correctly concluded that this was because he had not included a tail in his design which would stall the glider on landing. This was in 852 AD. Oh, he was also 70 at the time.

Badass.

In the Middle Ages, Muslims were great. Baghdad was a centre of learning and people from all over the world came to study there. The world's largest library was located there. Several of the scholars there actually worked on government grants and were experts on several subjects. They were also extremely tolerant of other religions at a time when Christians weren't that cool with other forms of Christianity. The Renaissance was actually the result of the Crusades which brought back Muslim knowledge to Europe. After that, Gutenberg invented the printing press which allowed the Europeans to get ahead of the rest of the world. This is just one example of the stuff these guys did:
A scientist in Cairo(I've sadly forgotten his name) built the world's first glider. He jumped off of Cairo's tallest building. His flight lasted twenty minutes(a contrast to the Wright Brothers' 14 second flight). He crash-landed. He then correctly concluded that this was because he had not included a tail in his design which would stall the glider on landing. This was in 852 AD. Oh, he was also 70 at the time.

No, certainly not. But my point is that while the plague was a major factor in the destruction of the islamic golden age, and the leadup to the dark ages, the church was doing its very best to get a hammerlock on second place.

But really, my only real point is that it is entirely possible to begin the enlightenment without Christianity, and that Christianity has helped destroy at least as many enlightenments as it has helped create.

The library at Alexandria is nodding its head in agreement right now.

While the Church's actions were vile, as a simple numbers game they can't hold a candle to the plague.

Have you read about the activities of the church in the 14th century? Sure, the plague was killed a lot of people. But the church was doing its best to keep up. Burning every Jew and 'heretic' they could lay their hands on in an attempt to appease god and stop the plague. Just ask the Jews at Mainz and Cologne.

It might have been a factor.

:)

"A dark age largely dominated by Christendom. So Christianity is better because they destroyed the flowering of Islamic enlightenment on the way to dragging the human race into a multi-century dark age, and then eventually came out of it?"

Did no one listen about the plague? The plague is important here, I think... The high middle ages were awesome. I don't think we can really escape the death of almost half of Europe as *the* primary cause of the dark ages.

"One directly segued into the modern age. The other segued into a new dark age."

A dark age largely dominated by Christendom. So Christianity is better because they destroyed the flowering of Islamic enlightenment on the way to dragging the human race into a multi-century dark age, and then eventually came out of it?

Even conceding your timetable, the enlightenment is barely at a tie for duration.

One directly segued into the modern age. The other segued into a new dark age.

Also it is always safer to have people shooting at your employees than shooting at you. And franchise ownership opens up the possibility of getting paid by both sides in a war.

I'm pretty sure we were already agreeing on that one.

"I'm trying to figure out how that's a euphemism for flying around the world and killing people for money, because I insist on believing that's what you do."

Well, you see...

By "take standardized tests" I mean "take lives," and by "been to college" I mean "paid for a hit."

I work for a company that *teaches people* to fly around the world killing people for money. I've basically moved into assassin management. I hear there is potential for franchise ownership.

"I mean, 'a bowl of rice and a bible' is a cliche for a reason."

Yeah, but I've already mentioned I'm not entirely sure that's the best way for Christianity to operate.

"Well, they do have a lot of social programs (literacy, helping with housing, etc.) that they roll into their evangelism efforts, but that doesn't really make them any different from other evangelical groups."

(emphasis mine.)

Precisely. You can take the criticism about focusing primarily on evangelism, especially to the exclusion of useful pursuits, as applying to any religious organization to which it applies. I will be 100% okay with that.

"I now work for a company that teaches people to take standardized tests. If you've been to a college in the last ten years, then you know the one I mean."

I'm trying to figure out how that's a euphemism for flying around the world and killing people for money, because I insist on believing that's what you do.

"Whether or not they are a minority, JW's are (arguably) a controlling, manipulative cult. Also, their version of "being a minority group" hasn't (that I can tell) resulted in anything but angling for more members."

Well, they do have a lot of social programs (literacy, helping with housing, etc.) that they roll into their evangelism efforts, but that doesn't really make them any different from other evangelical groups. I mean, 'a bowl of rice and a bible' is a cliche for a reason.

I now work for a company that teaches people to take standardized tests. If you've been to a college in the last ten years, then you know the one I mean. (No posting the name here! I'm officially pulling a Ty.)

"I'm glad to hear that! "

I may come across as a little overly aggressive on religious issues, but that's because I feel our current obsession with shoving religion into every aspect of politics, education, and social interaction is enormously damaging to society.

The minute that ends, I literally do not care any longer about religion, one way or the other.

""Christianity as a minority. . . almost politically-neutral religion"

You should be a JW. This pretty much exactly defines them. They are also quite often an underground religion (in China, the former USSR, Nazi Germany, a number of African countries, etc).

Are the JWs the ideal form of Christianity you're describing?"

Nope. JW's play a little too close to the "complete and total enforced and manipulative dominance over the lives of their members" for me to be comfortable with. The problem I have with a highly structured, insular religious sect (some would insist "cult") is entirely separate from their political neutrality. JW's do not practice the kind of political neutrality that I think leads to helpful religion: I think participation in normal society is about 10,000 times more helpful than refusing to interact with it the way it asks you to. While JW's are a tiny minority in many places, I do not see the same positive behaviors I see from minority Christianity-- and yes, I would argue that the JW's are for most intents and purposes their own religion, separate from Christianity. In fact, measurable JW behavior (as it currently exists, that is, as a tiny minority) consists almost exclusively in evangelism-- I don't see much in the way of other programs devoted to positive, measurable societal benefits. This indicates that the Watchtower is primarily concerned with increasing its numbers-- frankly, I don't think that should be the first concern of religion.

TL;DR =
Whether or not they are a minority, JW's are (arguably) a controlling, manipulative cult. Also, their version of "being a minority group" hasn't (that I can tell) resulted in anything but angling for more members.

Edit:

"I feel exactly the same way.

The day a politician can be elected to public office in America without anyone talking about his/her religion, I'm good."

I'm glad to hear that!

"Probably would agree here. I tend to give christians the individuals a lot more positive credit then christians the group. If there were a healthy separation of church and state I would have a lot less hostility toward religion in general. I might not even feel it was necessary to argue against it"

I feel exactly the same way.

The day a politician can be elected to public office in America without anyone talking about his/her religion, I'm good.

Congratulations on the job JonJon.

"I don't think it has to look that way, either."

Probably would agree here. I tend to give christians the individuals a lot more positive credit then christians the group. If there were a healthy separation of church and state I would have a lot less hostility toward religion in general. I might not even feel it was necessary to argue against it (there's lots of stuff I don't believe that I'm not opposed to others believing). When I look at the times where christianity has been a force for good I tend to see a common thread that it is usually in a time and place where christianity (or the branch of christianity in question) is the minority faith or at least lacks any serious political power.

"Christianity as a minority. . . almost politically-neutral religion"

You should be a JW. This pretty much exactly defines them. They are also quite often an underground religion (in China, the former USSR, Nazi Germany, a number of African countries, etc).

Are the JWs the ideal form of Christianity you're describing?

"Back. (Job acquired, btw!)

Awesome! What will you be doing? "

I assumed all this 'job acquired' stuff was code for him having accomplished the assassination he was sent on.