🎓 Academic Why Christianity is the Best Thing That Ever Happened to the World

[Asherah Goddess]

Yeah? " The original post was about the contribution of Christianity to the modern world, not a claim that Pagans contributed nothing. " - Actually, correct na wala ka kini-claim na Pagans contributed nothing pero gayunpaman, puros mga negative or pangit ang sinasabi like sa thread topic mo na " slavery, infanticide, cruelty toward the weak, injustice to those disabled, infants had no inherent worth, accepted slavery, brutal conquest, exposure of unwanted infants, and public cruelty......" well, for me, kapag ganyan na kung papaano eperceived, kahit sabihin na wala ka naman sinasabi tungkol Pagan na wala nacontribute ng kahit ano, I think, hindi mo na maiisipan na meron nga nacontribute ang Pagan sa atin.

Ang maiisip mo lang malamang is contributions ng Christian. Ako ang nag-open para mabuksan ang isip na meron contributions pala ang Pagano sa atin and siguro alam mo na dahil sinabi ko.

Tama ang sinasabi na sila nagpabago ng moral direction ng mga tao about empathy and pagkakaroon ng mercy which is good naman diba? But actually, hindi naman nireremove ang unique contributions ng Christianity eh. Baligtad pa nga. Since medio or talagang enemy ng Christian ang Pagan, na iignore pa nga ang contributions ng mga Pagan sa atin. Minsan nga, hindi kapansin-pansin.

Kahit ibang religion? Trying hard na eremove na eremove na anything na meron kilalaman sa Pagan. As in, and dahil diyan, dahil trying hard, ewan ko kung ilan na ang belief system ng Christian.

Oo. Nagkakaroon ng panibago Christian sect sabay ipagmamalaki na pure Christian kuno sila kahit meron halong Pagan influence pa rin.

Hindi ko alam kung hanggang saan limit ang mga tao na Christian sa kakaremove na anything na meron kilalaman sa Pagan influence.

Katulad sa Jehovah. Sino ang Jehovah dito? Sobrang trying hard sa belief system nila na eremove na eremove na meron kilalaman sa Pagan influence like hindi raw sila nagpaparticipate sa government, yung birthday ba? Nag cecelebrate ba sila? Kasi ang birthday din meron kilalaman sa Pagan influence ata kaya ayaw ecelebrate, hahaha Pero gumagamit sila ng kalendaryo. May kilalaman ang kalendaryo sa Pagano.

Hanggang saan boundaries ang makakayanan nila para masabi na pure Christian sila? Ang hirap siya eremove. Hindi na sila realistic.

Kaya nga ang sabi, kapag tinanggal ang kung ano meron sa Pagan, babagsak ang Christian. Kung baga, intertwined sila. Mahirap sila eseperate. Mahirap.

Tama nga na sinasabi na Christianity ang nagbigay ng mercy and empathy sa mga ibang tao at extend pa rin siya sa iba-ibang sulok ng lokasyon, well, unique contributions talaga ng Christianity pero nalilimutan ng tao na ang "logic" na ginagamit is galing sa influence ng moral framework ng mga Pagano. Kaya nga, hindi sila pwede ipagseparate eh. In modern days, kahit victorious ang Christian as general as a whole, ang Pagan influence ay nasa kanila pa rin.

Kaya nga noon unang panahon, meron mga tao na nabubuhay as a philosophers sa panahon ng mga Pagano and almost, hindi sila makarelate sa Christian lalo na ang katagang " love your enemies " kasi nga, maawain po sila. Maawain. Kahit ultimong enemy, kinakaawaan. E ang logic ng Pagano is ika nga na " Bakit mamahalin at maaawa sa kaaway? Eh lalo babagsak ang buong community na ipinagtatanggol nila. "

Just imagine kapag ang isang government ay sobrang lawak ng kanyang pagiging maawain pagkatapos, sakupin tayo. Pinagpapatay ang mga tao. You know? Its like ipinagpala ang mga naaapi and if we die, we would go to heaven.

Unique contributions naman ang meron sa Christianity. Ang nakakalimutan kasi nila na meron din unique contributions ang Pagan culture sa atin.

Maybe the reason why ayaw ng Christian kung ano meron sa Pagano is because galing sila sa 'api' or mga tao na 'suppress' na naging victorious sila, so hindi nakakapagtaka kung bakit enemy nila ang Pagano like kampon daw ni Satanas, evil daw, walang puso, hindi true deities ang kanila and so on and so forth which is understood naman kung bakit nga naman.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Yeah? " The original post was about the contribution of Christianity to the modern world, not a claim that Pagans contributed nothing. " - Actually, correct na wala ka kini-claim na Pagans contributed nothing pero gayunpaman, puros mga negative or pangit ang sinasabi like sa thread topic mo na " slavery, infanticide, cruelty toward the weak, injustice to those disabled, infants had no inherent worth, accepted slavery, brutal conquest, exposure of unwanted infants, and public cruelty......" well, for me, kapag ganyan na kung papaano eperceived, kahit sabihin na wala ka naman sinasabi tungkol Pagan na wala nacontribute ng kahit ano, I think, hindi mo na maiisipan na meron nga nacontribute ang Pagan sa atin.

Ang maiisip mo lang malamang is contributions ng Christian. Ako ang nag-open para mabuksan ang isip na meron contributions pala ang Pagano sa atin and siguro alam mo na dahil sinabi ko.

Tama ang sinasabi na sila nagpabago ng moral direction ng mga tao about empathy and pagkakaroon ng mercy which is good naman diba? But actually, hindi naman nireremove ang unique contributions ng Christianity eh. Baligtad pa nga. Since medio or talagang enemy ng Christian ang Pagan, na iignore pa nga ang contributions ng mga Pagan sa atin. Minsan nga, hindi kapansin-pansin.

Kahit ibang religion? Trying hard na eremove na eremove na anything na meron kilalaman sa Pagan. As in, and dahil diyan, dahil trying hard, ewan ko kung ilan na ang belief system ng Christian.

Oo. Nagkakaroon ng panibago Christian sect sabay ipagmamalaki na pure Christian kuno sila kahit meron halong Pagan influence pa rin.

Hindi ko alam kung hanggang saan limit ang mga tao na Christian sa kakaremove na anything na meron kilalaman sa Pagan influence.

Katulad sa Jehovah. Sino ang Jehovah dito? Sobrang trying hard sa belief system nila na eremove na eremove na meron kilalaman sa Pagan influence like hindi raw sila nagpaparticipate sa government, yung birthday ba? Nag cecelebrate ba sila? Kasi ang birthday din meron kilalaman sa Pagan influence ata kaya ayaw ecelebrate, hahaha Pero gumagamit sila ng kalendaryo. May kilalaman ang kalendaryo sa Pagano.

Hanggang saan boundaries ang makakayanan nila para masabi na pure Christian sila? Ang hirap siya eremove. Hindi na sila realistic.

Kaya nga ang sabi, kapag tinanggal ang kung ano meron sa Pagan, babagsak ang Christian. Kung baga, intertwined sila. Mahirap sila eseperate. Mahirap.

Tama nga na sinasabi na Christianity ang nagbigay ng mercy and empathy sa mga ibang tao at extend pa rin siya sa iba-ibang sulok ng lokasyon, well, unique contributions talaga ng Christianity pero nalilimutan ng tao na ang "logic" na ginagamit is galing sa influence ng moral framework ng mga Pagano. Kaya nga, hindi sila pwede ipagseparate eh. In modern days, kahit victorious ang Christian as general as a whole, ang Pagan influence ay nasa kanila pa rin.

Kaya nga noon unang panahon, meron mga tao na nabubuhay as a philosophers sa panahon ng mga Pagano and almost, hindi sila makarelate sa Christian lalo na ang katagang " love your enemies " kasi nga, maawain po sila. Maawain. Kahit ultimong enemy, kinakaawaan. E ang logic ng Pagano is ika nga na " Bakit mamahalin at maaawa sa kaaway? Eh lalo babagsak ang buong community na ipinagtatanggol nila. "

Just imagine kapag ang isang government ay sobrang lawak ng kanyang pagiging maawain pagkatapos, sakupin tayo. Pinagpapatay ang mga tao. You know? Its like ipinagpala ang mga naaapi and if we die, we would go to heaven.

Unique contributions naman ang meron sa Christianity. Ang nakakalimutan kasi nila na meron din unique contributions ang Pagan culture sa atin.

Maybe the reason why ayaw ng Christian kung ano meron sa Pagano is because galing sila sa 'api' or mga tao na 'suppress' na naging victorious sila, so hindi nakakapagtaka kung bakit enemy nila ang Pagano like kampon daw ni Satanas, evil daw, walang puso, hindi true deities ang kanila and so on and so forth which is understood naman kung bakit nga naman.​

I already agree that Pagan cultures contributed a lot: philosophy, law, medicine, government, logic, cities, and civic systems. I am not denying that.

But the original post was not titled “Why Paganism contributed nothing.” It was about Christianity’s contribution to the modern world. So naturally, the focus is on what Christianity uniquely added.

Also, mentioning the flaws of ancient Pagan societies is not the same as saying Pagans had no good contributions. In the same way, mentioning the sins of Christians does not automatically erase Christianity’s good contributions.

My point is simple: Pagan systems gave many tools. Christianity gave a deeper moral direction for how those tools should serve the weak, the poor, the sick, the unwanted, and even the enemy.

So yes, they are historically intertwined. But being intertwined does not mean they contributed the same thing. Pagan cultures gave structure and philosophy. Christianity transformed the moral vision toward universal human dignity and mercy.

That is the point. Not “Pagans contributed nothing,” but “Christianity changed the heart of civilization in a unique way.”

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Ah. Okay. For me, ang simple point ko lang naman is hindi acceptable sayo na meron " equal weight " contributions ang both Pagan and Christian sa iyo. Ganun lang naman ang simpleng point ko. Hindi ko na pahahabain. That is why nagcocompare ka and at the same time, nakakabanggit ka ng mga.... alam mo na meron halong negative na ginawa ng mga Pagano. It is a reason why hindi ka nakakakita ng maganda like meron silang moral framework about dignity, honor family.... mga ganun ba? It is a reason why superlative claim ang lagi mo ipinapatukoy sa Christian na in fact, meron silang contributions ang Pagan and Christian na kapag ipinagseperate ang dalawa, babagsak ang Christian.

Sayo kasi, it is more on historical transformation kaya ipinagmamalaki mo na kagaano ka-unique pero ang akin kasi is historical foundation kung saan both sila meron sila equal weight sa mismong contributions in society.

Well, masisisi ba kita? I can't blame you dahil Christian ka nga diba? And sa mga iba pa, they treat it as secondary or inferior kahit meron po na contribute.

So understood po siya.

Kaya nga sabi mo nga, the topic is all about Christianity’s contribution to the modern world. Puros Christian lang siya sabay meron negative about Pagan. Nang sinabi ko na meron na contribute ang Pagan sa society, yeah, nag-agree ka pero hindi mo nakikta ang "equal weight" ng contributions ng dalawa dahil nga para sayo, Christian is unique.​

 

[rr0131]

ganda ng topic at ng conversations..

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Ah. Okay. For me, ang simple point ko lang naman is hindi acceptable sayo na meron " equal weight " contributions ang both Pagan and Christian sa iyo. Ganun lang naman ang simpleng point ko. Hindi ko na pahahabain. That is why nagcocompare ka and at the same time, nakakabanggit ka ng mga.... alam mo na meron halong negative na ginawa ng mga Pagano. It is a reason why hindi ka nakakakita ng maganda like meron silang moral framework about dignity, honor family.... mga ganun ba? It is a reason why superlative claim ang lagi mo ipinapatukoy sa Christian na in fact, meron silang contributions ang Pagan and Christian na kapag ipinagseperate ang dalawa, babagsak ang Christian.

Sayo kasi, it is more on historical transformation kaya ipinagmamalaki mo na kagaano ka-unique pero ang akin kasi is historical foundation kung saan both sila meron sila equal weight sa mismong contributions in society.

Well, masisisi ba kita? I can't blame you dahil Christian ka nga diba? And sa mga iba pa, they treat it as secondary or inferior kahit meron po na contribute.

So understood po siya.

Kaya nga sabi mo nga, the topic is all about Christianity’s contribution to the modern world. Puros Christian lang siya sabay meron negative about Pagan. Nang sinabi ko na meron na contribute ang Pagan sa society, yeah, nag-agree ka pero hindi mo nakikta ang "equal weight" ng contributions ng dalawa dahil nga para sayo, Christian is unique.​

I think the disagreement is simple. You are arguing for equal weight, while I am arguing for unique impact. Those are not the same claim.

Christianity changed the moral direction of those systems in a way that history shows was transformative. That does not erase Pagan contributions. It just means I don’t think the historical impact was equal.

So the disagreement is not about whether Pagans contributed. It is about whether both contributions had the same historical weight. I respect that you see it as equal. I simply see Christianity as having a uniquely transformative role.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

ganda ng topic at ng conversations..

Thanks for reading. Hope it gave some learning.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

I think the disagreement is simple. You are arguing for equal weight, while I am arguing for unique impact. Those are not the same claim.

Christianity changed the moral direction of those systems in a way that history shows was transformative. That does not erase Pagan contributions. It just means I don’t think the historical impact was equal.

So the disagreement is not about whether Pagans contributed. It is about whether both contributions had the same historical weight. I respect that you see it as equal. I simply see Christianity as having a uniquely transformative role.​

Ah. Okay Deist kasi ako. Outside religion. Hehehe Kaya ayun, nauunawaan ko ang "both" sides, kaya nga understood na kaya ganun na lamang ang mga tao in Christian is rooted sa pananampalataya or ang faith nila, so talaga napaka-unique or best ang religion ng Christianity dahil transformational siya itong modern days.

Actually, hindi lang naman Christian. Marami pa. Understood na any person na napapaloob sa religion sect, wala talaga silang "neutral" dahil ededefend nila ang faith nila plus, dahil within religion sila, normal lang na sabihin na superior ang beliefs system kaysa sa iba. Kaya nga, meron debate. Kailangan ma prove na totoo ang relihiyon at pananampalataya nila. Meron silang moral ground na this is the truth.

According to my knowledge, ang non-abrahamic ata ang meron lang "neutral" within sa belief system nila? For example ang Buddhism or Taoism, since wala sila God, more on philosophy din sila katulad ng Buddhism, sabi na itinagurian the most humble, kasi ang Buddhism ay pwede esyncretism or pwede emerge ang Buddhism sa ibang relihiyon like meron Buddhist Methodist, Buddhist Atheist, Buddhist Christian..... mga ganun? Basta meron knowledge na 4 noble truths and eightfold path or purely Buddhist na lang... mga ganun? Dati nang nakinig ako ng podcast for english listening , one time lang ako nakinig about secular buddhism for beginners on youtube pagkatapos nalimutan ko na. Hehehe.

Sa sobrang humble, yung buddhism is does not care kung meron followers or wala eh. Kahit sa paniniwala, binibigyan nila ng freedom na magcriticize ang tao sa Buddhism. Binibigyan din ng freedom na if something na meron hindi gusto ang tao sa Buddhism at gusto umalis, ni lelet go nila. No need na matakot na "sige ka, mapupunta ka sa hell. "

Pagano din as general as a whole, mataas ang tolerable nila sa other beliefs. Iba ang kanila. More on archetype of a Gods and Goddesses. Wala naman silang concept about punishment or whatever.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Ah. Okay Deist kasi ako. Outside religion. Hehehe Kaya ayun, nauunawaan ko ang "both" sides, kaya nga understood na kaya ganun na lamang ang mga tao in Christian is rooted sa pananampalataya or ang faith nila, so talaga napaka-unique or best ang religion ng Christianity dahil transformational siya itong modern days.

Actually, hindi lang naman Christian. Marami pa. Understood na any person na napapaloob sa religion sect, wala talaga silang "neutral" dahil ededefend nila ang faith nila plus, dahil within religion sila, normal lang na sabihin na superior ang beliefs system kaysa sa iba. Kaya nga, meron debate. Kailangan ma prove na totoo ang relihiyon at pananampalataya nila. Meron silang moral ground na this is the truth.

According to my knowledge, ang non-abrahamic ata ang meron lang "neutral" within sa belief system nila? For example ang Buddhism or Taoism, since wala sila God, more on philosophy din sila katulad ng Buddhism, sabi na itinagurian the most humble, kasi ang Buddhism ay pwede esyncretism or pwede emerge ang Buddhism sa ibang relihiyon like meron Buddhist Methodist, Buddhist Atheist, Buddhist Christian..... mga ganun? Basta meron knowledge na 4 noble truths and eightfold path or purely Buddhist na lang... mga ganun? Dati nang nakinig ako ng podcast for english listening , one time lang ako nakinig about secular buddhism for beginners on youtube pagkatapos nalimutan ko na. Hehehe.

Sa sobrang humble, yung buddhism is does not care kung meron followers or wala eh. Kahit sa paniniwala, binibigyan nila ng freedom na magcriticize ang tao sa Buddhism. Binibigyan din ng freedom na if something na meron hindi gusto ang tao sa Buddhism at gusto umalis, ni lelet go nila. No need na matakot na "sige ka, mapupunta ka sa hell. "

Pagano din as general as a whole, mataas ang tolerable nila sa other beliefs. Iba ang kanila. More on archetype of a Gods and Goddesses. Wala naman silang concept about punishment or whatever.​

I agree that people inside any belief system naturally defend what they believe. That is normal for everyone, religious or not.

But I would gently disagree that only non-Abrahamic beliefs can be “neutral” or tolerant. Historically, Christianity also developed ideas like freedom of conscience, human rights, and the dignity of every person. Those ideas helped shape modern religious freedom where people are free to believe, criticize, or even leave religion without state punishment.

Also, Buddhism and Taoism are often described as philosophical, but they still make truth claims about reality, suffering, morality, and the human condition. So they are not completely “neutral” either. Every worldview has beliefs it thinks are true.

So I think it is less about which belief is neutral and more about how different worldviews shaped history in different ways.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

I agree that people inside any belief system naturally defend what they believe. That is normal for everyone, religious or not.

But I would gently disagree that only non-Abrahamic beliefs can be “neutral” or tolerant. Historically, Christianity also developed ideas like freedom of conscience, human rights, and the dignity of every person. Those ideas helped shape modern religious freedom where people are free to believe, criticize, or even leave religion without state punishment.

Also, Buddhism and Taoism are often described as philosophical, but they still make truth claims about reality, suffering, morality, and the human condition. So they are not completely “neutral” either. Every worldview has beliefs it thinks are true.

So I think it is less about which belief is neutral and more about how different worldviews shaped history in different ways.​

Ahhh. Yung itinutukoy mo patungkol sa internal neutral ng isang naniniwala. Ahhhh. Tama ka doon.

What I meant ng sinabi ko na " wala talaga silang neutral " is iba ang pagkaka-built in ng structure ng pagdating sa belief system po ng Abrahamic beliefs katulad ng Christianism, Islam and Judaism and so ang mga religion sect na under sa tatlo major religion, ganun din ang mga tao like ededefend ang faith nila and so on and so forth. Kung kaya ang mga tao na within that religion na under ng Abrahamic, wala sila neutral or middleground kung tawagin dahil ganun na po ang pagka-built in ng structure ng belief system po nila. Meron silang "one true God" and exclusive ang religion ng mga ganun klaseng belief system po nila na meron silang 100% true at 100% wrong.

Example.

Christianity. 100% true pero 100% wrong kapag nasa other belief system ang tao na lilipat or iba ang paniniwala nila.

Islam. 100% true pero 100% wrong kapag nasa other belief system ang tao na lilipat or iba ang paniniwala nila.

Judaism. 100% true pero 100% wrong kapag nasa other belief system ang tao na lilipat or iba ang paniniwala.

....so on and so forth. So malamang , ganun din ang mga tao na nasa loob ng relihiyon.​

Masyado exclusive ang religion nila.

Yung itinutukoy mo about Christianity na nagdeveloped ideas like freedom of conscience, human rights, and the dignity of every person... sabi mo, historically, correct po pero galing siya sa " the enlightenment " or itinatawag nila " secularist " ~ modern society na po siya. Nag-adapt lang ang church pagkatapos, inangkin.

Hindi siya inherited ng Christianity. As in. For centuries na nagdaan, ipinaglaban ng secularism ang patungkol diyan dahil against sila sa Church pero hindi naglaon, nag-adapt ang Church and then, inown nila so in a modern society adapted na po ang Church.

Hindi siya galing sa Church mismo. Galing sa secularism po, inadapt lang ng Church dahil hindi natin pwede iignore na exclusive ang pagka-built in talaga ng structure ng belief system nila as general as a whole dahil exclusive ang religion ng mga Abrahamic.

Hindi siya katulad ng non-Abrahamic katulad ng example na Buddhism or Taoism, dagdagan natin, Paganism.... hindi siya katulad ng Abrahamic na exclusive as in dahil ang built in structure ng Buddhism, Taoism, and Paganism is allowed nila na magpractice ng ibang belief system ng mga tao. Tolerant sila. Kaya nasabi ko na "neutral" po sila.

Example sa Paganism like Roman Paganism. Tolerant sila sa other deities. Hindi siya katulad ng Abrahamic na "true God" and ang ibang God(s) is false. Sobrang silang tolerant kapag na meet nila ang tao na iba ang belief system at iba ang God sa kanila, maiisip lang nila na they have the same God, different names lang siya pagkatapos, kagawan ka nila ng temple para sa God na yun para sambahin ang lahat except sa issue sa Christian cult noon unang panahon, cult dahil small group lang sila or not famous pa lang, kaya cult, so yung Christianity dati, ayaw talaga nila ehonor or give respect ang itinatawag nila state deity ng Pagano so as a result, hindi rin nila binigyan honor kung ano meron God ng Christian bagkus, ang tingin ng mga Roman Pagan noon sa Christian is atheist.

Sa Buddhism naman, tolerant dahil pagdating sa 4 noble truth and eightfold path, kahit ano belief system pwede nila gamitin yun kahit nga ang practice of meditation po. Practice of the mind. Sa Taoism, meron silang philosophy ng yin and yang na applicable. Meron silang "tao" means universe kaya taoism. Kaya nga allowed sa kanila ang syncretism like meron silang Buddhist Christian, Buddhist Methodist, Buddhist Atheist.... mga ganun?

It is a reason why nasabi ko na neutral ang katulad nila na non-Abrahamic dahil hindi siya katulad ng Abrahamic na exclusive ang pagka-built in ng structure ng belief system nila.
​

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

I already agree that Pagan cultures contributed a lot: philosophy, law, medicine, government, logic, cities, and civic systems. I am not denying that.

But the original post was not titled “Why Paganism contributed nothing.” It was about Christianity’s contribution to the modern world. So naturally, the focus is on what Christianity uniquely added.

Also, mentioning the flaws of ancient Pagan societies is not the same as saying Pagans had no good contributions. In the same way, mentioning the sins of Christians does not automatically erase Christianity’s good contributions.

My point is simple: Pagan systems gave many tools. Christianity gave a deeper moral direction for how those tools should serve the weak, the poor, the sick, the unwanted, and even the enemy.

So yes, they are historically intertwined. But being intertwined does not mean they contributed the same thing. Pagan cultures gave structure and philosophy. Christianity transformed the moral vision toward universal human dignity and mercy.

That is the point. Not “Pagans contributed nothing,” but “Christianity changed the heart of civilization in a unique way.”

Christianity tended to align itself sa pagiisip ng masa. Kung sasabihin nating: Secular thought ang driver ng mga positive na bagay na ito (as much as mga negative effects ng secular beliefs) - sadyang binali lng ng kristiyanismo ang paniniwala nila para tumugma sa

Masasabi mo bang mali yang statement na yan?

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Christianity tended to align itself sa pagiisip ng masa. Kung sasabihin nating: Secular thought ang driver ng mga positive na bagay na ito (as much as mga negative effects ng secular beliefs) - sadyang binali lng ng kristiyanismo ang paniniwala nila para tumugma sa

Masasabi mo bang mali yang statement na yan?

Yes, Christianity interacted with the thinking of the masses. That’s historically obvious. Every worldview engages the culture it enters. But saying Christianity merely “bent beliefs to match society” ignores a massive amount of history where Christianity actually challenged society, not followed it.

In the Roman world, the “normal” mindset accepted slavery, infanticide, brutal entertainment, and rigid class hierarchy. Those were mainstream ideas. Yet early Christians became known for rescuing abandoned infants, caring for plague victims, elevating the status of women, and teaching that even slaves and emperors were morally equal before God.

That’s not bending to the crowd. That’s confronting the crowd.

And even until now, Christianity still stands its ground against many dominant cultural trends when it comes to moral teachings, human dignity, and accountability. If it only mirrored society, it would never be in tension with modern culture.

So I’d say the statement is not totally wrong, but it misses the bigger historical pattern: Christianity both interacted with culture and profoundly reshaped it.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Ahhh. Yung itinutukoy mo patungkol sa internal neutral ng isang naniniwala. Ahhhh. Tama ka doon.

What I meant ng sinabi ko na " wala talaga silang neutral " is iba ang pagkaka-built in ng structure ng pagdating sa belief system po ng Abrahamic beliefs katulad ng Christianism, Islam and Judaism and so ang mga religion sect na under sa tatlo major religion, ganun din ang mga tao like ededefend ang faith nila and so on and so forth. Kung kaya ang mga tao na within that religion na under ng Abrahamic, wala sila neutral or middleground kung tawagin dahil ganun na po ang pagka-built in ng structure ng belief system po nila. Meron silang "one true God" and exclusive ang religion ng mga ganun klaseng belief system po nila na meron silang 100% true at 100% wrong.

Example.

Christianity. 100% true pero 100% wrong kapag nasa other belief system ang tao na lilipat or iba ang paniniwala nila.

Islam. 100% true pero 100% wrong kapag nasa other belief system ang tao na lilipat or iba ang paniniwala nila.

Judaism. 100% true pero 100% wrong kapag nasa other belief system ang tao na lilipat or iba ang paniniwala.

....so on and so forth. So malamang , ganun din ang mga tao na nasa loob ng relihiyon.​

Masyado exclusive ang religion nila.

Yung itinutukoy mo about Christianity na nagdeveloped ideas like freedom of conscience, human rights, and the dignity of every person... sabi mo, historically, correct po pero galing siya sa " the enlightenment " or itinatawag nila " secularist " ~ modern society na po siya. Nag-adapt lang ang church pagkatapos, inangkin.

Hindi siya inherited ng Christianity. As in. For centuries na nagdaan, ipinaglaban ng secularism ang patungkol diyan dahil against sila sa Church pero hindi naglaon, nag-adapt ang Church and then, inown nila so in a modern society adapted na po ang Church.

Hindi siya galing sa Church mismo. Galing sa secularism po, inadapt lang ng Church dahil hindi natin pwede iignore na exclusive ang pagka-built in talaga ng structure ng belief system nila as general as a whole dahil exclusive ang religion ng mga Abrahamic.

Hindi siya katulad ng non-Abrahamic katulad ng example na Buddhism or Taoism, dagdagan natin, Paganism.... hindi siya katulad ng Abrahamic na exclusive as in dahil ang built in structure ng Buddhism, Taoism, and Paganism is allowed nila na magpractice ng ibang belief system ng mga tao. Tolerant sila. Kaya nasabi ko na "neutral" po sila.

Example sa Paganism like Roman Paganism. Tolerant sila sa other deities. Hindi siya katulad ng Abrahamic na "true God" and ang ibang God(s) is false. Sobrang silang tolerant kapag na meet nila ang tao na iba ang belief system at iba ang God sa kanila, maiisip lang nila na they have the same God, different names lang siya pagkatapos, kagawan ka nila ng temple para sa God na yun para sambahin ang lahat except sa issue sa Christian cult noon unang panahon, cult dahil small group lang sila or not famous pa lang, kaya cult, so yung Christianity dati, ayaw talaga nila ehonor or give respect ang itinatawag nila state deity ng Pagano so as a result, hindi rin nila binigyan honor kung ano meron God ng Christian bagkus, ang tingin ng mga Roman Pagan noon sa Christian is atheist.

Sa Buddhism naman, tolerant dahil pagdating sa 4 noble truth and eightfold path, kahit ano belief system pwede nila gamitin yun kahit nga ang practice of meditation po. Practice of the mind. Sa Taoism, meron silang philosophy ng yin and yang na applicable. Meron silang "tao" means universe kaya taoism. Kaya nga allowed sa kanila ang syncretism like meron silang Buddhist Christian, Buddhist Methodist, Buddhist Atheist.... mga ganun?

It is a reason why nasabi ko na neutral ang katulad nila na non-Abrahamic dahil hindi siya katulad ng Abrahamic na exclusive ang pagka-built in ng structure ng belief system nila.
​

I think you’re still mixing truth claims with tolerance.

Yes, Abrahamic religions believe truth is real and not all beliefs can be true at the same time. But that doesn’t automatically make them less tolerant. Having a truth claim is not the same as forcing people.

Historically, the idea that people should be free to believe, change beliefs, or leave religion without state punishment grew strongly in Christian-influenced societies long before modern secularism became dominant. The Enlightenment didn’t appear in a vacuum. It grew out of a culture already shaped by Christian ideas about conscience, moral equality, and the value of the individual.

Also, Roman paganism looked tolerant on the surface, but it was tolerant only as long as you honored the state gods. Christians were persecuted precisely because they refused to conform. That shows the system was not neutral either.

So I’d say this is not about which belief is “exclusive.” Every worldview makes truth claims. The real question is which worldview helped shape the world where people are now free to disagree openly.

 

[DarkLordZeref1221]

historical picture is more complex than “religion bad, science good.”

so "religious people bad, science good" pala dapat?

 

[Asherah Goddess]

I think you’re still mixing truth claims with tolerance.​

Hindi lang tayo nagkaintindihan. Ang pino-point out mo "ata" is internal views and beliefs ng mga tao, kung kaya, naisip mo na keyso mini-mix ko ang truth claims with tolerance.

Hindi kasi iyon ang itinutukoy ko. Ang itinutukoy ko is pagkaka-built in mismo sa pagka-structure ng belief system po. In simplify terms, how religion behaves , ganun po.

Example.

Ang Abrahamic believes is masyado exclusive po ang belief system po nila. Meron po sila "one true God" which is truth, iyon ang truth claims po, kung kaya meron silang 100% true and 100% wrong. Meaning , if for example, in Christianity, kapag nasa loob ng Christian group, ang group na iyon is 100% true kapag lumabas na po sa Christian group na katulad na nagchange ng beliefs or iba ang paniniwala ng tao na hindi Christian, ang outside group is 100% wrong. Same siya sa Islam and Judaism.

Sana maintindihan mo ang itinutukoy ko. As a result, anyone na member ng Abrahamic beliefs is malamang ganun din magbehave dahil ang pagka-built in ng pagkakastructure ng belief system nila is of course, meron silang "one true God", yun ang truth claims kung baga.

Iyon ang reason why nasabi na walang neutral or middleground na tawagin ang Abrahamic. Lumalabas na superior sa iba sapagkat hindi nila tinotolerate ang paniniwala ng ibang belief system. Exclusive ang relihiyon nila na meron 100% true at meron 100% wrong.

...but kung hindi ka nakatingin sa itinutukoy ko at nakatingin ka sa internal views and beliefs, and worldview as a whole then.... okay lang. It is fine if doon ka nakatingin dahil hindi ka naman wrong doon. Tama ka sa sinasabi mo na pagdating sa internal beliefs, wala naman talaga neutral.
​

Historically, the idea that people should be free to believe, change beliefs, or leave religion without state punishment grew strongly in Christian-influenced societies long before modern secularism became dominant. The Enlightenment didn’t appear in a vacuum. It grew out of a culture already shaped by Christian ideas about conscience, moral equality, and the value of the individual.​

Yung sinasabi mo na " ...
Historically, the idea that people should be free to believe, change beliefs, or leave religion without state punishment grew strongly in Christian-influenced societies long before modern secularism became dominant. " ~ Meron po ang Christian na state punishment po noon bago nagkaroon ng modern secularism po. Meron. In the year of AD, nang pinalitan ng Rome ang Pagan ng Christian at ginawang official state religion ang Christianism as a whole, kung baga, religion and state of government, married to each other silang dalawa ay kung meron persecution sa mundo ng Pagano dahil ayaw magconform ang mga Christians sa state deity ng mga Pagan, mas dangerous ang mundo ng mga Christianism nang ginawang official state religion. Severe crime ang kung sino man heretic or kung sino man aalis sa religion mismo, hindi allowed sa kanila ang other beliefs at hindi lang iisang bansa as in. Meron silang death penalty, torture, at tatanggalin ang property mismo.

Dangerous siya ng ginawang state religion at katulad ng sinabi ko nang una, masyado exclusive ang belief system kasi nila dahil meron silang "one true God" at iyon ang truth claims nila kung saan meron 100% true at meron sila 100% wrong. Lahat wrong sa kanila kapag ang paniniwala na iba sa kanila kaya severe crime punishment sa kanila yun kapag malaman nila na iba ang paniniwala nila.

Bagkus, tumagal sila ng 1,400 years!!! Ganun katindi. Nagrise up ang mga secularism dahil gusto na nila epahinto ang state religion mismo ng church pagdating sa power. Ilan century na ipinaglaban ng mga secularist bago in the end, nag adapt na ang mismo Church sa idea ng secularism po.

Kung kaya, ang masasabi ko na meron din silang state punishment from Christianism kaya kung pagmamasdan, sa survey, diba lagi no.1 ang Christian sa buong mundo?

Ang iisipin ng iba dahil sa missionary at dahil namulat ang mga tao kaya na convert sila na actually, history background nun, kaya sila ganun ka-successful ang Christianity bilang no. 1 sa lahat as in, yung history kasi ng Christianism is more on political and military power. Biruin , 1400 years under ng official state religion kung saan meron silang torture and severe crime punishment ang kung sino man na aalis or kung sino man ang iba ang paniniwala sa kanila.

Yan ang nagshape ng history natin from past upto present, kaya yung sinasabi mo about na " ...human rights, and the dignity of every person" galing po siya sa secularism kung saan nag adapt na po ang Church. Nang na lose power ang mga taga religious state na dati naghohold ng power at hindi na nila ma punish-punish ang mga tao, saka na nila naisipan magkaroon ng freedom of conscience po.

Yun po.​

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Kaya kung mapapansin diba, sasabihin nila, kung kagaano kaganda ang Christian kung kaya, one of the reason why lagi no. 1 in the survey as the major religion as in dahil true religion daw.... hindi kasi alam ng iba ang history background kung bakit naging influential and naging major beliefs system ang Christian as a whole. Hindi alam ng iba.

Hindi nila alam ng masyado dangerous ng mga panahon ng naghohold ng power ang state at ang religion pagdating sa conversion dahil ika nga truth claim nila is "one true God" pagdating sa heretics, pagdating sa iba paniniwala...... dangerous talaga. Tipong truth claims na meron sa kanila is 100% true at meron din silang 100% wrong.

Just imagine. Kung hindi nag exist ang secularism, malamang under pa rin tayo ng inquisition po. Siguro lahat na nagpupunta sa bansang Pilipinas katulad ng mga atheist, buddhist at iba pang relihiyon..... well, I think, maaga sila magrerest in peace.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

so "religious people bad, science good" pala dapat?

My point was the opposite. History isn’t a simple “religion bad, science good” story. Both religious and non-religious people have supported and resisted new ideas at different times.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Asherah Goddess
The main assumption being repeated is this idea that because Christianity believes in one true God, it naturally leads to oppression and therefore human rights must have come from secularism later.

First, believing something is true does not automatically mean forcing others. Every worldview believes it is correct. Atheists believe there is no God. Secular humanists believe religion is mistaken. Buddhists believe their path explains suffering best. Even saying secularism is better is itself a truth claim. So the idea that only Abrahamic religions are exclusive falls apart immediately. Humans do this in every belief system.

Second, Rome was not the tolerant paradise it is often imagined to be. Yes, Rome allowed many gods, but only if you honored the state gods and the emperor. Christians were persecuted precisely because they refused to conform. That shows the system was not neutral. It was tolerant only as long as you participated in the system.

Third, the Enlightenment did not appear out of nowhere. It grew inside European societies that had already been shaped for centuries by Christian ideas about conscience, moral equality, and the value of the individual. The idea that every person has inherent worth did not come from ancient pagan empires. In those societies slavery was normal, infants could be abandoned, and mercy toward enemies was not considered a virtue. Christianity introduced a radical idea that every human being has equal value before God.

Fourth, Christianity grew for about three hundred years before it had any political power at all. No army. No empire. No government backing. Yet it spread across the Roman world anyway. That alone shows its growth cannot be explained only by political force.

Fifth, history shows that whenever any worldview gains political power, abuses can happen. Religious states have done it. Atheist regimes have done it. Revolutionary governments have done it. This is not a uniquely Christian problem. It is a human power problem.

So the real question is not which worldview has truth claims. Every worldview does. The real question is which worldview helped shape the modern idea that people are free to disagree openly today.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Ah. Ang "point" ko lang is ang Abrahamic beliefs is hindi tolerant sa relihiyon ng iba dahil ang pagka-structure ng belief system is exclusive lang siya which is meron "one true God". Kapag other belief system, not tolerable dahil ganun na po ang pagkastructure ng belief system nila except na dumating ang secularism, nag-adapt na po ang church po.

Ang non-Abrahamic naman katulad ng Buddhism, Taoism, dagdag Paganism, hindi sila exclusive na meron "one true God". Pluralism ang pagka-structure ng belief system kasi nila kung kaya, ang pagkakatolerate nila sa ibang beliefs is malawak. Ang Taoism, meron multiple Gods and Goddesses. Yung Buddhism, meron multiple Gods and Goddesses (actually, ang tawag sa kanila is Buddahood ~ mga lalake at babae na naka-reach ng enlightenment or meron malaki contributions in society) and then, sa Pagano, meron multiple Gods and Goddesses. Naniniwala sila in Roman Pagan na kapag maraming deities daw, maproprotektahan ang kanilang cities kung kaya, ganun sila ka-tolerant sa other deities.

Yan lang naman ang point ko.​

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Anyway, mga nagbabasa, baka sabihin na naman na I am lying or ano. Panoorin niyo ang movie na "Agora 2009" doon niyo makikita ang Pagan philosophy transition to Christian kingdom na nagkaroon ng state religion power ang Christianism. Lahat ng books ng mga Pagano at science ay sinira nila. Andoon din ang mga religious soldier. Diyan na ang panimula ng "death of the pagan" pagkatapos meron babae pagan philosopher and astronomer na ayaw niya magconform sa beliefs ng mga Christian.

History po siya. Tingnan niyo muna ang trailer po.

Yan ang itinutukoy ko na state religion power ng Christianism na umabot ng 1400 years. Sila ang itinagurian na most powerful empire. According to history. Napaka powerful empire.

Ngayon, wala na. So yun ang reason why Christian followers are billions at always no. 1 dahil historically, rooted siya dati sa political and military power as in for 1400 years.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Anyway, mga nagbabasa, baka sabihin na naman na I am lying or ano. Panoorin niyo ang movie na "Agora 2009" doon niyo makikita ang Pagan philosophy transition to Christian kingdom na nagkaroon ng state religion power ang Christianism. Lahat ng books ng mga Pagano at science ay sinira nila. Andoon din ang mga religious soldier. Diyan na ang panimula ng "death of the pagan" pagkatapos meron babae pagan philosopher and astronomer na ayaw niya magconform sa beliefs ng mga Christian.

History po siya. Tingnan niyo muna ang trailer po.

Yan ang itinutukoy ko na state religion power ng Christianism na umabot ng 1400 years. Sila ang itinagurian na most powerful empire. According to history. Napaka powerful empire.

Ngayon, wala na. So yun ang reason why Christian followers are billions at always no. 1 dahil historically, rooted siya dati sa political and military power as in for 1400 years.​

Anyway, mga nagbabasa, baka sabihin na naman na I am lying or ano. Panoorin niyo ang movie na "Agora 2009" doon niyo makikita ang Pagan philosophy transition to Christian kingdom na nagkaroon ng state religion power ang Christianism. Lahat ng books ng mga Pagano at science ay sinira nila. Andoon din ang mga religious soldier. Diyan na ang panimula ng "death of the pagan" pagkatapos meron babae pagan philosopher and astronomer na ayaw niya magconform sa beliefs ng mga Christian.

History po siya. Tingnan niyo muna ang trailer po.

Yan ang itinutukoy ko na state religion power ng Christianism na umabot ng 1400 years. Sila ang itinagurian na most powerful empire. According to history. Napaka powerful empire.

Ngayon, wala na. So yun ang reason why Christian followers are billions at always no. 1 dahil historically, rooted siya dati sa political and military power as in for 1400 years.

I think we are going in circles a bit, so let me answer the core point directly and simply.

Believing in one true God does not automatically equal intolerance. It simply means the religion believes truth is real. Every worldview does this. Even saying pluralism is better than exclusivism is already saying one idea is more true than another. That is also a truth claim.

Also, pluralism in ancient pagan societies was not the same as modern tolerance. Rome allowed many gods, yes, but only if you honored the state religion. The moment a group refused to worship the state gods, they were punished. That is exactly what happened to early Christians. That is not real religious freedom. That is “you are free as long as you agree with the system.”

About the movie Agora. A movie is not a history textbook. It is a dramatized film designed to tell a story and create emotion. Real history is much more complex than one movie scene. Libraries were destroyed many times in history by wars, riots, and political conflicts long before and after Christianity. Blaming the entire 1400 years of history on one religion oversimplifies a very messy human story.

And about Christianity spreading only because of power. Christianity spread for around three centuries before it had any political power at all. No army. No empire. No government support. Yet it kept growing. That matters.

Yes, Christianity later became tied to political power. That is true. But that has happened to many belief systems in history. When any worldview gains power, humans can misuse it. That is a human problem, not proof that the belief itself is false.

So the question is still the same. If Christianity only spread by force, why did it grow so fast when it had no power at the beginning? That part of history cannot be ignored.