MovieChat Forums > The Book of Daniel (2006) Discussion > Christianity is going to be extinct soon...

Christianity is going to be extinct soon.


Agree? Disagree?

reply

Lets define christianty here - western christianity, with its social club setting where you go to church to be seen and catch up on the latest gossip (not all western churches are like this) does seem to be on the decline. Other countries where being a christian is not only unpopular but in some cases downright illegal the church is growing. Many of those churches consider America to be a mission field now.

reply

Well I guess, techinically, in the worldly sense it might become extinct, because we'll be praising Jesus in person here in a few years.

reply

Christianity has survived the scorn of smarter people than you folks for over two thousand years. We're not going any where soon.

reply

Here in Europe Christianity is really loosing its grip. It's not because people don't believe in a god, but because the god of Christians doesn't appeal to them anymore. Countless discoveries have been made to show that there is something wrong with what Christians say (e.g.: humans are evolved apes, the earth was not made in a few days, gay's are not abnormal or sinners, and I could go on for ages). I myself like to believe in some kind of god or something else, it makes us feel less alone in this huge universe. In the early days god had a very imporant task among people, he gave some kind of law to the people so people wouldn't kill each other or rape or steal or do other things that harm sociaty. But not anymore, now people are much more organized and have there own elected authorities. Christianity needs to modernise.

To make my point clear: yes god as we now it now is on its way to extinction. But that doesn't mean an other god won't appear (people need something to believe in).

P.S: sorry for the mistakes in the sentences, but it's not my native laguage.

reply

Nah, your english was better than a lot of english natives And I completely agree with most of your points. Christianity's ideas are very antiquated in specific areas, but I don't think religion as a whole will ever go. I believe in God myself (or something higher up, in whatever form)... but I don't really buy into having a belief system that is limited (ie. in the form of an organized religion). I kinda see people as a whole drifting towards a generalized sort of compassion... but not in the name of some figurehead (such as Jesus, etc), but in the name of just improving life for everyone by our own doing. Seems to me religion busts out all of its merits in the form of fear and rewards. If you do this, HELL. If you do that, HEAVEN. Fear is not the way to produce goodness, it only exacerbates a cycle... and the overall trends in humanity show that we have yet to change our colors, no matter what religion is at the helm. So I think christianity definitely "needs to modernise." Or evolve. Because some of its ideals are so misdirected... it's vaguely ludacris in this day and age.

reply

I think you just hit the nail :p That is how I feel about the matter.

edit: I love "the book of Daniel" btw, it's really good (comparable to "desperate housewives")

reply

Christianty is not something you can "modernise". True christianity is about Jesus and Jesus is God. To think you have the authority to modernise christianity is to place God on the level of human beings, with all their flaws. God is God, the creator of the universe who knows everything. His ways are so far above the level of a human it doesn't even register on the scale. All out science and understanding isn't even on His radar. Amytime we have tried to play god we screw it up we can't do because we are totally inadequate in the wisdom department.

reply

Hi! In response to bknet's message that "Christianity is not something you can modernise"

I have to completely disagree. Christianity has changed and evolved according to the evolution of its followers. Christianity has had quite a dark past. Even though the philosophy may not have changed all that much, the religion in its practice has. There is a culture that accompanies the Word itself. Although not all subscribe to this culture, it still changes as the people change, and dictates what is preached in the Church. In the last presidential elections many pastors, ministers and priests included in their sermons the Christianly duty to vote for George Bush. For those churches that represent more liberal Christians - changes have been made to allow women as pastors and ministers, to saction the use of condoms in the shadow of AIDS, and the acceptance of homosexuality as no longer being evil. Some may say that these examples only show a change in the denominations and not the Word itself, but I disagree. Each example came to their beliefs using the same Word, yet each are confident in the righteousness of their inerpretion. Christianity relies on the interpretaion of the Word, and as the interpretations change to meet cultural paradigms, the nature of Christianity will as well - much as it already has. Whether it will become extinct, thats a good questions. How much does something have to change before it becomes something else? Beats the heck out of me!

reply

[deleted]

Everyone has their pwn interpretation of the bible, but there is only one true interpretation. Just because a group of people believe they have the correct interpretation doesn't make it so. The only reason Christianity keeps changing is because people's interpretation keeps changing. When we see Jesus after he returns everybody with a wrong interpretation is going to feel really stupid and have to change.

reply

From what I hear, Christian evangelism is growing in Europe, while watered-down forms are dying

reply

Christians haven't said anythign incorrect, you have. Your statements are ignorent at best and if you don't know the facts then don't speak.

First off, humans are not evolved from apes, even evolutionists have abandoned this theory. They now say we have a "common ancestor". Yet no common ancestors have been found and there has been no fossil evidence of them ever existing, and fossil evidence is what evolutionists have based their arguements on.

Second off, the book of Genises speeks of the earth being created in seven days. Genises was originally written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew word for day doesn't have a specified amount of time. The first day could have lasted 8 billion years or longer and still be true. Since God lives outside of time this wouldn't be very long to him anyway.

Lastly you have not proven that gays are not abnormal or sinners. They do however exhibit sinful traits and aside from theology they are poisonous to the goodwill of a society. Pshychologists have determined the following.

[Besides gays’ preoccupation with sex, traditionalist psychiatrists have catalogued a higher incidence of personality characteristics suggesting psychological disturbance and an inability to interact successfully with others. Dr. Edmond Bergler, (1) who treated over a thousand homosexuals, concluded that gays tended to: provoke attacks against themselves and then count these "attacks" as injustices they had suffered

-display defensive malice toward others,
-exhibit a flippant attitude in order to cover underlying depression and guilt,
-display extreme narcissism and superciliousness,
-refuse to acknowledge accepted standards in non-sexual matters, on the assumption that the right to cut moral corners is due homosexuals as compensation for their "suffering," and
-be generally unreliable, also of a more or less psychopathic nature.]

This was found at http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet6.html

reply

AMEN!!!!!!!!

reply


Well Said!!

I notice that in countries where Christianity used to be the predominant faith, and from where missionaries used to be sent out to evangelize, Christianity is now in decline...

And this isn't the case of Christianity alone... I'm from India, and grew up in the UAE... so I've seen times a-changing... as time passeses by our outlook broadens... and what was once considered taboo... is now socially acceptable... and this contradicts the teachings of most religions... and as we find and enjoy these pleasures we turn away from the tenets of religion...

The funny thing is that in developing countries like India and most of Africa Christianity is finding a rebirth... and more people are drawn to it with a fervor that was seldom seen before...

... and indeed we may find evangelists in America and Europe pretty soon...

Lee...
___________________
Cogito, ergo sum...

reply

Disagree. I think Christianity will become extinct with the extinction of the human race, i.e. with the second coming of Christ as King and judge. And judging by the way our world is today and the path it's continuing to follow, including by those who live under the Christian umbrella, we're not that far from being a Sodom and Gomorrah - and I think almost everyone's heard that one. But, that's just my opinion. There are many spiritual paths out there, but only one is "the way, the truth, and the life, and promises eternal salvation - Christ Jesus. We can't enter eternal life with God by being good people, we're too sinful. People "good" and the good of the omnipotent, unmoved mover, righteous creator of all that we know of as existence - God - can't even be compared. That's why we NEED Christ. We follow Christ, therefore God, because of the love he has for us - that's why he created us in the first place - and because of that powerful love through Christ, we want to love back by living according to the Word he gave us. It's as simple as that. No special mantra or act to carry out - "We love Him because He first loved us."

reply

well said howard

reply

This is my subjective opinion, and I have probably stated this point numerous times in other threads, but I believe many individuals are choosing a humanistic type theory/lifestyle to account for the choices they make in life. If I remember correctly, an individual even stated earlier in this thread that:

"Live by your own rules of right and wrong, don't be a sheep. Besides, it all comes down to personal interpretation in the end any way."

This is a clear example of the humanistic agenda. The media supports this adgenda and pushes this movement by creating shows like "The Book of Daniel" or other avenues which depict the Christian individual as a hypocritical, judgemental, and non compassionate person who has no empathy toward others but only pushes their fundemantal Christian ideals. This depiction by the media does not resemble nor represent the true characteristics of Christianity. The media chooses not to display the positive attributes of the Christian community (such as the Salvation Army and its effort to help out those effected by Katrina) but yet proudly displays the negative attributes by some... and do not represent Christianity as a whole. The problem is many are ignorant (the true meaning of the word) to the Christian faith, and instead of becoming educated and enlightened by its representation in our society, they become informed by the negative propaganda produced by our media depicting the negative imagry toward the Christian community.

Many would choose the humanistic lifestyle simply because many believe it has no consequence for the actions they choose, but rather it is only subjectively based on what one considers "right and wrong." Many choose to jump on this bandwagon because of the lack of restriction or conviction, and they will "do as they will" and without regret or circumstance. Many other countries have resorted to the humanistic lifestyle. The United States, however, is one that is in a war within itself between its culture and future. If many begin to embrace the media's negative portrayal of the Christian ideal without futher educating themselves to view the truth despite propaganda, the U.S. will also head toward a more humanistic lifestyle (I'm sure many would greet with open arms.) Our future generations may be brought up on this concept and pushed to live without taking heed to the negative attributes this provides, if not careful. Some may subjectively think there is nothing wrong with this idea. Others could easily disagree.

I do not think Christianity will diminish, but I do feel that many will abandon religion for the sake of their selfish desire. That is the true flaw and downfall of man... we are selfish and greedy by nature (or sinful to those who believe.) It isn't until Christ's return will there be a change. Until that happens, Christianity will always be threatened by worldly views.

And frankly, with all that is going on... I couldn't be more ready.

reply

" do not think Christianity will diminish, but I do feel that many will abandon religion for the sake of their selfish desire. That is the true flaw and downfall of man... we are selfish and greedy by nature (or sinful to those who believe.) It isn't until Christ's return will there be a change. Until that happens, Christianity will always be threatened by worldly views.

And frankly, with all that is going on... I couldn't be more ready. "

True - but let me add my comments on that . If we look at a secular society like Europe where the religion has pretty much lost its importance ( btw , I'm european ) , we notice that the community as a whole is dwindling , because the pursuit of non-conventional lifestyles and the growing importance of materialism has deeply affected the perception of the future , and the people are becaming indifferent to everything except themselves . That has many implications , but one is painfully obvious - the decline in the birth rates , at the same time when other - non-secular - cultures - are beginning to fill the void . So the religion is not at all abandoned as a whole - christianity is expanding in Asia and Africa - with the notable exception of the - former christian - western world .

Welcome to the Christian Board

( bashing-free )

http://com5.runboard.com/bshjihm

reply

[deleted]

Just curious , what is the difference between religion and cult , in your opinion ?

Welcome to the Christian Board

( bashing-free )

http://com5.runboard.com/bshjihm

reply

@AdMajoremDeiGloriam, so it is wrong for me to love someone and live happy? Is that selfish? So I just have to be really depressed and be alone for the rest of my life! Doesn't that sound rather selfish from your part? You get to marry the person you love and have children.

reply

Religion is a cult. It was made by men. the truth is God doesn't care about religion, he just wants us to love and follow him and get rid of petty religious rituals and standards created by men.

reply

Amen brother! 100% agree.

reply

That's poppycock!

reply

First of all, let me answer the question of whether or not Christianity is doomed to become extint. In my own humble opinion, yes. Not because of some stupid reason, like, everyone is figuring out its corrupt, or that because Jesus' second coming will end it all. No. The reason I believe Christianity is doomed to extinction, as is all current religion, is because it is human nature to abandon religions. We are evolving (note how I used "evolve" in a forum about Christianity) into more intelligent and understanding people. We are moving in the way of science. As we have been doing since science has been socially accepted. We have more proof of common things that used to astonish us as humans. We can explain why things are, and not why they might be. But here's something I have yet to hear from anyone. How do we know that science is not a religion in itself? I mean, is it not possible that science could be a new form of belief? A belief in science as opposed to God's and deities? It's a movement in human culture. Its happened before, many times throughout our history as a species. And don't try to argue with me that the earth was created some 5,000 years ago or so, because frankly, that's impossible. So in my own humble opinion, yes, Christianity as well as any other religion is doomed to fail. No matter how long it has lasted so far.

Another thing I would like to address is, please, with all sincerity, stop telling me or us, or whoever is on here that you are right in every since of the word. You make these generalizations that Jesus Christ IS "our" savior and we will all be subject to his word. It sounds like you are implying that everyone in the world is apart of the Christian faith, when in fact they are not. When you say words like "our" without explaining whether you mean us as a whole, or you as a Christian, it tends to make you sound arrogant. But hey! It sure does seem like that is the new trend in all religions these days doesn't it? So please stop with the arrogant comments such as those. I can't stress enough that people have minds of their own and just because you believe in something when they dont, you have the right to bash them and call them bad people. It's almost sickening in a sense.

I grew up in a Christian setting. I know enough about religion and history to form my own opinion. And yes, I do believe in God and Jesus and Heaven and Hell and Satan. But this doesn't give me the right to tell people that they are wrong. As a matter of fact I'm more borderline Agnostic. Which states that I don't know whether to question my beliefs, or stick with the one's I have. Where as agnostic itself is someone who doesn't know whether to believe or not. Call me a liberal (and since when has that become a cuss word?) if you may, but I believe in equal rights and freedom for all people. And when religion gets in the way of politics, I get angry. There is no way that religion should ever get in with politics..... ever!

For instance, this board. It was set up around a show that was cancelled because a few Christians felt it would put a bad name on their religion. They never saw the show. They had no right forming a conclusive statement without seeing it. But they insisted it be banned because it shows the darker side of religion. Who knows? Maybe there was a subliminal message lying under the shows breath stating that even through the worst times, and worst habits, faith always prevails. But now we'll never know will we? Because religion got in the way. Because our ideals and preferences and opinions got in the way of something that could've been helpful.

If you wanted my opinion on all of this trash, then there it is. Keep your generalizations out of it. And try to stick to fact to back up your generalizations if you have them. Because without facts, you have no REAL say in what we should do or believe. And that is that.

"How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?" -The Monarch

reply

i am a Christian and I believethe universe has been around for about 15 billion years, Earth has been around for about 4 billion, and there has been life on Earth for abount 3.5 billion. None of this contradicts the Bible either. If you want to know why I believe this then go to a library and check out the book titled "A Scientific View of Christianity". BTW. it isn't scientology bs. Feel free to email me at [email protected]

reply

Not really, it's been proven that the 235% growth rate of Islam is a myth. http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-fastest-growing.htm

It's mostly due to the great birth rates and the legal polygamy(right to marry up to 4 females)

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Only if you choose for it to be. As to this show, I think people should see it and let their children see it. Discuss it with them, let them see what is in this world so that they can do what they feel is * right* for them. They will eventually become adults. It was shown where I live and thankfully. I would rather have an informed life and choose, then not have any idea of the worlds and its happenings. As a parent knowledge gives you the tools to raise your kids with the shows like this. Something to think about.



reply

2.3 billion people in this world are christians.
14 million people in this world are Jewish.

yeah, christianity is going to be extinct any day now...




WOW.

reply

I totally agree it wont but look at Islam's 1.1billion, Christians go by the Heart Muslims go by the Sword

reply

The number of Christians in the world has more than doubled in the past 30 or so years.

There are over 2 billion Christians in the world right now and Christian missionaries are making enormous new inroads in China and Africa as we write.

Excluding all purely supernatural beliefs in the durability of Christianity, it is inevitable that Christianity will continue as an enormous and defining social force with billions of adherents for centuries to come.

Is it possible that you're coming from a somewhat topocentric perspective in which the decline of Christian belief among the middle class in many Western countries is equivalent in your mind to the decline of Christian belief in general?

What is more likely is that non-belief/atheism will radically decline and/or become extinct as a major social force in the next century or two, as the Western societies where that particular worldview is most prevalent begin to disappear through their apparent inability to reproduce - and the unbelievers are replaced by Christians from South America, Asia and Africa or Muslims from Asia and Africa. In the meantime, the remaining outposts of official, enforced atheism like China, Vietnam and Cuba will likely continue their policy of imprisoning and executing the Christian missionaries that are building large flocks within their borders. Historically such policies generally result in enormous growth in Christian numbers.

An interesting phenomenon is that at the current time Christian observance is not enforced by law by any government, while nonbelief and Islam are each enforced by a number of governments and Christian belief is actively discouraged by several more. Despite this neutral to adversarial climate, Christianity is thriving. One wonders if atheism or Islam would be as universal in North Korea or Saudi Arabia if Christians were permitted to worship and preach there.

reply

[deleted]

:DDDDDDD

VERY well said, every word! I'm sharing this with my friends. You ROCK, BudGgaL!

(Yog-Sothoth was cold, but his suckers GROPE.)

--
Zeke Krahlin
http://www.gay-bible.org

reply

"You can lie, cheat, steal, fornicate, hate your neighbor, blow up abortion clinics, beat up fags, and STILL go to Heaven."

In other words, you're not clear on the concept of what Christianity is. One of the usual complaints by non-Christians about Christianity, for example, is that it disapproves of sexual intercourse outside of marriage, i.e. fornication. In fact, in the Christian New Testament, Paul of Tarsus specifically states that fornicators will not go to heaven.

"Plus on top of it all you get to gloat and sneer at anyone who doesn't agree with your beliefs."

You haven't met too many professing Christians, most likely. Outside of unapologetically Christian communities like non-urban white communties in the South and African-American and Hispanic communities there and elsewhere, the typical response to an individual openly identifying as a Christian is gloating and sneering. This is, of course, reinforced by stereotyped portrayals of Christians in movies and on television.

BTW, I understand that you are not a serious interlocutor, but I comment anyway out of courtesy.

reply

An interesting phenomenon is that at the current time Christian observance is not enforced by law by any government, while nonbelief and Islam are each enforced by a number of governments and Christian belief is actively discouraged by several more. Despite this neutral to adversarial climate, Christianity is thriving. One wonders if atheism or Islam would be as universal in North Korea or Saudi Arabia if Christians were permitted to worship and preach there.


If the level of education and the ability to think for oneself in North Korea was just as high as it is in Western countries, and there were just as many Christian as Islamic missionaries, I highly doubt there would be a significant difference between people converted to Christianity and Islam. Furthermore, education and the ability to think for oneself will prevent the rise of Christianity and Islam in countries without any historic traditions with those religions. But of course this is al just theory; when the communist regime finally falls the North Koreans are highly uneducated and have the same ability to think for themselves as sheep, so they will be easy targets for charismatic western fanatics who promise a far better life after this one.

My predictions:
In Western-Europe: Christianity will almost die out, Islam will become bigger (but certainly not 50+%)
3d world countries: Islam and Christianity will continue to grow. The fastest growing religion will be the one that is the most persistent, has the most missionairies (and funds), and has the ability to 'discover' and 'open' new 'markets'
US: difficult... It will probably become even more conservative and religious (= Christian)

reply

______________________________________________________________________________
If the level of education and the ability to think for oneself in North Korea was just as high as it is in Western countries, and there were just as many Christian as Islamic missionaries, I highly doubt there would be a significant difference between people converted to Christianity and Islam.
_______________________________________________________________________________

I doubt it. Islam generally gains converts by the sword and not by persuasion, while Christianity has historically used both but has been far more successful with the latter. Islam is easier to understand and has more of an appeal to gut human instincts than Christianity does - Christianity's ethical demands like monogamy and forgoing of revenge are far more stringent and counterintuitive than Islam's. It will be interesting to watch.

_______________________________________________________________________________
Furthermore, education and the ability to think for oneself will prevent the rise of Christianity and Islam in countries without any historic traditions with those religions.
_______________________________________________________________________________



Christianity has historically thrived in such conditions - worldwide in a neutral environment, the better one's education, the more likely one is to convert to Christianity. Generally those most resistant to and suspicious of education are the ones who hew to "the old ways" - Christianity was an urban phenomenon in the Roman Empire and it swept through the educated upper classes like wildfire. That precise etiology is replicating itself in modern Africa. And Christianity is spreading most swiftly through the "new entrepreneurial class" of China - as well-educated and independent-minded a bunch as you can find in contemporary China.


________________________________________________________________________________
But of course this is al just theory; when the communist regime finally falls the North Koreans are highly uneducated and have the same ability to think for themselves as sheep, so they will be easy targets for charismatic western fanatics who promise a far better life after this one.
________________________________________________________________________________


North Koreans are relatively well-educated - it's just that their education intentionally has specific gaps. I would assume that the denominations popular among South Koreans, like Presbyterianism, Pentecostalism and Catholicism will be successful in NK as well if NK becomes free.


________________________________________________________________________________
In Western-Europe: Christianity will almost die out, Islam will become bigger (but certainly not 50+%)
________________________________________________________________________________


Christianity is dead in Western Europe already. Once Islam becomes 30% of the population, the inevitable Islamic calculus will come into play - with such critical mass, Islam will either push to Islamicize the rest of the population by the sword or will fail to do so. My guess is that increased aggression by militant Islam in Europe will reenergize the Warsaw pact countries as Christian cultures and that Italy and Spain may be reenergize as well. France, Germany and Britain are most likely permanently lost to Christianity at this point.


________________________________________________________________________________
3d world countries: Islam and Christianity will continue to grow. The fastest growing religion will be the one that is the most persistent, has the most missionairies (and funds), and has the ability to 'discover' and 'open' new 'markets'
________________________________________________________________________________


A good assessment. It will come down to a competition by the House of Saud and the Iranian mullahs on one side with the Vatican and the Southern Baptists of the USA on the other. The ability of the new Pope to restore internal discipline and the ability of the mullahs to go nuclear without being toppled are of incredible historical significance.

________________________________________________________________________________
US: difficult... It will probably become even more conservative and religious (= Christian)
________________________________________________________________________________

Most likely, because it will become extremely apparent in the next few decades that it is the more orthodox religious people in the US who are having children and caring for other peoples' castoff children through foster care and adoption. Confirmed nonbelievers marry less and marry later and have fewer children. Believers are the opposite - this reality is currently playing out in miniature in Israel, where Orthodox Jews steadily increase as a percentage of the population, having two children for every one child born to a secular Israeli.

reply

"One wonders if atheism or Islam would be as universal in North Korea or Saudi Arabia if Christians were permitted to worship and preach there."


good point WillF, many Christians in China are being prosecuted

reply

Simple answer, Christianity will be all but extinct in the majority of the western world (excluding mexico and south america), in about four to six generations from now.

As for the rest of the world, that depends on their development as nations. The longer a country is kept in poverty, the longer Christianity will have its hold on people. As a rough guess, if the status quo remains, Id estimate Christianity to be prominent within the entire world for another 400-500 or so years. Could be more, could be less. Who knows what will happen in that timeframe.

But it wont last, I can guarantee you that.

reply

________________________________________________________________________________
The longer a country is kept in poverty, the longer Christianity will have its hold on people.
________________________________________________________________________________


In point of fact, Christianity correlates highly with prosperity, not poverty. In Africa and China Christians are generally better educated and wealthier than the average person. Historically, organized Christianity has been a poverty-destroying cultural engine, while organized atheism has been a poverty-creating mechanism of unparalleled speed and intensity.

reply

In point of fact, Christianity correlates highly with prosperity, not poverty. In Africa and China Christians are generally better educated and wealthier than the average person. Historically, organized Christianity has been a poverty-destroying cultural engine, while organized atheism has been a poverty-creating mechanism of unparalleled speed and intensity.

At this stage of the discussion "christianity" becomes too broad a term. Classical Protestantism (due to the associated work ethic) correlates positively with wealth creation. Catholicism, on the other hand, does not (e.g. Latin America). Since the Protestant work ethic has permeated the secular frame of thought in many developed countries, it could be argued that particular feature of religion is no longer necessary (but that's a separate, longer discussion for a different forum). Just one thought, look at the US and compare GDP per capita in the "G-dless" blue states with the Bible Belt and other red states.

reply

________________________________________________________________________________
At this stage of the discussion "christianity" becomes too broad a term. Classical Protestantism (due to the associated work ethic) correlates positively with wealth creation. Catholicism, on the other hand, does not (e.g. Latin America). Since the Protestant work ethic has permeated the secular frame of thought in many developed countries, it could be argued that particular feature of religion is no longer necessary (but that's a separate, longer discussion for a different forum).
________________________________________________________________________________


Your Catholicism/Protestantism distinction is facile and generally inaccurate. The Catholic city states of Italy were the most radically successful wealth-creating entities in Western history and it took Protestant England two centuries and Protestant Germany three to catch up. Modern economic theory was created in Catholic Spain by friars. The US is not and has never been an exclusively Protestant society and America's transformation from a largely agricultural to a fully industrialized society was concurrent with the radical increase of Catholics as a percentage of the US population.

Additionally, Catholic Latin America was an economic powerhouse until the disease of socialism blighted its progress. In 1900, Argentina and the US had comparable GDP per capita. But the US was willing to take stringent measures to crush nascent socialism at that time, while Argentine authorities were naively more conciliatory. History shows what a deleterious effect that initial misstep had.

________________________________________________________________________________
Just one thought, look at the US and compare GDP per capita in the "G-dless" blue states with the Bible Belt and other red states.
________________________________________________________________________________


One would do well to note the discrepancy in the cost of living in the respective states, to acknowledge that many Bible Belt states were economically destroyed after the Civil War, and also to notice how much the GDP of the two have converged as the blue states have become progressively less religious.

I'll also point out that GDP per capita in states like NC, TX and TN is higher than GDP per capita in such bastions of freethinking as Germany, Sweden, England and France.

reply

Your Catholicism/Protestantism distinction is facile and generally inaccurate. The Catholic city states of Italy were the most radically successful wealth-creating entities in Western history and it took Protestant England two centuries and Protestant Germany three to catch up.

True, but that was before the industrial revolution, which arguably changed the paradigm.
Admittedly, the Weberian link between protestantism & wealth is not flawless (as proven by the economic growth in non-christian East Asian countries). However, within the realm of christendom, my money is on (some, not all) the protestants.


Modern economic theory was created in Catholic Spain by friars.

I have to ask for your source on this one. Having studied economics for 2/3 of my life, my impression has always been that England first and then the US had the edge on this field.
Moreover, the Catholic Spain that "discovered" America (thus gaining access to its gold and silver) ran its own economy into the ground in just a few decades, while England thrived.

The US is not and has never been an exclusively Protestant society and America's transformation from a largely agricultural to a fully industrialized society was concurrent with the radical increase of Catholics as a percentage of the US population.

That sounds a bit "post hoc ergo propter hoc", but I'll accept it for argument's sake. As I stated before, the protestant work ethic permeated the secular environment. As far as I can tell (and I admit I'm working on anecdotal evidence here) US Catholics abide by said protestant ethic.

Additionally, Catholic Latin America was an economic powerhouse until the disease of socialism blighted its progress. In 1900, Argentina and the US had comparable GDP per capita. But the US was willing to take stringent measures to crush nascent socialism at that time, while Argentine authorities were naively more conciliatory. History shows what a deleterious effect that initial misstep had.

I would instead say that Latin America did well while wealth was derived primarily from agricultural commodities. Argentina's GDP was the result of being a breadbasket. When focus shifted to higher value-added products that call for industrial development, the tide shifted. No need to take my word for it, Carlos Diaz Alejandro wrote extensively about this.

reply

______________________________________________________________________________
However, within the realm of christendom, my money is on (some, not all) the protestants.
______________________________________________________________________________


I'll point out that Ireland, Spain and Poland have been far outstripping the traditionally Protestant countries in economic growth and procuctivity in the postwar period. There is nothing inherent in Protestant theology that places a stronger value on a day's honest work than in Catholic theology.


_______________________________________________________________________________
I have to ask for your source on this one.

_______________________________________________________________________________


I'll give as quick a precis as I can. In the medieval period economic theory fixated on the notion of "the just price." Certain scholastics believed that there was an inherently just fioxed price for any given good or service while others, like Thomas Aquinas and Henry of Ghent, speculated that just price was variable and based on "common estimation" of a good's value in the open market.

A group of Spanish scholastics at the University of Salamanca in the mid-1500s did much ground-breaking work on economics by defending the Aquinas view - Aquinas' most respected commentator Cajetan said that the just price was "the one, which at a given time, can be gotten from the buyers, assuming common knowledge and in the absence of all fraud and coercion". In other words, a free and liquid market in goods. Diego Covarrubias followed Cajetan and came up with the idea that the buyers' demand interacted with supply of goods to influence price. Francisco garcia followed this by asserting that money in itself was a good like any other and that its relative scarcity was a factor in determining price. Martin Navarro followed this by describing inflation in the money supply and warning the Spanish crown that importing and hoarding precious metals would not necessarily increase wealth. Tomas Mercado, Comingo Banez and Luis Molina developed this analysis further, but no one outside the academy was listening.

Because Molina and Cajetan had great reputations outside of Spain, they were studied widely in France and Italy throughout the 1600s. The groundbreaking work by Italian economist Galiani - whose work inspired the economic research of Condillac and Turgot - specifically cited the analysis of Cajetan, Covarrubias and Mercado. The work of Condillac famously inspired Quesnay and his Physiocrat school of French economists. Richard Cantillon the Irish banker living in France, wrote his essay on trade around the same time as Condillac wrote and there are clear influences of Galiani in both writers, and both were educated in Catholic schools where Cajetan and Molina were common currency.

Cantillon and the Physiocrats famously inspired Adam Smith and the circle is complete. I will also point out that Menger, whose theory of marginal utility created the Austrian school of economic analysis championed by von Mises, was also a student of the Salamanca school. De Roover and Grice-Hutchinson are good secondary sources on all this.


_______________________________________________________________________________
Argentina's GDP was the result of being a breadbasket.
_______________________________________________________________________________


As was America's. My point is that the reason was not that Argentines were just a bunch of lazy Catholics, but because the political situation in Argentina degenerated. My knowledge of Alejandro only extends to his analysis of public guarantees on private debt and the distortionary effects they have on an economy.


reply

First, thanks for your brief yet detailed explanation of Spain's contribution to economics. I have (of course) a few comments on the subject, but we've probably deviated far enough from the original topic by now, so I'll let it rest. Again, I appreciate the time you took to write the precis.

My point is that the reason was not that Argentines were just a bunch of lazy Catholics, but because the political situation in Argentina degenerated.

I wouldn't call the Argentines a bunch of lazy Catholics either (I'd be insulting myself if I did, BTW). My point was that in traditional agriculture, natural resources often are the most relevant cause of (static) comparative advantage. When industry "replaces" agriculture, (dynamic) comparative advantage and man-made factors move to the forefront. I'm oversimplifying, but I'm sure you understand what I mean.

reply

[deleted]