You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
If you take a step back and appraise the Catholic church as a business, it sure is one heck of a business model.
It is also the largest charitable organisation in the world.
It's got one heck of a balance sheet for a charity.
A very small selection of countries there in the OECD report Politecamera action, that the countries actually compile stats suggests Christian morals in those societies. You also need to consider the proportion of people with a Christian upbringing in each of those countries. France rightly refuses to compile stats by ethnie or origin on many crimes but when it comes to forced marriage there's a governement web page and you only have to read through to see which communities its aimed at:
https://arretonslesviolences.gouv.fr/besoin-d-aide/mariage-force
If you take a step back and appraise the Catholic church as a business, it sure is one heck of a business model.
It is also the largest charitable organisation in the world. Which if assessed by the standards of other charities would surely be considered corrupt
I had the same thought about ten seconds after entering
But clearly did no further examination other that a relatively simplistic view. While the new testament is generally anti-wealth, it does also place value on art and craftmanship. Every cathedral acknowledges this duality, even the people building them at the time understood the contradiction. Do you "glorify" God with art and precious works? Stained glass can be both art and cartoons to tell people what's going on...The reformation took nearly all the 'beauty' from English churches, repainting the walls plain white, and at the time from the writing that exists from the normal Joe in the street, it was really unpopular. So what to do?
Look at the rebuilding of Notre Dame after the fire a couple of years ago, nearly everyone in France thought it was a national disaster, the rebuilding to as original as possible was supported by an overwhelming majority of people, they must all be suckers, right?
While the new testament is generally anti-wealth, it does also place value on art and craftmanship.
Where did you stand on Boris Johnson’s decoration and furniture bill?
While the new testament is generally anti-wealth, it does also place value on art and craftmanship.
Where did you stand on Boris Johnson’s decoration and furniture bill?
I wondered how so much money could result in something so cheap and tacky looking
just to point out there is no single Christian morality
Catholic morality is very different from other strands
this is an example of Catholic morality I am fighting with. On being asked why did she want folk to suffer at the end of their life
Yes because if one believes that suffering is preperation for eternal life and will make up for our wrongdoings . .everyone has done them .I have seen friends and family who have been granted that time to prepare and go back to God .....We dont know whats on the other side but personally I dontwant to take the risk because a few months is nothing compared to eternity .
they object to assisted dying because they believe suffering is necessary to enter heaven and want to impose this morality on the secular.
Earnie
it was needed to point out that morality predates Christianity because Edukator was falsely claiming that morality comes from christianity
* if you want to ensure a lifelong suspicion of or active hostility to organised religion, then giving someone a catholic education is a good place to start
Amen to that!
Where did you stand on Boris Johnson’s decoration and furniture bill?
The rules he broke were designed to lend clarity to who pays for them, not that he couldn't have some-one pay for them. As for his wife's taste, it's not mine, beyond that; mleh. This is in the same category of politicians getting tickets to watch popstars, I wish they didn't do these things, that they do; comes as no surprise.
Humans; being messy, inconstant and contradictory since forever.
Edukator was falsely claiming that morality comes from christianity
The 21stC moral relativity that you espouse; Freedom, equality, rights, punishment etc all have their origin in Christian philosophy. The idea of supernatural 'ancestors' or 3rd party 'Gods' watching over you to prevent bad behaviour is probably as old as human society. Religion probably partly explains why humans society has thrived and existed as long as it has.
The French catholic church is against euthanasia but in favour of palliatif care, the idea that the catholic church wants people to suffer is false, TJ. No different to the presbytarian church of Scotland:
https://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/about-us/our-views/end-of-life
I'm in favour of euthanasie as are catholics I know I've talked about it with, another way in which the church is out of step with the views of the faithful. 83% of French are in favour and 3-4% prepared to protest against.
With its traditions and culture anchored in the middle ages the church is losing its credibility and following, the multiple paedophile sagas further reducing credibility. What could be a force for good is increasingly seen as a force of evil (as this thread so clearly demonstates). A properly progressive Pope could change that - but don't hold you breath. Again I see a disconnect between individual faith and values, and the organisation.
it was needed to point out that morality predates Christianity because Edukator was falsely claiming that morality comes from christianity
TJ, misquoting, misrepresenting and putting words in people's mouths since he joined STW. Cue a long series of did didn' did didn't did didn't.
I have at no point stated:
Edukator was falsely claiming that morality comes from christianity
You're playing dirty, TJ. Please QUOTE ME and comment on what I said not what you invent.
Freedom, equality, rights, punishment etc all have their origin in Christian philosophy.
Nope, they have their roots in the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment was most definitely NOT a result of people deciding they wanted the Church to take a more active part in their day to day lives.
Most 'Christian' values are actually the values that emerged once people decided they had had enough of Christianity running absolutely everything.
Edukator was falsely claiming that morality comes from christianity
Religion probably partly explains why humans society has thrived and existed as long as it has.
I mean it really doesn't at all. That's a remarkably Eurocentric perspective. There are many cultures around the world that not only prospered without formalised religion, but actually suffered terribly when it was introduced to them.
another way in which the church is out of step with the views of the faithful
The Catholic Church still won’t endorse the use of contraception, and maintains that sex is purely for procreation, but you’ll be unsurprised to hear that most catholic families don’t have ten kids.
So nobody is paying the remotest attention to their ‘teachings’ on this type of nonsense. Apart from in parts of the world where having 10 kids is still a thing as a life of grinding poverty means that a fair percentage of them will die during childhood.
Yet still they bury their heads in the sand and carry on in their belief that it’s still the year 1745, as they do with a multitude of other issues
the moral code, the history, the law... they all have their roots in Christianity.
direct quote Edukator. completely false on all 3 counts
Edukator was falsely claiming that morality comes from christianity
The 21stC moral relativity that you espouse; Freedom, equality, rights, punishment etc all have their origin in Christian philosophy. The idea of supernatural 'ancestors' or 3rd party 'Gods' watching over you to prevent bad behaviour is probably as old as human society. Religion probably partly explains why humans society has thrived and existed as long as it has.
completely false. Christianity adopted existing codes that have existed and developed since we came out of the trees on the plains of Africa
morality came first. Christianity much later
I think you'll find that the enlightenment was led by people who regarded themselves as religious (christian) but were against the barbaric, superstitious, hypocritical, intolerant church. Their fight wasn't against faith it was against the institution of the church. Voltaire for example:
L'athéisme et le fanatisme sont deux monstres qui peuvent dévorer et déchirer la société. L'athée dans son erreur conserve sa raison, qui lui coupe les griffes alors que le fanatisme est atteint d'une folie continuelle.
was as virulent against aethists as he was against the church(es). But he thought belief in God essential
Check out some of those, the ones I know th eviews of made the distinction between personal faith and organised religion I made earlier in the thread
My actual quote in full, TJ.
I'm stating the blindingly obvious, you've been brought up in a continent dominated by christianity for centuries, the education you recieved embodies christian values, the moral code, the history, the law... they all have their roots in Christianity.
Nowhere do I state there was no morality before christianity, that is you putting words in my mouth.
you say they all have their roots in Christianity which is false they do not.
If you take a step back and appraise the Catholic church as a business, it sure is one heck of a business model.
Oh it’s a brilliant business model. No one finds out it’s fake until they are dead. I’m still trying to workout how they got out of paying for the rebuild of Norte dame given its a Catholic Church.
All religions seem to be very good at asking their faithful for donations but you never hear of them spending any of that money on helping their faithful out of poverty or in t8mes of natural disasters. They even expect the faithful to make more donations to maintain their buildings
It would be nice it it were false, TJ, unfortunately I'm right.
The law: the head of state is the king who is also the head of the protestant church. Unlike France there is no separation of church and state at the highest level. There are places reserved for bishops in the House of Lords.
https://www.theverdictonline.org/post/religious-influence-on-the-justice-system
Education: I went to a state junior school called St james School which I detested and developed a lifelong suspiciion of organised religion. Religion (mainly Christianity but not exclusively) permeated every school I went to or worked in and they were all state schools.
As for the moral code, I suggest reading the Daily Mail and comparing the attitudes expressed with Leviticus, Abraham etc.. 🙂
that's not fair. some religions are very good at charitable works.
Sikhism. St Vincent de Paul. Salvation Army etc
However every time I see a medieval cathedral I do think how much better off the people would have been if all that wealth had been spent on them
Educator. that's now. You claimed the roots.
the roots of morality come from evolutionary presdures when we were plains apes
the law has its roots much longer ago as well
it's a completely false premise
was as virulent against aethists as he was against the church(es). But he thought belief in God essential
Christianity, without the church, is just basic morals. Or rather, the bits that people like to attribute to Chritianity are just basic morals. Morals that existed in one form or another long before Christianity.
If you're saying basic morals are good then that's hard to argue against.
Saying that Enlightenment figures were Christians and therefore the Enlightenment is Christian is like saying Existentialism is Christian because Søren Kierkegaard was a firm believer in God.
The Enlightenment was the beginnings of a movement away from Christianity.
Nope, they have their roots in the Enlightenment.
Of course morals existed before Christianity, but this modern world's moral framework is almost entirely based of medieval philosophy - both Christian and Muslim, that was read by the enlightenment and the 20th philosophers. The enlightenment was built upon the backs of medieval Christian philosophy. Logic from Abelard, William of Ockham. Metaphysics from Aquinas, philosophy of mind from Augustine, hell, even the Latin translation of Aristotle was a Roman Christian called Boethius in the 7th C. Without their works, the enlightenment wouldn't have happened. The 21st C Westernised ethical framework of Freedom of thought, just punishment, individualism, secularism, are all based on the works of medieval Christian scholars. To say otherwise is just ignorance. After all; it exists - as an historical record. You can read it.
weren't the Romans the dominant power in Europe, western Asia and north africa in AD 0, not sure they were too moralistic.
No one finds out it’s fake until they are dead.
You don't know that the afterlife doesn't exist, y'know... I mean, I'm as atheist as the next man, and while I'm willing to bet there's nothing, I am certain that I could be wrong, because I just don't know and neither does anyone else. Some folk just like to hedge their bet is all.
At least in Scotland, the beginning of the Enlightenment is often said to be marked by the execution of Thomas Aikenhead. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Enlightenment is so strongly associated with no longer murdering people for not believing the correct thing.
People who want to push the idea of Christian values always seem desperate to separate Christianity from any kind of organised religion. I hate to tell you, but Christianity is an organised religion and it always will be.
If it wasn't an organised religion it would just be people trying to be nice.
That's not ignorance. That's just a fact. A fact that I am allowed to state because people pushed back against Christian values and won us our freedom to say such things.
nick
those medieval scholars took existing concepts .
it all existed before them. like loads of other theists stuff. they simply used what went before and claimed it as theirs.
it's a completely false premise like the Easter bunny, Holly and ivy etc.
these all existed long before christianity
weren't the Romans the dominant power in Europe, western Asia and north africa in AD 0, not sure they were too moralistic.
In what ways? The slavery? The wars of conquest?
I'm not sure if Christian societies have the best of records when it comes to slavery and wars of conquest, do you?
The enlightenment was a fight against religious dogma and the control of the churches. And yeah, I read those existentialist novels years back but you're comparing apples with pears. It is significant that it was christians fighting the catholic church but the faith or not of existentialists isn't contradictory. There was no fundamental fight between between science and faith, the battle was between science and the church institution.
One of my geology cohort was the reverand Dr Jeremy Law. We shared a house together for a couple of years. His attitude was that through geology he was getting to know the work of God better. I didn't feel the need of a God to explain what I observed so I'm agnostic unable to prove either way. Amusingly you'll note we still share a couple of other interests:
https://www.canterbury.ac.uk/people/jeremy-law
Contrary to what TJ posts I haven't stated there was no morality before christianity. I'm fully aware of the moral codes of Amerindians and other groups not influenced by christianity. I studied Lewis and Clark's journey a few years back, the natives moral code included women sharing their husbands with older women, but not eating dogs so they took the piss out of the explorers.
I've specifically replied to a member about his upbringing in (presumably British) society dominated by christianity for centuries and in which christianity still has significant influence to the point of having religious representives with guaranteed places in it's highest institutions.
Some folk just like to hedge their bet is all.
"This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts...”
Terry Pratchett
But again, you're still trying to argue that there is organised religion and then, in a completely separate room, there is religion, specifically Christianity.
You CANNOT have Christianity without the church.
If you tried to have Christianity without the church you would simply have people putting into practice ideas that enable societies to enjoy a greater level of peace and stability. Noble ideas, but absolutely nothing to do with Christianity which more often that not embodies the opposite of what it is supposed to be preaching.
Some folk just like to hedge their bet is all.
"This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts...”
Terry Pratchett
This is Pascal's wager...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
Without their works, the enlightenment wouldn't have happened. The 21st C Westernised ethical framework of Freedom of thought, just punishment, individualism, secularism, are all based on the works of medieval Christian scholars.
We can equally say those scholars wouldnt have existed without ancient Greek philosophy. There is a reason the Islamic scholars (plus Christian and Jewish scholars located in Islamic lands) had a head start on the Western Christian scholars.
So why give Christian Morality the credit? That the main growth was achieved once the power of the church was reduced suggests Christianity shouldnt really get the credit for modern ethics. Whilst good people, such as Wilberforce, were able to take strong ethical messages from Christianity there were plenty of others who didnt as the C of E slavery records demonstrate.
You CANNOT have Christianity without the church.
There was christianity without the church for about the first three hundred years. It was the romans who organised it into a church (organised religion):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity
There was christianity without the church for about the first three hundred years. It was the romans who organised it into a church (organised religion):
Well then, all you have to do is wind the clocks back 1700 years (presumably starting with NOT appointing a new Pope) and then getting rid of all these people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_the_Catholic_Church
Then all that will be needed is to get rid of the Priests.
I'm all for that but I suspect the majority of Catholics might not be.
these all existed long before christianity
of course moral philosophy existed before Christianity, the Chinese school produced IChang in 400-500BCE, or thereabouts but the output; legalism, mohism, confucius, isn't the moral code that you personally espouse is it. Secularism, feeedom of thought and so on; those things are based in medieval Christian scholarship.
christianity
secularism is based in Christianity?
really?
Secularism, feeedom of thought and so on; those things are based in medieval Christian scholarship.
Erm...
To be fair, that's not a sentence I've read before so you do get a point for originality.
Ooh, another one of these threads!
secularism is based in Christianity?
Quite possibly, yes. You're so used to a lot of Western Christian ideas that you may not be aware of how they came about. The Enlightenment didn't appear in a vacuum, it originated in Christian countries from people who had been brought up Christian and were often Christian themselves (as above). We're so used to the idea of fundamental human rights and everyone being of equal value that we forget that these ideas were spread (at least in our tradition) by Jesus and whilst to us it seems pretty basic, these were radical and dangerous ideas at the time, and that's what got him killed.
Since mediaeval times everyone in Europe has been taught that they are all equal before God. This means that no matter how low your social class, you still matter. This has fostered countless rebellions and protests over the centuries. Of course rebellion isn't uniquely European, but the foundations are different. In China the protests against bad Emperors were along the lines of 'you aren't doing your job properly' - i.e. you still have the divine right to rule over us but you're not holding up your end of the bargain therefore you're not doing what the heavens ordained you to do. In Europe this right was called into question, because all are equal before God. Of course the Church, being a human institution, becomes powerful and greedy, but there are always people protesting against it - Martin Luther uses these ideas to start the Reformation, which leads to the Enlightenment which ultimately leads to us having the freedom to be atheists at all. So yes, atheism is derived from Christianity, in a sense.
I seriously recommend you read Dominion by Tom Holland (the guy from The Rest Is History), it's a cracking read and talks all about this - that much of what we consider 'Western liberal values' are built on Christianity.
To be fair, that's not a sentence I've read before so you do get a point for originality.
No, definitely not an original thought, see above.
Then all that will be needed is to get rid of the Priests.
I'm all for that but I suspect the majority of Catholics might not be
Also not an original thought, even amongst Christians.
The Enlightenment didn't appear in a vacuum, it originated in Christian countries from people who had been brought up Christian and were often Christian themselves (as above).
Yes, in a time where not being a Christian was a good way to get murdered, it really is surprising that so many Enlightenment thinkers were Christian.
When something comes after something else it's common to say it came 'from' that thing. Sometimes that is true, often it's not.
For example, modern Germany came after Nazi Germany. It didn't come from Nazi Germany.
Western secular values came after the mysticism and dogma of the middle ages. It didn't come from it.
We're so used to the idea of fundamental human rights and everyone being of equal value that we forget that these ideas were spread (at least in our tradition) by Jesus and whilst to us it seems pretty basic, these were radical and dangerous ideas at the time, and that's what got him killed.
Again, there is this constant need to try to argue that the Christianity after the Romans formalised it bears any relation to the Christianity that came before it.
By the end of the middle-ages, Christianity had very little to do with the values people would like us all to focus on when we talk about Christian values.
molgrip.
it's all been built and developed over millenia.
the main driving force is evolutionary pressures dating back to when we were primitive hunter gatherers
religions merely co opted the ideas and usually corrupted them
It's an utter nonsense to claim that it all comes from Christianity when the concepts predate Christianity and are seen in non Christian societies and even animals
it shows just how good the theists are at propaganda that you even think this
Yes, in a time where not being a Christian was a good way to get murdered
Hmm I'm not sure it's that simple. I mean yes the Spanish Inquisition happened but not really as a backdrop to the Enlightenment.
Sure, but you can't escape the fact that all the famous Enlightenment thinkers were brought up surrounded by Christian teachings. The Enlightenment did give rise to secularism but also religious freedom. So you can ask your own questions and reach your own answers and they may or may not involve God, because that's what freedom of thought means.
But why are you allowed freedom? Because you're an individual, with rights, no matter who you are. And that idea in our society goes back to Jesus, and you can't erase that because Enlightenment thinkers knew it. You can't untangle the two things. If you think you can, then let's hear it.
secularism is based in Christianity?
really?
See, this is why these arguments are pointless, if you're ignorant* of the history of something like church/state separation as medieval thinkers saw, and understood it, why are you arguing so vehemently about X-tian ethics and morals if you don't actually know anything about the subject?
Secularism as we know it today is largely the result of the writing of Locke, William of Ockham, Talleyrand, and others but they got their ideas from the bible itself.
* non-pejoratively, but if you don't know these things, from what basis are you arguing?
It's an utter nonsense to claim that it all comes from Christianity when the concepts predate Christianity
Which concepts, specifically? What exactly do primates exhibit? I'm not sure you can attribute moral philosophy to chimps if you don't speak chimp and aren't able to interview one.
Unless you're talking about the concept of fair play? In which case, yes, primates do exhibit that in terms of personal interaction, but they will happily tear apart members of other groups or kill each others' babies and so on, so I don't think they are all that into the rights of the individual..?
From Wikipedia.
Secularism's origins can be traced to the Bible itself and fleshed out throughout Christian history into the modern era.[18] "Secular" is a part of the Christian church's history, which even has secular clergy since the medieval period.[19][20][21] Furthermore, secular and religious entities were not separated in the medieval period, but coexisted and interacted naturally.[22][23] Significant contributions to principles used in modern secularism came from prominent theologians and Christian writers such as St. Augustine, William of Ockham, Marsilius of Padua, Martin Luther, Roger Williams, John Locke and Talleyrand.[24]
Do some reading FFS, this is just a re-run of when I told you that religious fundamentalists in 17thC were largely responsible for the concept in England of "one man one vote"
Do some reading FFS
This. Challenge yourself, test your ideas, develop, grow.
The end of the dark ages and the beginning of the Enlightenment is marked by the execution of Thomas Aikenhead. I think it's telling that the last execution for blasphemy marks the beginning of this new age, don't you?
The founders of modern Germany were brought up surrounded by Nazism. Does that mean the foundations of modern Germany are the Third Reich?
The Enlightenment may have started with universal literacy brought about so that people could read the bible, but the unfortunate byproduct of literacy is that you can read other stuff as well as the Bible which people started doing during the Enlightenment.
And again, what relevance did the strict hierarchical structures of the middle ages have to do with the Christianity of pre-Roman times which is the strawman you insist on holding up as being representative of Christian values? The Christianity of the dark ages was about controlling the population through ignorance and mysticism. The Enlightenment changed that because ideas could be exchanged outside the rigid structures imposed by Christianity.
Again, 'coming after' something and 'coming from' something are two very different things.
Or perhaps I've just been reading the 'wrong' books.
what the people you claim invented morality did was codify existing behaviours. Behaviours developed by evolutionary pressures.
the did not invent it. morality developed over millennia
So why give Christian Morality the credit?
I give credit to the people who came up with the framework on which 21stC ethics and morals [as we express them] are based. As I've said in other posts, of course moral philosophy existed before Christians. But the way that a modern western secular society, such as the UK is based now with the emphasis on Individual freedoms (thought and action), separation of church and state, democracy, and so on are directly attributable to the writings of European X-tian philosophers from the 7thC onward. That's un historical fact, deal with it as you want
equally. apply a little critical thinking. Read some philosophy. learn a little
look at the science
it's utter nonsense to claim that behaviours that predate Christianity. that are seen in pre Christian and non Christian societies where invented by Christians
what these people did was codify it and write it down. they did not invent it
these behaviours developed from evolutionary pressures
and so on are directly attributable to the writings of European X-tian philosophers from the 7thC onward. That's un historical fact, deal with it as you want
Yes, the idea that these concepts didn't exist before European Christians in the middle ages came up with them is an un-historical fact.
you are talking about a codified moral code
I am talking about the behaviours we see as moral
the behaviours came first
morality developed over millennia
You can certainly claim that concepts like co-operation are based in evolution, but co-operation can be expressed as "we agree that we'll kill that 3rd person, because then we'll have more food" right? You'd be hard pressed to persuade an archaeologist that pressure in the form of opprobrium from 'ancestors' or 'Gods' didn't influence ancient tribal behaviour
Organised religion has been the root of a huge number of evils since time began. And it still is. Religion itself and faith is not a bad thing. Using it to justify your actions at the expense of others is not. And hence why I'm not a big fan or organised religion.
Religion would be great if the message from above was live and let live, do whatever you want to be happy, just remember not to be a dick to other people.
On the pope specifically, he may have headed the Catholic church, and he could have done more to reform it. But you have to remember this is in the context of an institution that has been around for many hundreds of years, he was in charge for about 8 and was taking things in the right direction imo. That said he doesn't get a free pass on the child abuse stuff.
Does no one else think it's a bit weird that people are insisting that the ideas that came out of the middle ages were Christian because Christians wrote them down?
Have a wee think for a moment about just how successful your writing career would have been in the middle ages as a non-Christian in Europe.
Or even as a Christian who believed the wrong thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wightman
morality developed over millennia
You can certainly claim that concepts like co-operation are based in evolution, but co-operation can be expressed as "we agree that we'll kill that 3rd person, because then we'll have more food" right?
wrong and shows a basic lack of understanding and critical thinking
then that trbie fails because it no longer has the manpower it needs to get the next food supply organised.
the gods come after the behaviour develop as a rationale for those behaviours
medieval superstions have nothing to do with the invention of morality. morality was not invented. it developed as people exhibiting the behaviours we see as moral were more successful millenia before christianity
religion is a tool to control and oppress wielded by the powerful
directly attributable to the writings of European X-tian philosophers from the 7thC onward. That's un historical fact, deal with it as you want
Once again it is also a fact that most of those Christian philosophers writings are dependant on older traditions. Giving the credit to Christianity is odd.
It is also a historical fact that it was only with the reduction in power of the Church that we saw a flourishing of thought.
it's utter nonsense to claim that behaviours that predate Christianity. that are seen in pre Christian and non Christian societies where invented by Christians
I didn't say who invented anything. Ideas aren't invented, they are developed and promoted.
Can you explain precisely what ideas you are talking about? I'm talking about the primacy of the individual and the idea that ALL humans are equal, even your enemies. Can you demonstrate philosophical movements that promote the idea of 'love/forgive your enemy"? Most people seem to fight their enemies.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:43–45)
Can you show who else taught that before Jesus (or indeed, Matthew if you prefer)? Can you show other evidence of this being promoted?
In China the protests against bad Emperors were along the lines of 'you aren't doing your job properly' - i.e. you still have the divine right to rule over us but you're not holding up your end of the bargain therefore you're not doing what the heavens ordained you to do. In Europe this right was called into question, because all are equal before God
That is a rather gross simplification. Chinese rebels over the years also challenged the mandate of heaven although, admittedly, if they won generally changed their mind on the subject. There are quotes from 200bc challenging it.
In Europe the divine right of kings had strong support from both Catholics and protestants although, equally, it also had opposition from both. Its why Charles lost his head and why James failed to gather support when the Dutch invaded.
So the question is why should we believe the "all are equal before God" is the Christian morality vs the divine right of kings which was in play for a lot longer?
Can you show who else taught that before Jesus (or indeed, Matthew if you prefer)? Can you show other evidence of this being promoted?
Here's my 10 seconds of googling:
No, the Bible was not the first text to suggest loving one's enemies. The concept of loving or forgiving enemies, rather than hating them, existed in various ancient cultures long before the Bible was written. For example, the "Counsels of Wisdom" from ancient Babylon (circa 2000 BC) included phrases like "Do not return evil to the man who disputes with you; requite with kindness your evil-doer... smile on your adversary.". The Buddhist scripture "Dhammapada" also includes the idea that "hate never dispels hate, only love dispels hate.".
again molgrips you are coming from the wrong direction. that's the words not the actions.
I am talking about the behaviours we see as moral that have developed by evolutionary pressures not the after the fact codifying of them.
Educator. that's now. You claimed the roots.
I was replying to a member about his own background which is probably the last 60ish years to now.
I'm arguing in good faith, TJ. Either you are not reading, not understanding deliberately acting in bad faith.
The founders of modern Germany were brought up surrounded by Nazism. Does that mean the foundations of modern Germany are the Third Reich?
In many ways the answer is disappointingly yes. Just as in France the purges were far from complete and many Vichy France actors continued in their roles, so in Germany the Nazis found their places in the DDR and BDR institutions. The transition from Nazi to Stasi was remarkably fluid. Do some Googling in French and German. Madame Edukator's doctorate was on the Dijon Maquis and their role in post war politics - thier influence was short-lived and Vichy sysmpathisers were often soon back in business (I proof read it half a dozen times, I know what it was about). People don't change their views and attitudes overnight, the Nazi/Vichy propaganda had done its stuff. The RN and AfD are currently polling rather well... . Despite the efforts to deNazify Germany with post-war films, propaganda and purges (see link below) many Nazis found there place in post war Germany and Nazi attitudes have continued to simmer.
https://www.mdr.de/geschichte/ddr/politik-gesellschaft/entnazifizierung-nazis-in-der-ddr-100.html
In many ways the answer is disappointingly yes. Just as in France the purges were far from complete and many Vichy France actors continued in their roles, so in Germany the Nazis found their places in the DDR and BDR institutions. The transition from Nazi to Stasi was remarkably fluid.
Exactly. One came after the other with the transition being fluid. Much like the transition from ignorance and dogma to the current secular western world we now live in.
This is what I mean when I talk about the difference between 'comes from' and 'comes after'.
Unless you are arguing that modern Germany is founded on the values of National Socialism in the same way many here are trying to argue the modern Western world is founded on the values of Christianity?
I have my values... to accuse me of having 'christian' vaues is just abject nonsence, and frankly, deeply offensive - but you know this and I suspect you are trying desperately to get a rise.
I'm really not being offensive or trying to get a rise, I'm stating the blindingly obvious, you've been brought up in a continent dominated by christianity for centuries, the education you recieved embodies christian values, the moral code, the history, the law... they all have their roots in Christianity.
This appears to be going the way all STW religion threads go. 🙁
Goodnight, and may your God go with you (if you feel the need for one, fine if you don't)
that's the full quote
law history and morality all have their roots in christianity
I am talking about the behaviours we see as moral that have developed by evolutionary pressures not the after the fact codifying of them.
Like what?
Traditionally, people co-operated within their own group and fought against everyone else. Our people good, those people bad. They hurt us, we hurt them. Jesus explicitly disagreed with this, BECAUSE we are all God's children. This was not what had been believed even in the Old Testament. It was the norm in ancient times for your own God to be just for your people and not for anyone else just like in the OT. Because this is actually what human nature is. That's why many Christians haven't really followed these teachings.
Evolutionary pressure created the human nature that is responsible for most of the bad things in the world - hating your enemies - and Jesus tried to stop that. He failed, of course, and bad stuff continued to be done in his name by most people BUT some groups tried to promoted these ideas and eventually they led to stuff like the abolition of slavery and universal human rights. There's a direct line between Jesus and human rights movements, in my opinion. I can't claim that Christianity is the only source of these ideas, it's just what I'm familiar with.
For example, the "Counsels of Wisdom" from ancient Babylon
Just to be clear - I'm not claiming Jesus invented these ideas - I've no evidence to suggest he did. But I strongly suspect that Enlightenment thinkers were much more influenced by the Christianity with which they were indoctrinated from birth than they were from ancient Babylonian texts that were probably not readable if they'd even been discovered at the time?
Unless you are arguing that modern Germany is founded on the values of National Socialism in the same way many here are trying to argue the modern Western world is founded on the values of Christianity?
I phrase it differenly Bruce, the modern Western world has developped within the framework of christianity.
I can't claim that Christianity is the only source of these ideas, it's just what I'm familiar with.
Well, you were claiming that less than half a page ago.
Or rather, you were asking for evidence which I provided after about 10 seconds of googling which suggests that list isn't exhaustive.
Christianity did not come up with any new ideas. Even the pre-Roman Christianity that everyone like to present as being the 'true' Christianity because trying to defend post-Roman Christianity is impossible was still just promoting ideas that had probably been around since people started cooperating in agricultural societies. And perhaps before that but if I had to guess I would assume farming was the catalyst to really push the idea of maintaining peace at all costs.
I phrase it differenly Bruce, the modern Western world has developped within the framework of christianity.
You phrase it differently but it still means the same thing. The Western World was developed in the framework of Christianity because if you wanted to exist you had no choice but to do so within the framework of Christianity.
If you wanted to exist outside the framework of accepted Christianity then that existence was going to be very short and violent.
Here is another 10 seconds of googling:
The concept of "turning the other cheek," or actively choosing not to retaliate against aggression, had roots in various pre-Christian cultures and philosophical traditions. While not always expressed in the same way as in the teachings of Jesus, these pre-Christian ideas emphasize themes like forgiveness, non-violent resistance, and the importance of maintaining one's dignity even in the face of adversity.Here are some examples of these principles:1. Forgiveness and non-retaliation in Ancient Egypt:
- Egyptian texts, such as the "Dialogue of a Man with His Ba," advocate for forgiveness and understanding rather than seeking revenge. This philosophy emphasizes that anger and retribution are ultimately self-destructive and harmful.
2. Philosophical concepts of non-violent resistance in Ancient Greece:
- The teachings of figures like Socrates, who chose to face death with dignity rather than flee or fight, highlight the importance of choosing to be virtuous even in the face of injustice. This aligns with the idea of turning the other cheek by choosing to resist the urge to retaliate or yield to injustice.
3. Buddhist principles of compassion and non-violence:
- Ancient Buddhist texts emphasize the importance of compassion, non-harming (ahimsa), and the cultivation of inner peace. These principles can be seen as a precursor to turning the other cheek by emphasizing the importance of choosing non-violence even when faced with harm.
4. Stoic philosophy of resilience and acceptance:
- Stoic philosophy, which emphasizes the importance of virtue and accepting one's fate, can also be interpreted as a form of turning the other cheek. By focusing on what is within one's control (one's own actions and reactions), Stoics were less likely to become consumed by anger or resentment towards external forces or individuals.
5. "An eye for an eye" vs. "turning the other cheek":
- The principle of "an eye for an eye" (lex talionis), which is found in the Torah, represents a concept of retribution, where the punishment should be proportional to the offense. However, some interpretations of this principle, particularly in the context of Jesus' teachings, suggest that "turning the other cheek" offers a path toward forgiveness and non-violent resistance that goes beyond simply matching harm with harm.
In summary: While the specific terminology of "turning the other cheek" might not be present in all pre-Christian cultures, the underlying concepts of forgiveness, non-violent resistance, and the importance of maintaining one's dignity in the face of adversity can be found across various philosophical and religious traditions.The idea that Enlightenment figures would not have been able to find the idea of forgiveness anywhere but the Bible is ridiculous, I'm afraid.
Well, you were claiming that less than half a page ago.
I think I said that Enlightenment thinkers got the idea from Jesus promoting them. I don't know where Jesus got them from but I don't think it matters here. In any case, that's my point. The secular society we live in today has drawn its ideas from Christianity, which may have drawn them from elsewhere I have no idea. Christianity clearly has a role because I don't think Rousseau or Locke were ancient Babylonian scholars, were they?