Development of morality since Christianity

[_Buffalo]

Aristotle, where are you getting that slavery "died out" as a legitimate practice after the sunset of the Roman empire? What evidence do you have that Christian doctrine played a role, given the Bible's support for slavery from beginning to end? You might argue that the chaos following the dissolution of the area's greatest single power might have made it more difficult to trade in slaves - but the same holds true for all commerce.

Please note that my argument is not that Christians had no hand in ending injustice, only that they did it based on evolving secular ideas, not the Bible.

Regarding racial discrimination, yes of course, Christians like MLK took a role against other Christians in fighting racism. But you'll not find any condemnation of racism in Christianity's founding documents either. It's a brand new moral.

Infanticide is common in certain areas of the world, but much less common than it used to be. Please save me your pap about fetuses being babies, though (abortion is also going down as well, however). Christians, contrary to your assertion, practiced infanticide extensively up until the last few hundred years. Jewish law permitted it as well.

My post mentioned nothing about atheism. Thanks for your emotionally-drenched, uninformed, reason-free response, though! Loved the big old strawman at the end.

[_Darth J]

Same with torture, once a ubiquitous practice.

Torture is still a ubiquitous practice, but of course it begs the question what "torture" is. Unnecessary strip searches, which the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld as constitutionally valid, is psychological torture. If anyone thinks differently, you be sure to tell me so after you have to take off all your clothes and expose your various orifices to a stranger with badges after you're arrested because there's a warrant out for you because of an unpaid parking ticket you forgot about.

Or solitary confinement. Or sleep deprivation. Or strip cells. Or restraining inmates in chairs for hours at a time. All of these have been routinely practiced in police stations, jails, and prisons right here in the post-Enlightenment United States.

And there is the good old-fashioned physical torture, which is practiced in both religious (e.g., Iran, Saudi Arabia) and atheist (e.g., China, North Korea) countries.

That's before we even talk about our post-Enlightenment waterboarding adventures.

So what was the factual basis for the assertion that the secular aspects of the Enlightenment---which of course can be discretely separated from the religious influences---made torture no longer ubiquitous?

[_Darth J]

But you'll not find any condemnation of racism in Christianity's founding documents either. It's a brand new moral.

Uh huh.

Luke 10

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

The Samaritans were a different ethnic group that the Jews thought were beneath them.

Acts 10

9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?

22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.

24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends.

25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

And there might be something about a black African eunuch being one of the early converts to this new Jewish sect.

[_Buffalo]

Same with torture, once a ubiquitous practice.

Torture is still a ubiquitous practice, but of course it begs the question what "torture" is. Unnecessary strip searches, which the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld as constitutionally valid, is psychological torture. If anyone thinks differently, you be sure to tell me so after you have to take off all your clothes and expose your various orifices to a stranger with badges after you're arrested because there's a warrant out for you because of an unpaid parking ticket you forgot about.

Or solitary confinement. Or sleep deprivation. Or strip cells. Or restraining inmates in chairs for hours at a time. All of these have been routinely practiced in police stations, jails, and prisons right here in the post-Enlightenment United States.

And there is the good old-fashioned physical torture, which is practiced in both religious (e.g., Iran, Saudi Arabia) and atheist (e.g., China, North Korea) countries.

That's before we even talk about our post-Enlightenment waterboarding adventures.

So what was the factual basis for the assertion that the secular aspects of the Enlightenment---which of course can be discretely separated from the religious influences---made torture no longer ubiquitous?

It speaks to the great strides that have been made that this is now the standard of torture. As opposed to this:



Or this:



Or this:



Or this:

[_Aristotle Smith]

Please note that my argument is not that Christians had no hand in ending injustice, only that they did it based on evolving secular ideas, not the Bible.

Buffulo, this right here is why your arguments tend to be completely idiotic.

What you are basically saying is that one can ignore Christian influence because it is always REALLY some sort of crypto-secular influence, not any felt, thought, or claimed Christian influence. What you have done is not argued for the superiority of secularism, but simply defined it as victorious from the outset. Christianity can't possibly be the source of anything good anymore on that account, because even if one thinks that one is acting on the basis of Christian ideals, it's not really those Christian ideals, it's an ill defined and irresistible secular influence which pervades all that is good in the post Enlightenment world.

[_Buffalo]

But you'll not find any condemnation of racism in Christianity's founding documents either. It's a brand new moral.

Uh huh.

Luke 10

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

The Samaritans were a different ethnic group that the Jews thought were beneath them.

They were as ethnically different as the Dutch and the Swedes, certainly. Still, no condemnation of racism.

Acts 10

9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?

22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.

24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends.

25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

And there might be something about a black African eunuch being one of the early converts to this new Jewish sect.

Yes, and the relevance to systematic discrimination against minorities is...? You're aware that it was always legal (and often, compulsory) for black people to practice Christianity in America, right?

[_Stormy Waters]

In fairness there are verses that appear to go the other way.

Matthew chapter 15

"15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."

[_Buffalo]

Please note that my argument is not that Christians had no hand in ending injustice, only that they did it based on evolving secular ideas, not the Bible.

Buffulo, this right here is why your arguments tend to be completely idiotic.

What you are basically saying is that one can ignore Christian influence because it is always REALLY some sort of crypto-secular influence, not any felt, thought, or claimed Christian influence. What you have done is not argued for the superiority of secularism, but simply defined it as victorious from the outset. Christianity can't possibly be the source of anything good anymore on that account, because even if one thinks that one is acting on the basis of Christian ideals, it's not really those Christian ideals, it's an ill defined and irresistible secular influence which pervades all that is good in the post Enlightenment world.

Please calm yourself and refrain from stating my opinion for me.

Christians have contributed many great things to the world, and many terrible things as well. But the source of Christian morality is ultimately the Bible, and the new morality finds no support there. It originates in the philosophies of the great thinkers of the last several hundred years - and yes, it's secular, even when coming from believers. These ideas didn't originates from the Bible or even any new movements in religious interpretation of the Bible.

Even that is really beside the point. The point is that human beings create their own morality, we've been creating ever more new moral values for the last several centuries. It was not necessary for God to write them on stone tablets. We thought of them ourselves. Pity God couldn't have thought of them earlier and saved us the trouble, though. I guess he was more concerned with menstruation and burying feces in the approved manner.

[_Darth J]

The Samaritans were a different ethnic group that the Jews thought were beneath them.

They were as ethnically different as the Dutch and the Swedes, certainly. Still, no condemnation of racism.

The modern concept of "racism" does not make the clear distinction between race and ethnicity that you would like there to be for your assertion about the Bible to work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Ethnic_conflicts

Also, it is extremely unlikely that people in First Century Palestine had a clear concept of distinguishing between "race" and "ethnicity," so your faulting the Bible for not addressing issues that are unclear even in the modern world is flawed to begin with.

Yes, and the relevance to systematic discrimination against minorities is...?

The relevance is that contrary to your assertion, there is in fact condemnation of racism in Christianity's founding documents.

And whether a group is a "minority" within a given population is not a prerequisite to racism against that group. E.g, South Africa during apartheid.

You're aware that it was always legal (and often, compulsory) for black people to practice Christianity in America, right?

So what? What does that have to do with whether the New Testament or the writings of early church fathers condemn what modern people would call "racism"?

[_Darth J]

In fairness there are verses that appear to go the other way.

Matthew chapter 15

"15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour."

And the New Testament later has the resurrected Jesus telling Peter to stop restricting the Good News to just the Jews, but to accept all men. And according to the story, Jesus did in fact help this Canaanite woman, even though he was a Jew. And there is no grand unified theory on what the New Testament means, so there is no singular "Christian morality" as the OP presumes. So it doesn't really work to axiomatically say the founding documents of Christianity fail to condemn what we in the modern world would call racism, right?