Is the existence of Christianity better for this world

[BCP1928]

It's can, sure. But I was inferring that descends down into Epistemology as well.

It's not a matter of 'winning.' We need to give that notion up. That's not the goal. The goal is to show secularists that they "too" have weaknesses in their assumes ethos, and that's it's not okay to give themselves a free pass simply because they think that their view is the most current one at hand. Many of them take their own view for granted, or at least pass it off as if it can be taken for granted.

It has less moral basis than they assume it has.



I have several sources, but I'd start with Michael Freeman's article:

Freeman, Michael. "The philosophical foundations of human rights." Hum. Rts. Q. 16 (1994): 491.​

The instructions about slavery in the Bible, like other religious moral systems of the time (Buddhism, for example) take slavery as an institution for granted and focus on how slaves are to be treated. That Christians have taken this as moral approbation of slavery is not the fault of the Bible, but is unfortunately typical of how Christians use the Bible. The same exegetical technique nowadays informs us that Jesus hates gun control, thinks global warming is a hoax and wants Trump to be President even if he doesn't get the most votes.

 

[BCP1928]

Actually the issue of the definition of the word slavery plus a number of other points I made were dismissed before that as excuse making.

If you mean that the Hebrews had a different system of slavery and servitude to what they applied to foriegn and alien slaves and servants living in Isrealite cities I already gave my reply. This in no way negated that the Hebrews introduced a better system than their surrounding nations.

I gave the examples from the bible. I suggest you go back and read them and then tell me why they don't stand if you want to involve yourself.

Or I could ask as Phil suggested exactly what is your moral basis (or sauce) for your outrage against the bible and Christains. By which standard are you judging bible.

No outrage against the Bible. No outrage against Christians, either--just disgust.

 

[stevevw]

It depends on what you mean by "the pagan world." Do you meany everybody but Christians?

Pagan beliefs varied. But basically it was really human desires disguised as from the gods which were about nature. So human worth was seen like animals of varying worth. Slaves were of less worth and women below men. Often those in power thought themselves gods.

So when Christainity became the official religion of the Roman Empire it radically changed social norms. Men were no longer allowed to have mistresses or 2nd wives, married women gained equal rights. Under Rome a women got nothing if their husband died. Christain women inherited their husbands wealth.

There were other changes but basically the Christain truths about marriage, equality in Christ and 'being created in Gods image' were different to the pagan worldview.

 

[stevevw]

No outrage against the Bible. No outrage against Christians, either--just disgust.

OK disgust. But what are you basing the disgust on. What moral basis makes you disgusted at the bibles morals.

 

[BCP1928]

Pagan beliefs varied. But basically it was really human desires disquised as from the gods. So human worth was seen like animals of varying worth. Slaves were of less worth and women below men. Often those in power though themselves gods.

So when Christainity became the official religion of the Roman Empire it radically changed social norms. Men were no longer allowed to have mistresses or 2nd wives, married women gained equal rights. Under Rome a women got nothing if their husband died. Christain women inherited their husbands wealth.

What fantasy is this? It's scarcely been a century since women could own property in their own name, have a bank account or even vote. Those were your "Christian values"

There were other changes but basically the Christain truths about marriage, equality in Christ and 'being created in Gods image' were different to the pagan worldview.

So when you say "pagan" you just mean Rome?

 

[BCP1928]

OK disgust. But what are you basing the disgust on. What moral basis makes you disgusted at the bibles morals.

I'm not disgusted with the Bible's morals. The Bible, like a lot of other religious systems of it's day (Buddhism for example) takes the institution of slavery for granted and focussed on the treatment of slaves. Many Christians took that as divine approval of slavery. I give you as an example the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denominations in the US today, who made that exact argument, and only backed down from it during the Civil Rights movement--at the behest of other Christians primarily--the "Bible hating" kind and their "secular" values..

 

[stevevw]

What fantasy is this? It's scarcely been a century since women could own property in their own name, have a bank account or even vote. Those were your "Christian values"

How is it fantasy when the Christain worldview was completely different to the Greco Roman pagan one. Surely you must admit that there is a difference. Surely that difference changed how people seen things and the moral norms. Yes or no. Or are you saying there was no difference.

I am not saying that it was like today back then. This was the beginning of Christainity being allowed to exist in the west. So it would have been partial and sporadic depending on the politics. But surely you must agree that at least some things improved.

Your also making some misrepresentations. I am not sure the 'women were denied voting' idea is based on men or Christains denying women. Once again context is important. But thats another issue.

The facts are Christainity did make things better, especially when the truth principles mentioned were realised and acknowledged as the basis for real change. This has underpinned our history not just for women but for human worth and rights and thats a fact.

If there were “winners” and “losers” in the Christian transformation of sexual morality, you could say women, slaves, prostitutes, and young boys were the big winners. Christian ethics meant a profoundly improved lot in life for women, children, the enslaved, and the poor. The changes came slowly—over centuries, not over years and decades—but changes did come.

The First Sexual Revolution: The Triumph of Christian Morality in the Roman Empire

If Christians in late antiquity had made peace with the world over sex, Christianity would not have been true to itself.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

So when you say "pagan" you just mean Rome?

GReco Roman worldview was basically paganistic. In fact the whole world beliefs were paganistic up until the Hebrew God.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not disgusted with the Bible's morals. The Bible, like a lot of other religious systems of it's day (Buddhism for example) takes the institution of slavery for granted and focussed on the treatment of slaves.

But your basing these moral judgements on what the bible says. Thats the only way you can determine what Isrealite slavery was. But then I doubt that you even understand the verses you are using. Your falsely assuming any mention of slavery by the Isrealites was like the modern day understanding from black slavery.

I told you that the very definition of slavery has been conflated. It has several meanings and different bibles reflect this where some use slavery and others use servant or bonded servant. The original King James bibloe which is the closest English bible to the original Hebrew and Greek only mentions slavery once.

So how can you say the bible takes slavery for granted when you have not even determined what the word slavery meant.

Many Christians took that as divine approval of slavery. I give you as an example the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denominations in the US today, who made that exact argument, and only backed down from it during the Civil Rights movement--at the behest of other Christians primarily--the "Bible hating" kind and their "secular" values..

No any so called Christains who made arguements for slavery were using a false and misrepresentation of what the bible said. Even if you say the bible did support slavery we can clearly see that the those who justified slavery on the bible were treating slaves badly and that the Hebrew laws prevented the Isrealites from treating slaves badly.

It was the Christain abolitionist like Wilberforce who stressed the biblical truth there all humans we made in Gods image and equal in Christ that this truth began to undermine the lies the church and Christain parliamentarians claimed.

But lets forget all the claims and counter claims of different religions and modern moral disguest and outrage. What is you moral basis. From where are you determining that Christain, Buddhist, Southern Baptist or your morals come from. What puts you in a better position to be judge on this.

 

[BCP1928]

How is it fantasy when the Christain worldview was completely different to the Greco Roman pagan one. Surely you must admit that there is a difference. Surely that difference changed how people seen things and the moral norms. Yes or no. Or are you saying there was no difference.

I am not saying that it was like today back then. This was the beginning of Christainity being allowed to exist in the west. So it would have been partial and sporadic depending on the politics. But surely you must agree that at least some things improved.

Your also making some misrepresentations. I am not sure the 'women were denied voting' idea is based on men or Christains denying women. Once again context is important. But thats another issue.

The facts are Christainity did make things better, especially when the truth principles mentioned were realised and acknowledged as the basis for real change. This has underpinned our history not just for women but for human worth and rights and thats a fact.

If there were “winners” and “losers” in the Christian transformation of sexual morality, you could say women, slaves, prostitutes, and young boys were the big winners. Christian ethics meant a profoundly improved lot in life for women, children, the enslaved, and the poor. The changes came slowly—over centuries, not over years and decades—but changes did come.

The First Sexual Revolution: The Triumph of Christian Morality in the Roman Empire

If Christians in late antiquity had made peace with the world over sex, Christianity would not have been true to itself.

www.thegospelcoalition.org

GReco Roman worldview was basically paganistic. In fact the whole world beliefs were paganistic up until the Hebrew God.

There is no real history in either your post or in the link you provided.

 

[BCP1928]

But your basing these moral judgements on what the bible says. Thats the only way you can determine what Isrealite slavery was. But then I doubt that you even understand the verses you are using. Your falsely assuming any mention of slavery by the Isrealites was like the modern day understanding from black slavery.

No I am not. I, and I believe Hans, have been trying to tell something entirely different. Nobody but an Evangelical Christian would try to prove at this late date that slavery in bibilical times justified negro servitude in the modern era.

I told you that the very definition of slavery has been conflated. It has several meanings and different bibles reflect this where some use slavery and others use servant or bonded servant. The original King James bibloe which is the closest English bible to the original Hebrew and Greek only mentions slavery once.

If you really are a Catholic you had better head to confession. You not only are using a version of the Bible that you are not supposed to but you are telling fibs about its origins to justify that use.

So how can you say the bible takes slavery for granted when you have not even determined what the word slavery meant.

What it meant? Haven't we gone over that? Yes, slavery in the Bible, the Vedas and the Analects is not the same as negro servitude in the modern era.

No any so called Christains who made arguements for slavery were using a false and misrepresentation of what the bible said. Even if you say the bible did support slavery we can clearly see that the those who justified slavery on the bible were treating slaves badly and that the Hebrew laws prevented the Isrealites from treating slaves badly.

You are going to have to stop lying about me. I do not say that the Bible supported slavery. I say that it took the institution for granted an focussed on the treatment of the slaves.

It was the Christain abolitionist like Wilberforce who stressed the biblical truth there all humans we made in Gods image and equal in Christ that this truth began to undermine the lies the church and Christain parliamentarians claimed.

But lets forget all the claims and counter claims of different religions and modern moral disguest and outrage. What is you moral basis. From where are you determining that Christain, Buddhist, Southern Baptist or your morals come from. What puts you in a better position to be judge on this.

Well, I don't pull my morals out of my you-know-what and call them Christian like you do, that's for sure.

 

[Hans Blaster]

GReco Roman worldview was basically paganistic. In fact the whole world beliefs were paganistic up until the Hebrew God.

Let's be clear, Steve. "Pagan" is a word first the Israelites, then the Jews, Christians, and (I think) Muslims use to denigrate non-Abrahamic religions (particularly polytheistic ones). First it was used to describe the polythesitic religion of more sophisticated societies (Canaanites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Greeks and Romans) then after conquering the Roman empire, the Christians of Rome used it to describe Celtic and Germanic polytheism. (Muslims used it for Arabian polytheisms as I recall.) Later it was applied to the religions of the Aztec, Maya, and Inca. I don't recall if it has historically been used against various forms of animism, ancestor worship or spirit worship in cultures that don't have personified gods or not, or if it has been used against Hindu religion or not.

It's not really a useful term. That's why scholars of religion use terms like "polytheistic" to describe those religions.

 

[BCP1928]

I don't know about that. From the last few posts I am beginning to get the impression that a religion should be considered "pagan" to the extent that it can be imagined to foster licentiousness. Actual theological content doesn't seem to matter very much.

 

[stevevw]

There is no real history in either your post or in the link you provided.

Its easy to make unsubstanciated claims. I could just say theres no real merit in your reply so it can be disregarded. Then you say so what and well there's no sense in discussing anything if thats the case.

But what I am saying cannot be denied by logic and our lived experience. We know for a fact that the Roman Empire was real and that they had paganistic worldview. Thats well accepted history.

We know Christainity became the official religion in 380AD.

We know the Christain and pagan worldview are different.

So social norms would have changed from pagan to Christain. Not in everything and not straight away. But for some things they did change. These are rational and logical conclusions. If you think they are not then give a reason.

 

[stevevw]

Let's be clear, Steve. "Pagan" is a word first the Israelites, then the Jews, Christians, and (I think) Muslims use to denigrate non-Abrahamic religions (particularly polytheistic ones). First it was used to describe the polythesitic religion of more sophisticated societies (Canaanites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Greeks and Romans) then after conquering the Roman empire, the Christians of Rome used it to describe Celtic and Germanic polytheism. (Muslims used it for Arabian polytheisms as I recall.) Later it was applied to the religions of the Aztec, Maya, and Inca. I don't recall if it has historically been used against various forms of animism, ancestor worship or spirit worship in cultures that don't have personified gods or not, or if it has been used against Hindu religion or not.

It's not really a useful term. That's why scholars of religion use terms like "polytheistic" to describe those religions.

I was using it as "polytheistic" religion. This was the defining difference to Yahweh. Pagan beliefs had many gods and many moral meanings which included human nature.

Whereas there was only one God Yahweh for the Hebrew God who then brought the moral law.

But paganism was a natural evolution from the beginning of when humans looked to the skies. This was an expression of humans knowledge of God through nature. It was natural for people to make gods, sacrifice to them, make rituals, ceremonies and laws.

It wasn't until God revealed Himself to Abraham that God becomes the one and only God. God used the natural practices of paganism like sacrifice and laws but contextualised it for the Hebrew God.

 

[stevevw]

No I am not. I, and I believe Hans, have been trying to tell something entirely different. Nobody but an Evangelical Christian would try to prove at this late date that slavery in bibilical times justified negro servitude in the modern era.

Ok then why the moral outrage at the bible and Hebrew slavery. I think I heard the word barbaric and there could have been more similar descriptions of Hebrew slacery and servitude. So what exactly is barbaric. Is it like the black American slavery becayse that was barbaric. Or was it a be less barbaric if there can be such a thing. What exactly is the measure.

If you really are a Catholic you had better head to confession. You not only are using a version of the Bible that you are not supposed to but you are telling fibs about its origins to justify that use.

Ok so your using a religion you don't believe in to tell men I'm a sinner lol. Like I said I am not a practicing Catholic but I relate to some of their doctrines. Plus the KJV is not disallowed. They only recommend using the official Catholic bible which best reflects the Mass. I referred to the KJV as its pretty close to the original interpretation.

But it doesn't matter which bible as the original Hebrew word for slave has several meanings. Thats not in doubt. What some are doing is automatically assuming all references to slavery is immoral whether by American standards or some other barbaric measure. When that is not justified as they have not even established the proper interpretation.

What it meant? Haven't we gone over that? Yes, slavery in the Bible, the Vedas and the Analects is not the same as negro servitude in the modern era.

Ah ok well you disagree with Hans. Fair enough. So if its not the same then why is it barbaric. How is it immoral. On what basis are you measuring this.

You are going to have to stop lying about me. I do not say that the Bible supported slavery. I say that it took the institution for granted an focussed on the treatment of the slaves.

Isn't that the same thing by modern standards. Taking the institution for granted would be argued as turning a blind eye and thus supporting slavery.

Ok so if slavery was an institution that means like many institutions it was an ingrained part of society and the world at that time. It was a natural evolution of humans evolving to live together. Just like we make insitutions today, health, legal education ect.

That doesn't justify it but explains its natural evolution in human behaviour. So in that context compared to the rest of the worlds standards of slavery they were not taking the institution of slavery for granted. In fact they were proactive.

Well, I don't pull my morals out of my you-know-what and call them Christian like you do, that's for sure.

Didn't you just do that lol certainly felt like it.

 

[BCP1928]

Its easy to make unsubstanciated claims. I could just say theres no real merit in your reply so it can be disregarded. Then you say so what and well there's no sense in discussing anything if thats the case.

But what I am saying cannot be denied by logic and our lived experience. We know for a fact that the Roman Empire was real and that they had paganistic worldview. Thats well accepted history.

We know Christainity became the official religion in 380AD.

We know the Christain and pagan worldview are different.

So social norms would have changed from pagan to Christain. Not in everything and not straight away. But for some things they did change. These are rational and logical conclusions. If you think they are not then give a reason.

What you posted was not history. It is an opinion piece about someone else's historical work. Like you, the writer attempts to paint the changes wrought by Christianity in the Roman Empire as being in accord with your ideas about what Christians values should be.

 

[BCP1928]

Ok then why the moral outrage at the bible and Hebrew slavery. I think I heard the word barbaric and there could have been more similar descriptions of Hebrew slacery and servitude. So what exactly is barbaric. Is it like the black American slavery becayse that was barbaric. Or was it a be less barbaric if there can be such a thing. What exactly is the measure.

Ok so your using a religion you don't believe in to tell men I'm a sinner lol.

I'm an Anglican (just so you know the religion I "don't believe in") but I was educated in Roman Cathollic school up to an including an undergraduate degree, so I know something about that religion as well. I referred you to your confessor for advice because you are spouting dubious doctrine based on false claims about the reliability of the KJV.

Like I said I am not a practicing Catholic but I relate to some of their doctrines. Plus the KJV is not disallowed. They only recommend using the official Catholic bible which best reflects the Mass. I referred to the KJV as its pretty close to the original interpretation.

But it doesn't matter which bible as the original Hebrew word for slave has several meanings. Thats not in doubt. What some are doing is automatically assuming all references to slavery is immoral whether by American standards or some other barbaric measure. When that is not justified as they have not even established the proper interpretation.

Ah ok well you disagree with Hans. Fair enough. So if its not the same then why is it barbaric. How is it immoral. On what basis are you measuring this.

The Gosple of Christ, the basis of all morality.

Isn't that the same thing by modern standards. Taking the institution for granted would be argued as turning a blind eye and thus supporting slavery.

That's what the Jews were doing but that is not the same as saying that the Bible supports it. The Bible just describes it. It would be a serious error in any case for a Christian to try and mimic the moral standards of ancient Israel,

Ok so if slavery was an institution that means like many institutions it was an ingrained part of society and the world at that time. It was a natural evolution of humans evolving to live together. Just like we make insitutions today, health, legal education ect.

That doesn't justify it but explains its natural evolution in human behaviour. So in that context compared to the rest of the worlds standards of slavery they were not taking the institution of slavery for granted. In fact they were proactive.

Didn't you just do that lol certainly felt like it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I was using it as "polytheistic" religion. This was the defining difference to Yahweh. Pagan beliefs had many gods and many moral meanings which included human nature.

Which is why I say it is meaningless as a term unless you are making it clear that your usage is pejorative. (As I will infer from here on.)

Whereas there was only one God Yahweh for the Hebrew God who then brought the moral law.

I don't see how having more or fewer gods (non-zero) makes a religious system better or its morality preferable. Thus the Christian narrative about its superiority to other religions "spiritually" or morally is of no value to me.

But paganism was a natural evolution from the beginning of when humans looked to the skies. This was an expression of humans knowledge of God through nature. It was natural for people to make gods, sacrifice to them, make rituals, ceremonies and laws.

I am aware of the standard anthropological (is that the right field?) view of the progression of religious expression from animism to monotheism. I learned it in HS a long time ago. Selecting one of the gods to be the "best god" and then the only god only illustrates the man-made nature of religion, so I'm not sure what your point is.

It wasn't until God revealed Himself to Abraham that God becomes the one and only God. God used the natural practices of paganism like sacrifice and laws but contextualised it for the Hebrew God.

What is your point? That your god wanted all of those sweet smelling sacrifices for himself? I don't get your point.

 

[stevevw]

What you posted was not history. It is an opinion piece about someone else's historical work. Like you, the writer attempts to paint the changes wrought by Christianity in the Roman Empire as being in accord with your ideas about what Christians values should be.

I broke down the issue as simple as possible without implying either pagan Rome or Christainity was better. The logic was here we have two different worldviews, one replacing the other. That in itself tells us that there must have been a different set of social norms applied by the fact they were not the same.

Can you at least acknowledge this simple logic.
Do you agree that Christainity once denied became the official religion of the Roman Empire around 380AD.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What you posted was not history. It is an opinion piece about someone else's historical work. Like you, the writer attempts to paint the changes wrought by Christianity in the Roman Empire as being in accord with your ideas about what Christians values should be.

I read over the linked essay and find it much as you say. Since the author is forthright about what he is doing (reviewing a book and specifying his opinions about the book's content) I feel relatively safe in taking the essayist's word on the content of the scholarly book. The main effect on sexual morality (the article discusses no other moral issues) is that the Roman notion of marriage (a man and only one woman) is merged with the Hebrew notions against sexual activity outside marriage. (The Romans didn't consider prostitution to be "adultery".)

When modern Christian conservatives speak of "traditional biblical marriage" they really mean from "late Christian antiquity" a time when the texts of the Bible were becoming fixed and were already a couple hundred years old (at least). The only true benefit of this change from the conquest of Rome by the Christians was the denormalization of pederasty. The rest is a matter of opinion, like most of sexual morality.