Is the existence of Christianity better for this world

[BCP1928]

While I actually agree with your basic premise, Steve, I think the problem here is that there has historically always been chaos, tyranny, slavery and war in the world, and Christians haven't always helped that situation all that much over the last 2,000 years.

There's another (3rd) way this whole [SET] of ideological problems pertaining to justice can be assessed, but I find very few who actually have any desire to acknowledge it and engage it because they already have their sights set on removing Christianity as a working Worldview from the world scene and replacing it all with an "apparent" socialist flavor of political arrangement.

It's really THIS, the current post-world war 2 zeitgeist, that is the central issue, not the explaining of the various ancient social disparities we find in the O.T.

Remember that when you are talking to Steve about Christianity you are not talking about the Gospel of Christ, you are talking about the inherent superiority of Anglo-Protestant culture.

 

[stevevw]

While I actually agree with your basic premise, Steve, I think the problem here is that there has historically always been chaos, tyranny, slavery and war in the world, and Christians haven't always helped that situation all that much over the last 2,000 years.

I agree and thats our fallen nature. The church started from the cross and the further it moved away the more supceptible it became to human made ideas about how to structure the church. Power corrupts.

But we also see in the background the Christains sticking to the gospel and revivals and resets aligning back to the basic truths. Which is movements like slavery abolition and civil rights movements which began in the black church. Or the charities and welfare movements in the 19th and early 20th century such as the setting up of hospitals by Christains.

The danger is that some take the bad stuff of the church and make it everything therefore there is no true church of Christ that has been there all along.

There's another (3rd) way this whole [SET] of ideological problems pertaining to justice can be assessed, but I find very few who actually have any desire to acknowledge it and engage it because they already have their sights set on removing Christianity as a working Worldview from the world scene and replacing it all with an "apparent" socialist flavor of political arrangement.

It's really THIS, the current post-world war 2 zeitgeist, that is the central issue, not the explaining of the various ancient social disparities we find in the O.T.

Can you elaborate on this.

 

[stevevw]

Remember that when you are talking to Steve about Christianity you are not talking about the Gospel of Christ, you are talking about the inherent superiority of Anglo-Protestant culture.

Thats just a steroetype. I am Catholic for a start lol.

 

[stevevw]

I can find them both bad, but one is worse.

Steve-- the difference in treatment of slaves is WHY I MENTIONED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. It was against you claim that the Bible was "pro equality" of everyone. It isn't. It is a "God's Chosen People" book.

But your assuming that in God favoring the Jews this must mean anti equality. There are many examples where certaiin groups are favored or disadvantaged. Like I mentioned earlier immigrants are at a disadvantage. They are subject to certain laws the rest are not. Yet we still treat them as equals as far as their human worth.

The State may make a special agreement with Indigenous people over others. Many of these special agreements and laws are fair enough under the circumstances and most people accept them.

So your automatically assuming there was no justification for the different treatment and are assuming the worst.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not sure you get the trope about Tom Sawyer and a map of the Mississippi. Tom Saywer was a story by Mark Twain about a young boy growing up in a Mississippi river town. Consequently, the river and events which took place along it were important to the story. The river was accurately described by Twain, because he was a river boat pilot who grew up in a river town very like the one described in the story.

The question then becomes, was Tom Sawyer a real boy, just like the river was real? Or was he a fictional character? How would you prove it? Do you think that bringing in an official map of the Mississippi to show that the river in the story was real and and accurately described will help prove that Tom Sawyer was a real boy?

Yes I understand this thought experiment. I was saying that your using this idea for the wrong situations as a cop out to dimiss facts and the truth. I am saying that what I was presenting with the facts was more like we not only had the map and river but we found Tom Sawyers boat and other evidence and Tom Sawyer were actually real.

You were wrongly applying a myth to real events and evidence.

So you came in and used the Mississippi analogy to my point that the word slave in the original has many definitions but only one is being employed by skeptics. THe most negative one to all situations.

You called this a myth, story telling. But the facts were

1) the original word for slave does have different meanings.
We can prove this from Jewish Scolars who know the original language. We can show this in how different bibles have different meanings.

2) skeptics who attack the bible have only used the negative meaning.
We can show this by the fact that this is the only definition they choose to employ when attacking the bible. Obviously otherwise its not attacking the bibe. Simple logics.

So your misusing your Mississippi analogy to avoid the facts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree and thats our fallen nature. The church started from the cross and the further it moved away the more supceptible it became to human made ideas about how to structure the church. Power corrupts.

But we also see in the background the Christains sticking to the gospel and revivals and resets aligning back to the basic truths. Which is movements like slavery abolition and civil rights movements which began in the black church. Or the charities and welfare movements in the 19th and early 20th century such as the setting up of hospitals by Christains.

The danger is that some take the bad stuff of the church and make it everything therefore there is no true church of Christ that has been there all along.

What you need to start doing is asking others, whether myself or others whom you are speaking with, what their sources are by which they've informed their viewpoints (not simply their felt opinions).

Don't argue with people's opinions. Demand they show their sources for their ethos, and then criticize THAT.

Can you elaborate on this.

Yes. It goes like this:

The Human Rights zeitgeist of our modern 21st century is built upon shifting ethical sands and it makes for weak sauce to pour over the seemingly barbaric contents of the O.T. or upon selected samples of Christian failure over the past 2,000 since the life of Peter.

You need to learn to hammer on this point rather than focusing on defending the O.T.

In other words, people just need to get used to the fact that the conceptual sauce they dish out is the very sauce that will be served on their own plate.

And yes, I have my sources by which I've derived my own Critical View.

 

[BCP1928]

Thats just a steroetype. I am Catholic for a start lol.

Didn't know that. You said you were evangelized by the Salvation Army and your religious opinions show little or no trace of specifically Roman Catholic theology. Thanks for telling me.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes I understand this thought experiment. I was saying that your using this idea for the wrong situations as a cop out to dimiss facts and the truth. I am saying that what I was presenting with the facts was more like we not only had the map and river but we found Tom Sawyers boat and other evidence and Tom Sawyer were actually real.

You were wrongly applying a myth to real events and evidence.

So you came in and used the Mississippi analogy to my point that the word slave in the original has many definitions but only one is being employed by skeptics. THe most negative one to all situations.

You called this a myth, story telling. But the facts were

1) the original word for slave does have different meanings.
We can prove this from Jewish Scolars who know the original language. We can show this in how different bibles have different meanings.

2) skeptics who attack the bible have only used the negative meaning.
We can show this by the fact that this is the only definition they choose to employ when attacking the bible. Obviously otherwise its not attacking the bibe. Simple logics.

So your misusing your Mississippi analogy to avoid the facts.

No, the facts were brought up by Hans Blaster and you apparently still don't understand why. The fact that there were different forms of slavery in biblical times does not support your argument.

 

[BCP1928]

What you need to start doing is asking others, whether myself or others whom you are speaking with, what their sources are by which they've informed their viewpoints (not simply their felt opinions).

Don't argue with people's opinions. Demand they show their sources for their ethos, and then criticize THAT.


Yes. It goes like this:

The Human Rights zeitgeist of our modern 21st century is built upon shifting ethical sands and it makes for weak sauce to pour over the seemingly barbaric contents of the O.T. or upon selected samples of Christian failure over the past 2,000 since the life of Peter.

You need to learn to hammer on this point rather than focusing on defending the O.T.

In other words, people just need to get used to the fact that the conceptual sauce they dish out is the very sauce that will be served on their own plate.

And yes, I have my sources by which I've derived my own Critical View.

It's strong enough sauce to drown the distasteful assertion that opposition to slavery arose uniquely in Western Christan culture.

 

[Lukaris]

I tend to think no other faith could have influenced the likes of William Wilberforce.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's strong enough sauce to drown the distasteful assertion that opposition to slavery arose uniquely in Western Christan culture.

It might not be unique, but I think the presence of Christianity did have some part to play in how conceptions of emancipation and freedom developed in the West and eventuated in what we "think" about slavery today.

To see this reasoning, you'll have to read the work of sociologist, Orlando Patterson. He's one of my "sources."

Sociologist Orlando Patterson does landmark work on slavery and freedom. | Harvard Magazine

Orlando Patterson may be the last of Harvard sociology’s big thinkers.

www.harvardmagazine.com

 

[BCP1928]

It might not be unique, but I think the presence of Christianity did have some part to play in how conceptions of emancipation and freedom developed in the West and eventuated in what we "think" about slavery today.

To see this reasoning, you'll have to read the work of sociologist, Orlando Patterson. He's one of my "sources."

Sociologist Orlando Patterson does landmark work on slavery and freedom. | Harvard Magazine

Orlando Patterson may be the last of Harvard sociology’s big thinkers.

www.harvardmagazine.com

I agree, but during that same period what is still the largest Protestant denominations in the US was formed to support it. No, as you pointed out, the record of Western Christianity in the improvement of society is a mixed one.

 

[stevevw]

What you need to start doing is asking others, whether myself or others whom you are speaking with, what their sources are by which they've informed their viewpoints (not simply their felt opinions).

Don't argue with people's opinions. Demand they show their sources for their ethos, and then criticize THAT.

Good advice. But then this can decend into arguements over metaphysics and what is exactly what is an ethos. Its hard to pin down such a subjective ideology with facts.

Yes. It goes like this:

The Human Rights zeitgeist of our modern 21st century is built upon shifting ethical sands and it makes for weak sauce to pour over the seemingly barbaric contents of the O.T. or upon selected samples of Christian failure over the past 2,000 since the life of Peter.

You need to learn to hammer on this point rather than focusing on defending the O.T.

In other words, people just need to get used to the fact that the conceptual sauce they dish out is the very sauce that will be served on their own plate.

And yes, I have my sources by which I've derived my own Critical View.

I agree and I have gone down that rabbit hole plenty of times. I don't think thats a winnable arguement either. The problem is you can determine an ethical worldview with anything objective like in science. As Hume said "you can't get an ought from an is".

Maybe logical arguments but that been tried as well. Are you saying its more about showing any attack on the bible has no moral basis to do so.

What is your source.

 

[stevevw]

No, the facts were brought up by Hans Blaster and you apparently still don't understand why. The fact that there were different forms of slavery in biblical times does not support your argument.

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.

 

[stevevw]

It might not be unique, but I think the presence of Christianity did have some part to play in how conceptions of emancipation and freedom developed in the West and eventuated in what we "think" about slavery today.

I think in some ways it was and is unique. When you consider the pagan world it came into Christainity was a radically different worldview. Its been there for all the great revolutions in thinking and change.

I agree to understand Christainities role in the greater scheme of culture, religion and belief you need some understanding of human and social behaviour to be able to see Christainities role in the greater scheme of things.

To see this reasoning, you'll have to read the work of sociologist, Orlando Patterson. He's one of my "sources."

Sociologist Orlando Patterson does landmark work on slavery and freedom. | Harvard Magazine

Orlando Patterson may be the last of Harvard sociology’s big thinkers.

www.harvardmagazine.com

OK I will have a read. Is this about Christainity and slavery.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good advice. But then this can decend into arguements over metaphysics and what is exactly what is an ethos. Its hard to pin down such a subjective ideology with facts.

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

I agree and I have gone down that rabbit hole plenty of times. I don't think thats a winnable arguement either. The problem is you can determine an ethical worldview with anything objective like in science. As Hume said "you can't get an ought from an is".

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.

Maybe logical arguments but that been tried as well. Are you saying its more about showing any attack on the bible has no moral basis to do so.

It has less moral basis than they assume it has.

What is your source.

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.​

 

[Hans Blaster]

But your assuming that in God favoring the Jews this must mean anti equality.

What else could it be?

There are many examples where certaiin groups are favored or disadvantaged.

What groups in the OT are favored other than the Israelites?

Like I mentioned earlier immigrants are at a disadvantage. They are subject to certain laws the rest are not. Yet we still treat them as equals as far as their human worth.

I have no idea what you are talking about, nor how it is relevant. The bible isn't about "immigrants".

The State may make a special agreement with Indigenous people over others. Many of these special agreements and laws are fair enough under the circumstances and most people accept them.

What is the relevance if this claim?

So your automatically assuming there was no justification for the different treatment and are assuming the worst.

I know how people used this as an excuse to lessen others.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think in some ways it was and is unique. When you consider the pagan world it came into Christainity was a radically different worldview. Its been there for all the great revolutions in thinking and change.

I agree to understand Christainities role in the greater scheme of culture, religion and belief you need some understanding of human and social behaviour to be able to see Christainities role in the greater scheme of things.

OK I will have a read. Is this about Christainity and slavery.

In an indirect way, yes. It is a secular sociological and historical study of the influence of Christianity upon the development of Freedom in the West.

Keep in mind that Patterson is, or has been known as, a Marxist, so don't expect everything he says to jive with all of traditional Christian doctrine.

However, he shows how he arrives at the conclusion that the teachings of both Jesus and Paul eventuated in influencing the West toward freedom.

 

[BCP1928]

I think in some ways it was and is unique. When you consider the pagan world it came into Christainity was a radically different worldview. Its been there for all the great revolutions in thinking and change.

I agree to understand Christainities role in the greater scheme of culture, religion and belief you need some understanding of human and social behaviour to be able to see Christainities role in the greater scheme of things.

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

 

[stevevw]

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

Yes I forgot epistemics. Probably the most important as its about how we should know before we can know lol.

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.

Sorry poor choice of words. I agree and basically for the most part my approach is about human tendencies and not anything about a specific belief. I often mention we all have a tendency to look for metaphysical meaning. Or we are born believers in some sort of beyond.

When we can understand that its a human thing then we can go from there. But getting there is the hardest part as another human tendency is confirmation bias. But if we can stop outside that then we can see the bigger picture that we are all the same and looking for the same thing.

It has less moral basis than they assume it has.

Ok thats interesting. You mean theres no basis besides human ideas and beliefs.

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.​

OK I will have a look at that one as well thankyou.