(July 27, 2023 at 5:39 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(July 27, 2023 at 5:09 pm)Astreja Wrote: Even if it did, the Christian establishment of the past centuries wasn't very good at implementing those concepts.  It took the Enlightenment and, to borrow a term from Karl Popper, piecemeal social engineering, to make any inroads.

Your point is well taken. The gap beyween theory and practice persisted for centuries. That said, the Enlightenment did not provide substitute a rational substitute for the religious claim of existential equality; it simply took the Christian ideal for granted, much the way secularists still do. Before Judeo-Christian ideas took hold, the notion of human dignity simply did not exist in pagan cultures. The weak and poor were universally held in contempt. The very notion of a cruxified savior was inconcievable. Nietzsche astutely characterized it as "slave morality" from a classical perspective. The sermon on the mound has no parallel in the West., IDK about other parts of the ancient world.

Christianity has historically been a case of "all animals are equal, yet some are more equal than others." Treating the Jews as less than human was institutionalized by Christianity. And treating blacks as less than fully human persisted long after the end of slavery with the bastion of Christianity in the southern United States continuing to treat blacks that way long into the 20th century. It has been secularism with its emphasis on fairness and inclusivity that has righted the ship of Christian morals. Karen Armstrong in her book on the Axial Age makes the argument that multiple cultures across the globe gave birth to religious philosophies that emphasized compassion and self-renewal, it was just a matter that Christianity won out due to the European advantages cataloged by Jared Diamond in his book, Guns, Germs, and Steel. Christianity didn't win out by being better on human rights, it wasn't -- other religions hold that crown -- it won out because of a favorable cast of the die. Nothing about Christianity's claimed moral contributions holds up to scrutiny.

Your point refuted with one name: John Newton.

Quote:the notion of human dignity simply did not exist in pagan cultures. The weak and poor were universally held in contempt.

That's absolutely false 

Any attempt to cast the christian capture and exploitation of european and new world populations and property is revisionism, and yet another example of the true nature of the christian religion as a social movement. As for christianity inventing human dignity, no, and it's completely and utterly silly to suggest as much. All of christian utterance had so many parallells, both within the west and outside of the west, that early christians resorted to the notion of demonic mimicry and preemption, and sought to physically destroy any possible competition.

Sicut Dudum 1435: "Nevertheless, with the passage of time, it has happened that in some of the said islands, because of a lack of suitable governors and defenders to direct those who live there to a proper observance of the Faith in things spiritual and temporal, and to protect valiantly their property and goods, some Christians (we speak of this with sorrow), with fictitious reasoning and seizing and opportunity, have approached said islands by ship, and with armed forces taken captive and even carried off to lands overseas very many persons of both sexes, taking advantage of their simplicity ...

"4. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money. If this is not done when the fifteen days have passed, they incur the sentence of excommunication by the act itself, from which they cannot be absolved, except at the point of death, even by the Holy See, or by any Spanish bishop, or by the aforementioned Ferdinand, unless they have first given freedom to these captive persons and restored their goods. We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above."

From: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/eugene0...4sicut.htm

Sublimus Dei, 1571: 

Quote:

---

"since man, according to the testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it ...

The enemy of the human race [Satan], who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God’s word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith ...

Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect."

---

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/paul03/p3subli.htm

(July 27, 2023 at 11:22 am)GrandizerII Wrote: I should now ask: What is Christianity exactly? And what counts as contributing to humanity/world? If the contribution itself is not original, is it still a contribution? Must we filter out all other influencing factors before we can say Christianity has contributed anything?

Very reasonable questions. 

~ What is Christianity exactly?

I'd say there is no one answer to this. There are lots of different things that people call Christianity, and very different kinds of people who call themselves Christians. It's probably more accurate to say that Christianity is a group of things that have the same name due to family resemblance (in Wittgenstein's sense) rather than having an essential characteristic. 

This is why just about any single statement we can make about what Christianity has caused will be contradicted by other things that Christianity has caused. And of course it would be unfair to point only to the good things and say "that's the real Christianity," or only to the bad things. 

~ And what counts as contributing to humanity/world?

In the most general sense: alleviating bad things, and improving good things. 

There is no doubt at all that Christians motivated by their religion have done both of the above. They have also done things that you and I disapprove of, and whether we conclude that on balance they've made things better or worse is hard to call. 

The main problem in judging is that when we're talking about the history of Europe and America, we have only the history that we have. Some people will fantasize that without Christianity things would have been better, but since we don't have that history it is only fantasy. We don't know. A lot of foolish things have been said on the Internet about Christianity intentionally holding back human learning for centuries, but almost all of that turns out to be myth. 

~ If the contribution itself is not original, is it still a contribution?

Sure, why not? 

It's very possible that if the dominant thought in Europe had become Mithraism instead of Christianity, people would still have built big beautiful buildings. Or if the Roman pantheon had continued, we would have gotten nice Roman temples. But that in no way takes away from the fact that it was the Christians who actually did it. For whatever reason, they got the dominant spot, and so it was them who dominated European art, music, architecture, philosophy, and social programs for a very long time. 

~ Must we filter out all other influencing factors before we can say Christianity has contributed anything?

I have no idea how we could or should. 

Christianity itself is influenced from older systems, so it would be impossible to discuss Christian influence while filtering out its Jewish and Neoplatonic and Aristotelian roots. Nothing is pure. 

Gothic architecture is influenced by Moorish architecture. But this doesn't mean that the great Christian cathedrals are not serious contributions to the beauty of the world. 

Large-scale social movements, like the end of slavery, have many causes operating at once. Economic, moral, etc. etc. The fact that Christian social reformers were opposing slavery means that Christianity played a role in reforming slavery. Of course some Christians wanted it continued. But as I said, Christianity is a lot of different things all at once. And you can't just say that navies ended slavery, because navies are run by people, and people get their goals and ideals from different sources. 

Sad to say, economic changes probably make it easier for moral reform to take place, so some can follow the money and ignore the religion, but in fact it's a mix. 

Nothing in the modern history of Europe or America is free of Christian roots. Science grew up due to monotheistic ideas about metaphysics and all of the ambitious monks who got the idea that knowing how God works in the world means knowing more about God. The fact that science works with less of that attitude now doesn't remove its historical beginnings. 

So I think it's foolish bigotry to say that Christianity contributed nothing, and idle fantasy to say that the world would have been better without it.

I think we sound like we've been hostages too long.

(July 27, 2023 at 11:13 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Your point refuted with one name: John Newton.

Funny thing - until he himself was captured and enslaved, Newton didn’t seem to have an issue with slavery. Made a living at it, in fact.

Boru

Quote:For more than a century, the Catholic Church financed its expansion and its institutions with profits made from the purchase and sale of people they enslaved. This chapter of Church history has only recently come to the attention of the public.

"Without the enslaved, the Catholic Church in the United States as we know it today would not exist," writes author Rachel Swarns. She says the priests prayed for the salvation of the souls of the people they owned, even as they bought and sold their bodies.

In 1838, the Jesuits sold 272 enslaved people, which helped save what is now Georgetown University from bankruptcy and helped stabilize the Jesuits in Maryland. Swarns wrote about this sale in 2016 in the New York Times article "272 Slaves Were Sold to Save Georgetown. What does It owe Their Descendants?"

The Catholic Church profited from slavery — 'The 272' explains how

As Wikipedia notes, most of the church's encyclicals were simply ignored, even when they were clear, as they not always were, such as the 1839 bull from Pope Gregory XVI which condemns taking new slaves but not the continued exploitation of existing slaves, somewhat reminiscent of how the bible condemned taking Hebrew slaves and kidnapping, but green-lighted enslaving foreign peoples. If the church had truly been interested in stopping slavery then one can legitimately ask why they didn't do more to end the practice? NX cites encyclicals from 1435 and 1537 ostensibly condemning some slave trade, yet in 1454 Pope Nicholas granted King Alfonso V of Portugal permission "to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit... [emphasis added]" The church's opposition to slavery has, at best, been one of convenience rather than principle for even their man-god Jesus discouraged slaves from resisting their enslavement.

The church has been and continues to be two-faced in its attitude toward slavery, from the first to the last, as the church even today endorses policies that aid and abet sex trafficking and wage slavery. The bare facts laid out make clear that the church cares more for profits and power than it does for people.