Forum menu
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?
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?
People had been reading the bible for hundreds of years and yet these ideas never emerged in all that time. Were they written in a particularly cryptic code that was only deciphered in the 1700s?
The trigger for the Enlightenment was that people started reading everything they could get their hands on. It was putting their bibles down and picking up other books and ideas.
The Enlightenment was people finally moving away from the Church. Anyone who is trying to argue otherwise is really grasping at straws, and why they are doing that I really have no idea.
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...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
I am enjoying the suggestion that Israel and Turkey have Christian values because the governments compile statistics on violence against women. Equally the suggestion that a French government website about forced marriage is evidence of non-Christian countries having greater acceptance of violence against women.
All in all, it's a great attempt to shift goalposts!
All in all, it's a great attempt to shift goalposts!
You're treating this as some kind of fight? I wish you wouldn't. TJ asked how come modern secular values could come from a religion - we suggested how that could happen.
The Enlightenment was people finally moving away from the Church. Anyone who is trying to argue otherwise is really grasping at straws, and why they are doing that I really have no idea.
No, the enlightenment was about individual thought. For some, that led to a move away from the church, for others it meant setting up their own church to do things how they wanted. And still others reaffirmed their existing affiliation. The point is that it is now your choice, not someone else's.
People had been reading the bible for hundreds of years and yet these ideas never emerged in all that time.
I think that the understanding of Christian teachings has been evolving since the beginning and it is reflected by the events of the societies involved. Clearly over time learning accumulates, ideas are discussed and they stay discussed. Eventually, these ideas evolve thanks to the contributions from all sides, both religious and secular. It's not like the Bible is a single book with answers in it that you just have to read to obtain. It's not like that at all.
No, the enlightenment was about individual thought. For some, that led to a move away from the church, for others it meant setting up their own church to do things how they wanted. And still others reaffirmed their existing affiliation. The point is that it is now your choice, not someone else's.
See, when you say all that, I'm sure it makes sense in your head and you're not just desperately grasping for straws as your argument is systematically dismantled, but all I can think of when you try to defend the Church during the Enlightenment is this:
The 'someone else' you mention is the Church. People now have freedom to not choose the Church. The Church didn't allow them to choose before.
This is like the definition of creating a problem and then demanding congratulations when you 'fix' the problem you created. Only they didn't even do that, other people forced them to.
I think that the understanding of Christian teachings has been evolving since the beginning and it is reflected by the events of the societies involved. Clearly over time learning accumulates, ideas are discussed and they stay discussed. Eventually, these ideas evolve thanks to the contributions from all sides, both religious and secular.
It certainly helps when you can discuss things without getting hanged or burned alive. Shame it took so many centuries for that message to filter through.
I'm not sure how much learning and discussion you can attribute to that 1000 or so year period.
It's not like the Bible is a single book with answers in it that you just have to read to obtain. It's not like that at all.
On that we agree.
you try to defend the Church during the Enlightenment
That's not even what I am doing. You are really enjoying some sort of bunfight (which is itself rather unpleasant) but it's one you've made up. A question was asked, I responded. You on the other hand are being a right cock. I haven't seen a reasoned or thoughtful contribution, just aggression. What I would have liked to see is something like this:
"That's an interesting argument but I really don't agree. I really don't think that you can draw a direct line between Jesus and the enlightenment because of X. In fact, Y said Z which really doesn't benefit your argument" and I would have gone "oh yeah interesting I didn't know that". But instead you're just throwing vitriol which honestly is making me feel pretty miserable.
I think that the teachings of Jesus are separate from the Catholic Church. Clearly the latter was highly repressive. But like I say, educated people were able to read the Bible themselves. The Reformation had happened, the Bible had been translated in to many languages and been reproduced widely thanks to the invention of the printing press. It seems likely to me that those things shifted the debate and prompted people to revisit what Jesus (allegedly) said as distinct from what the Church was teaching. Do you disagree?
I find this fascinating. I did a quick search about Rousseau since I've heard a bit about him and this article calls him a deist and does not mention Jesus.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/jean-jacques-rousseau-atheism-deism
You on the other hand are being a right cock.
Shlama 'ahlaykhu, as Jesus would say.
You on the other hand are being a right cock.
Well, in that case I'm happy enough to leave you and Meloni and Orban and Le Pen to discuss 'Christian values' and how the western world came from Christianity amongst yourselves. I'm sure you'll have a lovely time.
OK, I wrote the above and then deleted it. Then I put it back because I think it probably sums up why I get annoyed as soon as I hear the words 'Christian values' used as a synonym for Western society*. Or even used as a loose assosciation.
I've been in Italy for a few months and, **** me, it is terrifying just how much the Christian values shite cuts through.
It's easy to forget that other cultures have had their own periods of Enlightenment type progress and then their own dark ages. While Christian countries were having their dark ages the Arab world was using reason and science as the basis for its culture (but again that's probably an oversimplification). We progress and we regress as a culture. And as individuals.
I didn't mean to make you feel miserable. Sorry about that.
*By the way, I have a theory that the US only went through a partial Enlightenment. They read John Locke and nothing else and that is why the US is the way it, is but that's a story for another day.
It seems likely to me that those things shifted the debate and prompted people to revisit what Jesus (allegedly) said as distinct from what the Church was teaching. Do you disagree?
Just to be clear, I did mention it earlier but the Church in Scotland brought universal literacy to the country so that everyone could read the bible.
And the Church throughout the middle ages was almost entirely responsible for preserving and translating almost all the historic documents we have access to today.
Had they known it would lead to the Enlightenment, perhaps they would have acted differently. Or maybe not.
Regardless, we owe some gratitude to the Church. But I'm still never going to say that current Western values 'came from' Christianity 🙂
All in all, it's a great attempt to shift goalposts!
You're treating this as some kind of fight?
No, I'm treating it as a discussion in which people put forward, test and defend intellectual propositions on the basis of reasoned argument and demonstrable facts.
Perhaps that's why it's disappointing when people propound profound and perfidious piffle (like "a French government website that targets certain ethnic groups in France proves that non-Christian societies have higher tolerance of violence against women") or start saying things like:
You on the other hand are being a right cock.
Why don't we all step away from the keyboard have a nice cup of tea?
It seems likely to me that those things shifted the debate and prompted people to revisit what Jesus (allegedly) said as distinct from what the Church was teaching.
That seems to be a tad of a leap of faith, so to speak, and somewhat at odds with Nickc's attempts to reference the medieval philosophers several of whom were pillars of the Catholic church.
It also doesnt work with your previous claims such as "Since mediaeval times everyone in Europe has been taught that they are all equal before God.". So what was it since medieval times or since the reformation when educated people got to read more?
It also doesnt work well since probably the peak of the divine right of kings was post the reformation (incidentally Luther's "Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants" wasnt exactly in favour of all being equal).
It also doesnt work well since probably the peak of the divine right of kings was post the reformation (incidentally Luther's "Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants" wasnt exactly in favour of all being equal).
Perhaps that was something that prompted a re-evaluation that led to more enlightenment? Or was the re-assertion of the divine right of kings a response to people getting ideas above their stations?
"No, I'm treating it as a discussion in which people put forward, test and defend intellectual propositions on the basis of reasoned argument and demonstrable facts."
When Augustine of Hippo hasn't been discussed, who lived at the end of the 4th century and beginnig of the fifth, the discussion hasn't reached Ladybird level.
Anyway, the good news is Church attendances are up, especially among the young. Alleluia!
Anyway, the good news is Church attendances are up, especially among the young. Alleluia!
Yeah, although that could be down to Peterson and Tate. Which I would argue is not a good thing.
Or was the re-assertion of the divine right of kings a response to people getting ideas above their stations?
re-assertion? Also define station.
As ever and always problematic for those claiming the guiding hand of Christianity there are different reasons in different countries.
The primary point though is your claim about a)it being a feature of China and not Europe and b)something which decreased post reformation is simply wrong.
Guardians columnists say what they need to for clicks, don't waste your time with them.
When Augustine of Hippo hasn't been discussed
Not someone arguing for Christianity being the source of morality in the West would really want to use though. His background is a good example of how Christianity was heavily influenced by the various other religions, not just Judaism, and the Greek philosphers.
Anyway, the good news is Church attendances are up, especially among the young. Alleluia!
Lets see what the Church attendance figures show. The bible studies YouGov surveys suggest a rather startling increase in numbers which I cant help think would have been noticed and commented on by the churches.
Guardians columnists say what they need to for clicks, don't waste your time with them.
OK, where should we get our news and analysis about the increase in Church attendances?
Church Times obviously
When Augustine of Hippo hasn't been discussed, who lived at the end of the 4th century and beginnig of the fifth, the discussion hasn't reached Ladybird level.
Are you going to contribute or just throw shade?
Not someone arguing for Christianity being the source of morality in the West would really want to use though.
Well that's not what I am arguing, not in the least. What are you like?
I'm saying that you can show the influence of Jesus' teachings (not Christianity, they're not the same thing! Nor is Christianity equivalent to 'The Church' which in this context is probably the Catholic Church.) to Enlightenment thought.
The primary point though is your claim about a)it being a feature of China and not Europe
You what? My claim? I've made no such claim, you people have absolutely shocking reading comprehension. The divine right of kings was a huge part of European history, otherwise why would people have to reject it? FFS