Christianity - The First Humanitarian Initiative?

[Demson]

The basic of Christian faith, the ten commands, recorded universal vallues that everybody can aspire to.

 

Some time ago it was argued that as Hellenistic knowledge 'de-mystified' the world, a gap was created. Humans need something to believe in. Christianity gave it by renewing their perspective on a 'better world'. Does this make them a humanitarian initiative, perhaps even the first one?

[Ursus]

On the subject of Hellenistic knowledge, Greek philosophers like the Stoics were preaching universal brotherhood and austere ethics centuries before Christ.

 

I suppose it depends on what you define as "Humanitarian." If you think violence is abhorrent and the Arena Games were the low mark of human civilization, Christ and his message of peace and brotherhood wins out over imperial Rome.

 

On the other hand, I don't think declaring other religions and other gods as evil illusions of the devil to be very humane. From the perspective of religious tolerance, Pagan Rome was ahead of Christianity.

 

The ancient Egyptians had a religious and ethical system called ma'at, which is basically divine order, peace, and justice. The ancient Germans had a concept of honor and peace called frith.

[Moonlapse]

Well, humanitarianism has lots of gray area in its various definitions, but all I can say is that its probably always been around in one form or another. It's an effective tool in controlling masses.

[Zeke]

Sure, Christianity has it quirks with humanitairim I don't really doubt that. But their religious intolerance towards other faiths isn't humane at all. Polythestic Faiths don't teach brotherhood or loving for all because its not about that, it's a contract between man and the gods not loving contract more like business contract

And the Romans though they murdered many peoples they are the reason why the world is civilized to begin with. It's call a law and the Romans had the best and they dictaded the morals in a society and the rules that governed the people, unlike the ten commandments, which governed the middle ages, which was far more primitive then Roman Law.

The Romans and the Greeks are the reasons why the world has law, morals and virtues, Christianity has something to do with it but I still think we get more from Roman Soceity..... The American Constituion is based off several areas of Roman and Greek law

 

Zeke

[Primus Pilus]

Christianity doesn't necessarily teach intolerance with other religions... the various Churches have (or at least have in the past). Big difference to keep in mind.

 

Also US law is based mostly on English common law, even though the government formation has its roots in the Roman Republic. English common law was certainly affected by the Roman occupiers, but it has a great deal of tradition derived from Anglo-Saxon and later Norse customs. Those people took only slight influences from the Romans, and developed their own systems based on tribal customs. Without the Roman and Greeks, people would still have 'law'.

[Q Valerius Scerio]

The basic of Christian faith, the ten commands, recorded universal vallues that everybody can aspire to.

 

Some time ago it was argued that as Hellenistic knowledge 'de-mystified' the world, a gap was created. Humans need something to believe in. Christianity gave it by renewing their perspective on a 'better world'. Does this make them a humanitarian initiative, perhaps even the first one?

But the Christian faith doesn't even apply the Ten Commandments. According to traditional Christianity, all of the Old Testament's commandments (which is reality number in the 350s or so) are declared null. No, some of them were repicked up after having been used by a. Jesus or b. Paul, but you no longer have to go to Sabbath (and was, in fact, declared heretical by one of the early Christian counsels) and instead you go on the Lord's Day (Saturday was Sabbath, Lord's day was Sunday since Jesus rose on a Sunday). And anyone who follows New Testament standards today are looked down upon (Amish, in particular).

[Zeke]

Without the Roman and Greeks, people would still have 'law'.

 

To argue that...I don't think think they would have a very advanced law, when the Saxons invaded England all the places of goverment were still there even though the Romans had recently pulled out. There laws wern't as advanced as Roman Laws, they were more tribal in nature and somewhere along the line Roman laws must have effected them to make their laws more fair on the general populance.

Also I know that most of the US. Constitusion is based of English Common Law but I only said several areas not the whole thing.

 

Did the Romans invent the first courts and Judge or was it the Babyalonians?

 

Zeke

[Q Valerius Scerio]

Ooh, toss up. Babylonians predated Romans by millennia, but Egyptians may have had Babylonians beat.

[Zeke]

oh yeah......or what about the Sumerians??? They are pratically the first recorded civilzation with a set up laws...The Jewish Laws came a couple hundred years latter.

 

Also English Comman Law first proposed by the Saxons was orginally not even written down as were several basic Roman ones.....the Saxons and other Barbarian people were illirterate until the got some help from the rest of the civilized world

 

Zeke

[Tiberius Sylvestius]

I suppose it depends on what you define as "Humanitarian." If you think violence is abhorrent and the Arena Games were the low mark of human civilization, Christ and his message of peace and brotherhood wins out over imperial Rome.

 

On the other hand, I don't think declaring other religions and other gods as evil illusions of the devil to be very humane. From the perspective of religious tolerance, Pagan Rome was ahead of Christianity.

 

 

Agree.

 

I find a common strand that goes hand in hand with monotheism is intolerence to other religions. Usually in monotheistic religions there is a 'truth' included within the religion. If that religion is 'true' then everything else is 'false', and people must be converted or they'll suffer damnation. Or why not just burn them now and get it done with?

 

Look at the Catholic Church's attitude towards Protestants and Islam in the medieval/early modern period. The Church was supposed to be teaching Christian values, 'love thy neighbour', unless of course he happens to be a follower of Islam and then you should go over with your armies and slaughter them all and send them to Hell where they belong. Which strikes me as somewhat hypocritical and well harsh. Islam did it back as well.

 

Having studied religious history i can say for definate that Christianity has been for many centuries a brake on medical and scientific development. Science came out of alchemy, alchemy of course was wizardry and witchcraft and people were burned for that. Obviously consulting the devil. Medical dissections were prohibited by the church, which stopped anyone actually understanding how the body worked, which meant alot of people over many centuries died from simple things that had physicians been able to experiment sooner might have found cures to sooner. Instead the practice of bleeding and the totally incorrect theory of the four humours persisted for centuries on end and killed more people than they cured, such as Charles II of Britain in 1685.

 

Christianity was not a forgiving religion. But that's the price humanity paid for accepting religions that had a rule or point of morality on every aspect of life, even to the detriment of the real 'truth'. The world afterall was flat (the Church said it was flat, thus it was flat, evidence to the contrary was either wrong or put there by the devil) and Gallileo was in alot of trouble for daring to suggest otherwise. That's dogma over practicality for you.

 

But i have my bias.

[Favonius Cornelius]

"I find a common strand that goes hand in hand with monotheism is intolerence to other religions. Usually in monotheistic religions there is a 'truth' included within the religion. If that religion is 'true' then everything else is 'false'"

 

This is quite true. One of the hidden strengths of polytheism is their willing acceptance of other gods, as with the Roman religion in countless instances.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I suppose it depends on what you define as "Humanitarian." If you think violence is abhorrent and the Arena Games were the low mark of human civilization, Christ and his message of peace and brotherhood wins out over imperial Rome.

 

How long did the bloodsports go on after Christianity was the state religion?

 

Christ's message of peace and brotherhood was nothing the Hellenistic world hadn't heard before. If Aristotle's Ethics had been digested to one hillside talk and given in the form of parables, we'd probably have never heard of Jesus and the games would have discontinued anyway. In my opinion.

[Sextus Roscius]

While christianity certianly is a very Humanitarian religion idealisticaly, we can see that the truth is some times far from it, some times the truth is very true. Christ and the disciples, what they did was indeed humanitarian and a great help to the world, as mentioned by Ursus.

 

But if we look at it the other way, the inquisitions of the dark ages are hardly what we like to call "Humanitarian"

 

However, I guess it really all depends on how one defines humanitarianism.

[Pantagathus]

My short answer is no

 

Aside from those already mentioned by Ursus, you also have Zorastrism which was way ahead of Christianity in that regard & to a certain extent the Eleusinian (& Samothracian) Mysteries should count too...

 

Christ was trying to reconnect people with humanitarianism...

Edited December 29, 2005 by Pantagathus

[M. Porcius Cato]

Funny how one of the most virulently anti-humanist belief systems to gain any wide credence is being touted as 'humanitarian'. Almost the whole physical and biological nature of the human condition is ignored or denigrated by Christianity--leading to Christianity's positions on everything from abortion to zoology.

 

Christianity may have been altruist, but it was't because of any love of humanity.