Christianity - The First Humanitarian Initiative?

[Primus Pilus]

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.

 

I'd just like to point out that the modern views expressed in the name of Christianity are generally born of the churches that have bastardized the original concepts. I think it makes more sense to label the churches rather than the religion itself in most cases.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'd just like to point out that the modern views expressed in the name of Christianity are generally born of the churches that have bastardized the original concepts. I think it makes more sense to label the churches rather than the religion itself in most cases.

 

Maybe. I was basing my comments largely on Paul, Augustine and the early Christian writers, but I do realize that Paul and Augustine are not the spokesmen for Jesus. Nevertheless, I have a hard time envisioning a sect of Christians that have entirely avoided the influence of Paul and Augustine's view of humanity as naturally "crooked" (in Augustine's words) and in need of salvation.

[Germanicus]

Buddhism anyone ???

[Ursus]

Germanicus does have a point. Regardless of what one thinks of Buddhism, it is heavy on so-called altruism and was around 500 years before Christianity.

[M. Porcius Cato]

and monasticism--come to think of it: what difference would it have made if Rome had gone Buddhist?

[Sextus Roscius]

and monasticism--come to think of it: what difference would it have made if Rome had gone Buddhist?

 

I don't think we should go there cato, thats about as realistic, or possible, as the "Roman Legions vs Aztec Warriors" threads.

[M. Porcius Cato]

and monasticism--come to think of it: what difference would it have made if Rome had gone Buddhist?

I don't think we should go there cato, thats about as realistic, or possible, as the "Roman Legions vs Aztec Warriors" threads.

 

I meant the question rhetorically, but if there are Roman Legions vs Aztec Warrior threads, I was inviting trouble, wasn't I? (That's a rhetorical question too).

[Ursus]

FWIW, Cato, I always thought Stoicism was the Buddhism of the West.

[M. Porcius Cato]

FWIW, Cato, I always thought Stoicism was the Buddhism of the West.

That's a really nice analogy--I can see it exactly. (Except the reincarnation thing of course.)

[Ludovicus]

I see evidence that early Christianity laid some ground work for democracy. Didn't Christianity help curtail the power of Roman patriarchy? Didn't it limit, at least in word, the power of the Roman "pater familias" over his immediate family? What about infanticide, another perrogative of the head of the household? I think an additional point can be made that Christianity gave some power to women. Both male and female Romans were required to marry under Augustus's edicts. I believe there were strict fines for violators. Under Christianity, women had another option. And then we come to the idea of justice. Emperor and slave had to answer to the same final judgment. I admit that church practice, especially after Constantine made Christianity the state religion, was far from blameless. Yet, when certain ideas are let loose, they take on a life of their own.

[Primus Pilus]

I see evidence that early Christianity laid some ground work for democracy. Didn't Christianity help curtail the power of Roman patriarchy?

 

I see the church more as a representative of early European feudal monarchy than as a precursor to democracy. The Pope was the Monarch, while Archbishops, Bishops etc functioned as the lords who swore fealty to the king. Continuing all the way down the line there were the individual priests who could represent such local magistracies as town mayors, sheriffs, petty knights etc.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I see evidence that early Christianity laid some ground work for democracy. Didn't Christianity help curtail the power of Roman patriarchy?

Have you ever read Paul? "Slaves obey your masters"? "Wives obey your husbands"? Christianity did nothing to curtail patriarchy, and patriarchy ruled Europe until about the Industrial Revolution.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I see evidence that early Christianity laid some ground work for democracy. Didn't Christianity help curtail the power of Roman patriarchy?

Have you ever read Paul? "Slaves obey your masters"? "Wives obey your husbands"? Christianity did nothing to curtail patriarchy, and patriarchy ruled Europe until about the Industrial Revolution.

 

I agree, even to this day, the Church is very male oriented, as you see with the Church's position on restricting female priests. So really, even if patriarchy was curbed a little, females still don't have much equality in Church hierarchy.

[Ludovicus]

I see evidence that early Christianity laid some ground work for democracy. Didn't Christianity help curtail the power of Roman patriarchy?

Have you ever read Paul? "Slaves obey your masters"? "Wives obey your husbands"? Christianity did nothing to curtail patriarchy, and patriarchy ruled Europe until about the Industrial Revolution.

 

 

I believe Paul also said:

 

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ ... "

 

~Galatians 3:28~

Edited January 8, 2006 by Ludovicus

[M. Porcius Cato]

I believe Paul also said:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ ... "

~Galatians 3:28~

 

No males or females??? Then how do we reproduce???

 

Obviously, Paul's theology (as well as his biology) was a jumbled hash of contradictions. How anyone manages to make a dogma of it is beyond me.