The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Christianity as mother of western liberalism > Comments

Christianity as mother of western liberalism : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 6/10/2015

Siedentop gives us an accessible journey through the transformations of the self from the preclassical Western family, through ancient Greece and Rome and the rise of the church in Europe to the sixteenth century.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Christianity is the basis for Western culture and civilization. Even non-Christians know this; and this fact is why the Left wrecking gangs deride Christianity and desire to destroy it. While I am only a nominal Christian, I have asked myself if there is a better basis for living? The answer is, no!
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 10:13:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
".. considering that our kingdom is called ... the kingdom of the Franks [free men], and wishing that the fact should be truly accordant with the name ... have ordered and order that ... such servitudes be brought back to freedom ...”
The kingdom of God seems subservient to France. The British Stuarts had problems with Church and personal liberalism.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 10:57:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn you understand that the Labour party has a very strong Catholic base? Not withstanding ttbn insanity.

Peter the challenge for this world view of Christianity is that in fails the onion test every time.

While no one would disagree that Christianity had a profound effect on the western world, I think the western world got one with it because Christianity failed were other religions hadn't. they become separated form political power. through in fighting.Once the Catholics power was dissipated with the rise of other Christian sects then that allowed for non Christian Ideas to carried forward.

When you look at history, where ever Christians where in power they behaved pretty much like every other major religion. Ie sort to control and stiffly all others.

It's only when Christianity looses it's grip that we made advances in personnel and social freedom. freeing salves, equality for Women and what not was done despite the protestations of Christian power base. We see parallels with Homosexual marriage now.

You always have to ask yourself, if treating women equally was such a fundamental aspect of Christianity why did it take so long to do it?
Why is it when we uncover pockets of Christian fundamentalism we actual find the opposite they step away form the very values you are saying are Christian.

And for those of you playing at home, can you name a Christian value detailed in the bible that doesn't have a parallel in the Koran?
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 11:21:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Opposition to Idolatry is common to both. ..um..um..Jesus and Mohamed have swords but Jesus' is in his mouth..
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 11:32:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cobber your knowledge of Christianity is next to nil so I doubt whether you have any understanding of Islam. You might have noticed that no one has ever wanted to imnigrate to Islamic nations. JUst maybe that might make you think a little.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 11:49:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do not possess the historical resources to even attempt passing judgement as to who or what is responsible for the empty, cruel and stressful Western culture along with its materialistic wilfulness and junk consumerism, yet the author (and Siedentop) seems to suggest that Christianity is to blame rather than the Romans, surprisingly denouncing his own faith!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 12:44:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu
When Pontifex maximus of Roman pre-Christians became Pontifex Maximus of the Church, Rome kept on with empty cruel and stressful junk.
There was some reforming in the less Dark Ages, the Gloomy Age, with plentiful supplies of blood in gutters, just like Shia and brother Sunni. An individual sword was just as good as the next sword.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 12:53:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HARDLY ANY OF THE COMMENTS HAVE COME CLOSE TO GRASPING THIS TRUTH.

500 years ago enlightened, conservative Christians began PROTESTING about corruption in the church at the time & its co-operation with tyrants in feudalism, serfdom & slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenot

were being persecuted by the Roman Catholic church in France, fled to Scotland & the Netherlands. Leading to the reformation of the church in those nations adopting Calvinsim & the desire for egalitarianism, democracy, an end to slavery, feudalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Scots_Invented_the_Modern_World

This is how the British & Dutch Empires became so influential so quickly.

Q, which 2 European nations were first with universal education & health care available to ALL for free, at moderate cost or tax deductible donation.

A, The European average 500 years ago was 2 or 3 children out of 10 literate. Scotland & Holland went to 7, 8 or 9 children out of 10 educated in one generation by having their ministers in church every day teaching literacy, history, citizenship as well as the morals, ethics & principles of Christianity.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100247847/how-we-invented-freedom-and-why-it-matters/
Posted by imacentristmoderate, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 1:57:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MY COMMENTS HAVE COME CLOSE TO GRASPING THIS TRUTH.
Scots aren't liberal and pick your weapon, Jock.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 2:05:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hound,

Of course I realise that, Mr. Straw man, and many of them voted for the DLP. That's the Democratic Labor Party, to you, which is now only a rump - one Senator. Archbishop Mannix was a notorious meddler in the Labor movement and Party in the old day.

So, I know a bit about the RC's and the Labor party, but what's your point? Labor and/the Catholic Church aren't part of Western civilization and culture - or what?
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 2:54:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The theme that runs through the book and gives it its coherence is the transition between the natural inequality of pre-Christian Europe and the equality of persons fostered by the faith.”

This is another attempt to rewrite history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

“Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[ The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalism.] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation.”

Support for divine right is antithetical to democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

The divine right of kings or divine right is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries or during the reign of Henry VIII of England) the Catholic Church. It is especially favored and promoted by unjust kings, because according to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God," attached to the titles of a reigning monarch.

Christianity has not supported freedom of religion. Christianity regarded intolerance of other religions as a virtue.

For most of its existence, Christianity has been the most intolerant of world faiths, doing its best to eliminate all competitors, with Judaism a qualified exception, for which (thanks to some thoughts from Augustine of Hippo) it found space to serve its own theological and social purposes. P. 4 “A History of Christianity” MacCulloch

continued
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 2:59:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725 is an article I wrote on the burning at the stake of Servetus in Calvin's Geneva in 1553. It was approved by almost all Protestants and Catholics. Servetus doubted the Trinity and discovered pulmonary circulation.

A lone voice, Sebastian Castellio, protested. Castellio said, “To kill a man is not to defend a doctrine, but to kill a man." However, that was in rebuttal to those who thought it was proper to kill heretics.

There is not one condemnation of slavery in the Bible. I visited the pagan shrine at Delphi in Greece a few years ago. There were many inscriptions by Greeks proclaiming that they had freed their slaves. Apparently there was in the ancient world unease about slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery

“In the early years of Christianity, slavery was a normal feature of the economy and society in the Roman Empire, and this persisted in different forms and with regional differences well into the Middle Ages. Most Christian figures in that early period such as Saint Augustine, accepted slavery as an inevitability whereas some, such as Saint Patrick (a former slave), were opposed to it.”

John Hope Franklin in “From Slavery to Freedom” wrote:

“In West Africa, where the population was especially dense and from which the great bulk of slaves was secured, Christianity was practically unknown until the Portuguese began to plant missions in the area in the sixteenth century. It was a strange religion, this Christianity, which taught equality and brotherhood and at the same time introduced on a large scale the practice of tearing people from their homes and transporting them to a distant land to become slaves.”

Forrest G. Wood wrote “The Arrogance Of Faith: Christianity and Race in America. It details how Christianity supported apologists for slavery during the colonial period and to the nineteenth century. The largest Protestant sect in the United States was formed to support slavery.

continued
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 3:02:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Peter for an interesting review. A book for my Christmas list, I think.

You touch in this article on your long-held antipathy to liberalism. Has the book caused you to change your views at all?
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 3:03:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention

The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is a Christian denomination based in the United States of America. It is the world's largest Baptist denomination and the largest Protestant body in the United States, with nearly 16 million members as of 2012... The word Southern in Southern Baptist Convention stems from its having been founded and rooted in the Southern United States, following a split from northern Baptists over the issue of slavery; the specific issue was whether slave owners could serve as missionaries. Members at a regional convention held in Augusta, Georgia created the SBC in 1845.

St. Paul was a Christian authority on women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle_and_women

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 states: "As in all the churches of the holy one, women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate even as the law says. If they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church."

1 Timothy 2: 9-15 (NASB) says:

"Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint."

Hypatia had three strikes on her in a newly Christian world being woman, teacher and pagan who refused to adopt Christianity. Hypatia was an astronomer, mathematician and philosopher. In 415 CE she was murdered by a Christian mob possibly sharing the sentiments of Paul. Some historians date the beginning of the Dark Ages from the murder of Hypatia.

Continued
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 3:08:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The mere concept of Christianity as mother of western liberalism is an oxymoron.

Western liberalism arose as the influence of the Churches eroded.

Established Christianity opposed western liberalism with all its' strength.

History , it's there to be rewritten !
Posted by Aspley, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 3:34:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued

The executions of Servetus and of Giordano Bruno who speculated that there were other solar systems along with Galileo’s house arrest continued the hostility to science. Currently Creationism and Intelligent Design are supported by Christians who reject evolution.

When a religion claims to have an exclusive truth and is enjoined to spread it intolerance is a logical result.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I

“The Christian persecution of Roman religion under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years of his reign in the Eastern Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on former customs of Roman religion, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of Magistrates who did not enforce laws against polytheism, broke up some pagan associations and tolerated attacks on Roman temples.

Between 389–392 he promulgated the "Theodosian decrees" (instituting a major change in his religious policies), which removed non-Nicene Christians from church office and abolished the last remaining expressions of Roman religion by making its holidays into workdays, banned blood sacrifices, closed Roman temples, and disbanded the Vestal Virgins. The practices of taking auspices and witchcraft were punished. Theodosius refused to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, as asked by non-Christian senators.

In 392 he became sole Emperor (the last one to claim sole and effective rule over an Empire including the Western provinces). From this moment till the end of his reign in 395, while non-Christians continued to request toleration, he ordered, authorized, or at least failed to punish, the closure or destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of piety throughout the Empire.

In 393 he issued a comprehensive law that prohibited any public non-Christian religious customs, and was particularly oppressive to Manicheans. He is likely to have disbanded the ancient Olympic Games, whose last record of celebration was in 393, though archeological evidence indicates that some games were still held after this date.”

Christianity has supported slavery, monarchic rule, suppression of women, suppression of science and suppression of dissent. Although individual Christians have adopted more enlightened views Christianity generally has been hostile to liberalism.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 3:49:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Davidf and Apsley, you are both right on the money.
Sells, Paul was a very strong misogynist.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 4:00:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nicknamenick, the enlightenment was 100% christian, left wing religion came 100s of years later & has been taking us backwards to 1917 in Moscow ever since.

david f, everything you said was invented by PROTEST-ant Christians, including ending slavery, 100% Christian.

Aspley, history has already been rewritten by communists, it is now being corrected.

VK3AUU, sorry but you are wrong.
Posted by imacentristmoderate, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 4:18:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//david f, everything you said was invented by PROTEST-ant Christians//

No, not everything:

* The divine right of kings was invented by Catholics, who came before Protestants, but the Protestants took it to heart.
* Giordano Bruno was burnt by the Catholics. I am less familiar with the case of Servetus, so I don't know which sort of Christians engaged in that very Christian act of burning him alive. However, it should be noted that his execution was less about opposition to science than it was about opposition to his heretical relgious beliefs: Bruno was a follower of Hermetism, a heretical cult based on Acient Egyptian religious concepts.
* St. Paul was not a Protestant.

//Aspley, history has already been rewritten by communists//

History is written by the victors. I can't remember the last time communists actually won anything.

//VK3AUU, sorry but you are wrong.//

Maybe about the first bit, but Paul makes Otto Weininger look like a feminist. It's all through his epistles. Check out this website:

https://www.biblegateway.com/
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 9:22:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, history is being rewritten without the anti church, anti clerical, anti-Christian prejudice. At last we are beginning to see the truth of the matter.
Posted by Sells, Tuesday, 6 October 2015 10:31:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Peter,

I am happy to take your word that Western society is a product of Christianity.

However, Western society is not a success story.

While liberalism is great (had it been thoroughly implemented), Western society includes many other features, many of them negative and overall, in general, this society is neither a happy one nor spiritually conducive.

How then is it possible that Christianity is responsible only for the good features, such as liberalism, but not for the ailments of Western society?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 1:30:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Exactly Yu

Western society is defined by overconsumption, inequality, alienation, crime, drugs, mental illness, pollution, environmental degradation, exploitation, loneliness, idiocy, sexual deviance, drunken violence, domestic violence, racism, homophobia, godlessness, dishonesty, scum for leaders, addiction, waste, dysfunction, pointlessness and mass stupidity.

Good job xianity.
Posted by mikk, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 6:36:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Peter,

.

In the opening words of your article, this month, you indicate :

« Inventing the Individual: the Origins of Western Liberalism by Larry Siedentop belongs to the genre of the history of ideas … Siedentop … gives us an accessible journey through the transformations of the self from the preclassical Western family, through ancient Greece and Rome and the rise of the church in Europe to the sixteenth century. »

The noun « individual » means :

• a person considered separately rather than as part of a group [OED definition]

• a single organism capable of independent existence [biological definition]

• a being, distinct from all others, which cannot be divided without being destroyed [philosophical definition]

The “idea” that Christianity or any other religion may define an “individual” is clearly an oxymoron. Christianity or “the church”, as you like to call it, defines a group - or a “particular dogma” or “set of beliefs” if you wish - not an individual.

Free will is the distinguishing feature of an individual. Free will is autonomy – the faculty of an individual to choose his own course of action. The degree of autonomy differs from one individual to another, describing a Gaussian curve throughout each individual’s life, from birth to death. It is a variable, not a constant.

While the church fully recognizes the possibility of free will and individual responsibility, at the same time, it actively promotes the image of a Christ shepherding his faithful flock of docile sheep all along that Gaussian lifeline, leaving no room whatsoever for the expression of any form of individuality.

The seeds of liberalism are to be found in the sense of justice, whether innate or acquired, in every human being, from an early age. There is no limit as to just how far back this can be traced in the history of the development of mankind.

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 8:22:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued …)

.

To quote one of Siedentop’s critics:

« Siedentop's view that the ancient world lacked a sense of equal status amongst society's members is wrong. From the third century BC Epicureans lived in communities which promoted learning, mutual assistance, kindness and friendship. And yet six decades after Epicurus established his movement it was Christianity - more than any other force - which sought, first, to misrepresent it and, finally, to destroy it. It is the greatest irony, therefore, that the origins of Western Liberalism are being attributed to the medieval theologians - neo Platonists in any case - rather than the genuine pioneers of secular individualism. »

Also, as Professor David Abulafia of Cambridge University points out :

« The rise of medieval cities and of urban self-government is another area where Siedentop misses the point. He romantically assumes that all citizens were equals. But that is not how things worked in Florence, Venice and elsewhere, where aristocracy mattered and family power (exercised by patriarchs very similar to the paterfamilias of Roman times) lay at the heart of politics. »

In my view, Siedentop’s book belongs less to the genre of the history of ideas (as you suggest) than it does to the purely literary narrative.

Who could doubt that the seeds of liberalism came to fruition in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Enlightenment ?

“Liberalism” being defined as :

« A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavour, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. » [ Dictionary.com]

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 8:25:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As always Runner you never let reality get in the why of your world view. Just a quick check of immigration figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate

That people do move to Muslim countries in large numbers.

They only thin you are correct on is my knowledge of Christianity it is indeed superficial just as my knowledge of Islam is. However that is because both all equally silly. I can't help noticing though you didn't actual take up the challenged and name something, because even with my basic understanding of the two religions I know they are pretty much alike.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 8:37:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whatever positive contributions Christian-ISM as an ideology may or may not have had to the development of the modern world it is now irreducibly trapped in its own mind-forged-manacles (as William Blake described and prophesised).
These two references describe the situation:
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-2.htm
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-6.htm
These two references describe in very sobering stark terms what the much-vaunted death-haunted Western mind and culture is really all about:
the universal scape goat "game" now being dramatized all over the planet
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/ontranscendingtheinsubordinatemind.html
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/there_is_a_way_EDIT.html
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 11:58:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cobber
You changed your q :
", can you name a Christian value detailed in the bible that doesn't have a parallel in the Koran?" to "Christianity and Islam".
There are 2 Bible /Koran parallels : 1. Non-idolatry .2. swords.
You say you don't know but you do know these faiths. Hope you're not a bus or truck mechanic or electrician.
It's your theory , go ahead. Tell us your explanation to your question, please.
Posted by nicknamenick, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 1:25:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My reading of history leads me to the conclusion that Christianity was a roadblock to the progress of western civilisation. The classical world had accomplished much in mathematics, engineering, philosophy and natural science.

The Greeks had developed axiomatic mathematical systems as in Euclid’s geometry. The Egyptians had developed trigonometry. Eratosthenes about 2,300 years ago measured the circumference of the earth to better than 99% accuracy. Plato and other philosophers provided the foundations of philosophy. We are still living on the intellectual capital provided by Greek drama, philosophy and legend. The Romans were great engineers and administrators. Some of their aqueducts and buildings still stand.

What went wrong?

In the fourth century Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, and the Dark Ages descended on Europe. IMHO one was the cause of the other.

There were many pagan sects, and as Gibbon wrote “...the religious harmony of the ancient world, and the facility with which the most different and even hostile nations embraced, or at least respected, each other’s superstitions. The Christian superstition did not exhibit the tolerance that the different pagan religions had. In my post of Tuesday, 6 October 2015 3:49:46 PM on this thread I mentioned how the Theodosian degrees discriminated against the pagan religions. The atmosphere was not conducive to a reasonable exchange of ideas. One is constrained by the possibility of being accused of heresy. Christianity incorporated many of the ideas of the pagan religions such as virgin birth, resurrection and afterlife. E. C. Carpenter in “Pagan & Christian Creeds: Their Origin and Meaning” describes the process. People could accept Christianity since it incorporated many familiar superstitions. The rulers welcomed its support for their rule.

The intolerance of Christianity towards different ideas has been exemplified by the murder by a Christian mob of the pagan Hypatia (mathematician, teacher, philosopher) in 415 CE, the burnings at the stake of Servetus in Protestant Geneva in 1553 CE and of Bruno in Catholic Rome in 1600 CE.

continued
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 3:45:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

The Renaissance from the 14th to the 17th century started as a cultural movement in Italy in the Late Medieval period and later spread to the rest of Europe. Its intellectual basis was humanism, derived from the rediscovery of classical Greek philosophy, such as that of Protagoras, who said, that "Man is the measure of all things." This partially freed Europe from the rigid grip of Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

“The Enlightenment, known in French as the ‘’Siècle des Lumières’’ (Century of Enlightenment), and in German as the ‘’Aufklärung’’, was a philosophical movement which dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 18th century. The central doctrines of the Lumieres were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to the principle of absolute monarchy in France and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

“Deism gained prominence among intellectuals during the Age of Enlightenment—especially in Britain, France, Germany and the United States—who, raised as Christians, believed in one god but became disenchanted with organized religion and notions such as the Trinity, Biblical inerrancy and the supernatural interpretation of events such as miracles. Included in those influenced by its ideas were leaders of the American and French Revolutions.”

The American Declaration of Independence and the French Rights of Man were documents embodying the ideals in this period. Rights were for all regardless of their ethnicity and religious beliefs.

The United States was the first nation founded incorporating separation of religion and state.

Unfortunately there was a step backward in the nineteenth century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism

“It was embodied most strongly in the visual arts, music, and literature, but had a major impact on historiography, education, and the natural sciences. It had a significant and complex effect on politics, and while for much of the Romantic period it was associated with liberalism and radicalism, its long-term effect on the growth of nationalism was perhaps more significant.”

Nations formed during this period were generally on the basis of ethnic nationalism, the union of a people based on a shared ethnicity and religion.

Continued
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 3:49:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued

The twentieth century saw a further regression. The two prominent western nations formed by ethnic nationalism, Germany and Italy, proceeded into fascism, an intensely tribal nationalism, which regarded those outside the tribe as subhuman.

The nineteenth century philosophy, Marxism, saw its realisation in the Leninist takeover in Russia. Marxism was a quasi-religion employing Christian ideas. The Joachite view of history – Eden – the father’s period of peace - the son’s battle of God against Satan – the millennium a thousand years of peace before or after the Second Coming depending on which brand of Christianity was transformed into primitive communism in an economy of scarcity followed by the class struggle between the evil capitalist and the noble workers ending up in the classless society – advanced communism in an economy of plenty.

We are in the twenty first century. Fascism and Communism have both been defeated. Chinese communism is being transformed into a form of capitalism. The ideas of the Enlightenment are realised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ contains the UDHR.

Rampant Islam is where Christianity was several centuries ago before its intolerance was tamed by the secular state.

It is my hope that the mass of humanity will be educated in science and critical thinking and will abandon belief in Christianity, Islam and other religions based on belief in a supernatural. I would not want any government to force people to abandon religion. That would be just as tyrannical as to force religion on people. If religion will not be abandoned voluntarily it should not be abandoned.

I can only hope the ideals of the Enlightenment will be realised.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 7 October 2015 3:56:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

I wrote (page 4 of this thread) :

« While the church fully recognizes the possibility of free will and individual responsibility, at the same time, it actively promotes the image of a Christ shepherding his faithful flock of docile sheep all along that Gaussian lifeline, leaving no room whatsoever for the expression of any form of individuality. »

The implication is that sheep-like behaviour is righteous and independent behaviour is sinful.

This is epitomised by the Abrahamic religions’ creation myth of Adam and Eve disobeying God and eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Their act of independence was deemed to be sinful.
And it was on the foundation of this myth that Irenaeus, the 2nd century Bishop of Lyon in France, built the Christian doctrine of “original sin” of which Augustine of Hippo (Saint Augustine) became an ardent advocate during the 4th century.

Wikipedia:

« Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire", resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will. When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a metaphysical, not a psychological sense.

Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, the privation of good or a wound. He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) might have been present in the perfect human nature in paradise, and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin. In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned ... As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God without divine grace. »

Not much room for the "individual" in that Christian doctrine !

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 8 October 2015 12:15:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bravo david_f, bravo! Read your comments with interest and learned a lot. Thanks.
Posted by JKUU, Thursday, 8 October 2015 12:39:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

<<Marxism was a quasi-religion>>

Marxism was a horrible thing, but the fact that it had some terrible things in common with certain organisations (e.g. churches) that were presumed to promote religion, is merely free association and does not imply that it had anything in common with religion itself.

<<and other religions based on belief in a supernatural>>

The basis of religion is God, not beliefs, so if you see an organisation that is instead based on beliefs, then you can tell that it has decayed and falls short of its purpose.

Yes, religions happen to employ all kinds of beliefs, including in the supernatural, because those beliefs assist [some] people on their road to God - however, those beliefs are just tools rather than the essence of religion. It is quite possible for one to be religious without having any particular beliefs.

<<It is my hope that the mass of humanity will be educated in science and critical thinking>>

Why is that your hope? Is it because you consider the above to be good?

Science can find the facts, it can tell for example what exists and what doesn't, but the idea as if it is good to find such answers doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Unlike science which asks "what is?", it is religion which asks "what is good?" - science has no say there.


What then, in your view, renders researching (and finding) "what is" a good thing?

(I can see one answer - perhaps it helps those who are already curious by nature to develop their powers of concentration and keep them out of mischief, but that's my answer, not yours...)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 8 October 2015 1:50:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//Marxism was a horrible thing, but the fact that it had some terrible things in common with certain organisations (e.g. churches) that were presumed to promote religion, is merely free association and does not imply that it had anything in common with religion itself.//

Churches (the organisations, not the buildings) don't just 'promote' religion, they are religions. You seem to be thinking of organisations like the Centre for Public Christianity, who promote Christianity without being a Christian denomination themselves.

//The basis of religion is God, not beliefs//

God is a fairy-tale who doesn't exist outside of people's imaginations. The belief that he does is the basis for religion.

//Science can find the facts, it can tell for example what exists and what doesn't, but the idea as if it is good to find such answers doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny.//

Yes it does. Since the scientific revolution, standards of living have increased dramatically. And that can be attributed to science, not a bunch of people gazing at their navels and saying 'om' for the last two thousand years which achieves absolutely nothing of any value. Science makes real and significant improvement in people's lives; religion just gives them a warm fuzzy feeling.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Thursday, 8 October 2015 7:16:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Tony,

<<Churches (the organisations, not the buildings) don't just 'promote' religion, they are religions.>>

So they claim, so can anyone claim, but are they truly so? Perhaps they have once been, long ago but not any more.

<<God is a fairy-tale who doesn't exist outside of people's imaginations>>

Not even there. Anything which exists is limited and inferior, not worthy of the name 'God'.

<<The belief that he does is the basis for religion.>>

In my last comment I explained that this is where churches decayed to, into belief-systems, teaching people to believe (in whatever) rather than to actually come closer to God.

<<standards of living have increased dramatically>>

Which you happen to judge as "good". The above can be verified (or refuted) scientifically, but the claim that it is good is not a scientific statement, but of what you subjectively value.

<<gazing at their navels and saying 'om'>>

Where have you seen people gazing at their navels lately? I haven't!
(and it sounds narcissistic rather than religious)

Repeating the syllable 'Om' is a great technique to concentrate and purify the mind and direct it away from one's senses.

<<for the last two thousand years which achieves absolutely nothing of any value.>>

Nothing of any value for you - and of course they haven't even tried to achieve the same as what you personally aspire for. As I said, values are subjective choices, they are not mandated by nature.

<<Science makes real and significant improvement in people's lives; religion just gives them a warm fuzzy feeling.>>

Science is the best tool for achieving material success, if that's what one wants. To call this "improvement" is your personal preference. Scientists often get a warm fuzzy feeling when they discover something, so do sports-people when they win a game.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 8 October 2015 8:18:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JKUU,

I appreciate your thanks.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 8 October 2015 9:40:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David F,

Where did you read this history? Is it not an interpretation fabricated to support your prejudice? History is always being rewritten in order to correct the mistakes of past historians who were writing under many incorrect presuppositions common to their time. For example it is generally recognised that Edward Gibbon produced a very jaundiced and unfair account of the role of the Church in European history after the fall of the Roman empire. I suggest you read the book I reviewed and assess the evidence for yourself. You never know, your dislike of anything to do with Christianity may be tempered.
Posted by Sells, Thursday, 8 October 2015 12:05:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The book of the topic has this :
..as this is the kingdom of the Franks (free men)..we ordered and do order.. that such servitudes be restored to freedom..
----
This order (!) is from pagan, human politics rather than spiritual origins. How can liberalism be attributed to ecclesiastical sources in such orders?
Posted by nicknamenick, Thursday, 8 October 2015 1:01:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sells,

My prejudice? Have you considered your prejudice? Are you objective about Christianity? To claim the good that Christianity has done as consistent with its essence and dismiss the harm that it has done as the work of evil men as you have done is not the mindset of one who tries to be objective. Here the words attributed to Jesus might be appropriate. Matthew 7:1-5 KJV Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. I feel I am far less prejudiced than you.

I don’t dislike everything about Christianity. I dislike your dismissal of the harm it has done. When Christians do things that I consider good I will go along with them. I have participated in peace vigils with Anglicans and Catholics. There are religions I consider worse than Christianity. Hinduism with its caste system and its disregard for women as in the custom of suttee which the British managed to get rid of is worse in my opinion than Christianity. Buddhism with its emphasis on questioning rather than faith I regard as superior to Christianity.

Gibbon is old hat. He is probably the best historian when it comes to style, but he is not as reliable as more modern historians with better sources. I quoted Gibbon, but he is not my main source. I have read much history. I have mentioned most of my sources in my posts. If you wish to contest my facts about Christianity rather than my interpretation mention something specific, and we can discuss it.

This year I have read:

Kevin Burns’ Eastern Philosophy. That has much on the eastern religions of Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism.

continued
Posted by david f, Thursday, 8 October 2015 3:55:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

MacCulloch’s “A History of Christianity”

On the cover is: “Encompassing wars, empires, reformers, apostles, sects and crusaders, it shows how Christianity has brought humanity to the most terrible acts of cruelty – and inspired its most sublime accomplishments.”

Wilson’s “The Meaning of Human Existence”

Wilson covers much of the same ground that religions do.

The following is from the book:

“Most serious writers on religion conflate the transcendent quest for meaning with the tribalistic defense of creation myths. They accept, or fear to deny, the existence of a personal deity. They read into the creation myths humanity’s effort to communicate with the deity, as part of the search for an uncorrupted life now and beyond death. Intellectual compromisers one and all, they include liberal theologians of the Niebuhr school, philosophers battening on learned ambiguity, literary admirers of C. S. Lewis, and others persuaded, after deep thought, that there must be Something Out There. They tend to be unconsciousness of prehistory and the biological evolution of human instinct, both of which beg to spread light on this important subject.”

Schama, Simon, “The Story of the Jews, volume 1 – Finding the Words”

Jenkins’ The Great and Holy War

How religion affected and was affected by WW1

Jenkins’ The Jesus Wars

The Christian debates in the fifth century which determined the doctrines successive generations of Christians accepted.

However, you try to rewrite history and turn it on its head. From my reading of history which is much more extensive than just Gibbon Christianity is primarily responsible for the Dark Ages. The attempt to climb out of the Dark Ages was fought by most of Christianity. To credit Christianity for European civilisation is laughable. Europe has lived in a Christian milieu for most of its history so, of course, it has been greatly influenced by Christianity. However, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the persecution of heretics, the forced conversions, the massacres of Jews and even the opposition to having a literate populace who could read the Bible are products of Christianity. Do you contend that any of the foregoing is not factual?

continued
Posted by david f, Thursday, 8 October 2015 4:00:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

MacCulloch’s “A History of Christianity”

On the cover is: “Encompassing wars, empires, reformers, apostles, sects and crusaders, it shows how Christianity has brought humanity to the most terrible acts of cruelty – and inspired its most sublime accomplishments.”

Wilson’s “The Meaning of Human Existence”

Wilson covers much of the same ground that religions do.

From the book:

“Most serious writers on religion conflate the transcendent quest for meaning with the tribalistic defense of creation myths. They accept, or fear to deny, the existence of a personal deity. They read into the creation myths humanity’s effort to communicate with the deity, as part of the search for an uncorrupted life now and beyond death. Intellectual compromisers one and all, they include liberal theologians of the Niebuhr school, philosophers battening on learned ambiguity, literary admirers of C. S. Lewis, and others persuaded, after deep thought, that there must be Something Out There. They tend to be unconsciousness of prehistory and the biological evolution of human instinct, both of which beg to spread light on this important subject.”

Schama, Simon, “The Story of the Jews, volume 1 – Finding the Words”

Jenkins’ The Great and Holy War

How religion affected and was affected by WW1

Jenkins’ The Jesus Wars

The Christian debates in the fifth century which determined the doctrines successive generations of Christians accepted.

However, you try to rewrite history and turn it on its head. From my reading of history which is much more extensive than just Gibbon Christianity is primarily responsible for the Dark Ages. The attempt to climb out of the Dark Ages was fought by most of Christianity. To credit Christianity for European civilisation is laughable. Europe has lived in a Christian milieu for most of its history so, of course, it has been greatly influenced by Christianity. However, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the persecution of heretics, the forced conversions, the massacres of Jews and even the opposition to having a literate populace who could read the Bible are products of Christianity. Do you contend that any of the foregoing sentence is not supported by fact?

continued
Posted by david f, Thursday, 8 October 2015 4:05:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Sells,

.

You wrote to david f. :

« History is always being rewritten in order to correct the mistakes of past historians who were writing under many incorrect presuppositions common to their time. »
.

As I am sure you are well aware, history is not always being rewritten just to correct mistakes. It is also rewritten for a number of other reasons, a common one being denial – of the Holocaust, for example.

Historians not only relate events, they also interpret them and ... there are as many interpretations as there are historians.

Our vision of historical events may be determined by other factors as well :

For example, when I attended primary school in the Queensland bush I was taught that Napoleon was a tyrant and a warmonger. Whereas my children, who grew up in France, were taught that he was France’s first emperor, a great military leader and conqueror and a national hero. Napoleon Bonaparte is associated with the glorious era when France was at the height of its power and reigned over most of Europe.

The same historical events were seen negatively by me and positively by my children.

There was no revisionism, no historical denial, no “negationism”. The same events simply looked different from the winning side than they did from the losing side – just as the same world cup rugby match looks different from an English point of view than from an Australian point of view.

Napoleon, himself, is reported to have remarked: « History is a set of lies agreed upon ».

I see that Larry Siedentop whose recent book « Inventing the Individual: the Origins of Western Liberalism » which you have reviewed here, is, according to his biography on Wikipedia, a U.S.-born British political philosopher with a special interest in nineteenth-century French liberalism.

The fact that neither Siedentop nor david f. is an historian, as such, does not mean that we should not ask in relation to Siedenttop as you asked of david f.: « Is it not an interpretation fabricated to support (his) prejudice? ».

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 8 October 2015 10:33:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//teaching people to believe (in whatever) rather than to actually come closer to God.//

Who apparently doesn't exist, so what's the point in coming closer to him? How is that even possible? You're talking nonsense, Yuyutsu.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 9 October 2015 8:15:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
continued

I have interpreted nothing to support a prejudice. The Christian heritage includes persecution of pagans, massacres of Jews and heretics, the Inquisition, the Wars of the Reformation and forced conversions. That is fact neither interpretation nor opinion. Should it be ignored?

Please question any particular act of Christianity that I have mentioned that you think cannot be substantiated.

In my opinion the combination of assent to unprovable propositions and a command to spread belief in those unprovable propositions flawed Christianity from its beginnings, and the atrocities mentioned above were a logical consequence. God, Satan, the Trinity, the virgin birth, heaven, God in human or other material shape, original sin, hell and the afterlife all seem to me a farrago of nonsense. If someone came up to me and said “I am the way, the truth, the life” I would say he was suffering from delusions of grandeur even if his name was Jesus. The foregoing is opinion.

I have had a Jewish education. One of the things that bothers me about Christianity is the attempts to convert me. Generally a polite dismissal is not enough for the missionary. I tell people my beliefs, but I don’t try to push them on anybody. I am now an atheist who once believed in God and tried to be religious. I have been asked if I was a Christian. Sometimes it is necessary to correct people who assume I am. Quite often I have been told that he or she hopes I will become a Christian. They are incapable of seeing how rude and intrusive that is. I have never told anyone that I hope they will become an atheist. I think it would be for the better if all religions disappeared, but I would not hurt a believer by telling them that I hoped they would abandon their faith. The missionaries show no such restraint.

I have written a number of articles for olo.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=4977 directs you to them.

I hope you will accept a difference of opinion in future without accusing a person who differs with you of being prejudiced.
Posted by david f, Friday, 9 October 2015 9:42:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Toni,

You seem to be obsessed with this question of existence, but that's only because you subjectively consider it important. I don't.

In fact, valuing that which exists and devaluing that which doesn't, is synonymous with materialism.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 9 October 2015 11:08:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//In fact, valuing that which exists and devaluing that which doesn't, is synonymous with materialism.//

No, materialism is the view that all phenomena are fundamentally material in nature. I accept the existence of non-material phenomena. I don't accept that non-existent things exist because that doesn't make any kind of sense.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 9 October 2015 4:25:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Sells,

I would appreciate an apology from you for labeling me prejudiced.
Posted by david f, Friday, 9 October 2015 4:51:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Toni,

Whatever exists, is material.
Materialism is the belief that matter is important and behaving accordingly.

Phenomena are things that occur. As such they are bound by time, space and causality.

It is possible (though not proven) that certain phenomena are not subject to the ordinary laws of physics, but even if so, that wouldn't render them non-material, but only a different kind of matter.

Who anyway ever claimed that non-existent things exist?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 9 October 2015 5:19:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Sells,

.

You wrote to david f. :

« Where did you read this history? Is it not an interpretation fabricated to support your prejudice? »
.

The OED indicates the following definition of the word “prejudice” :

1. Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience

2. Dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour deriving from preconceived and unfounded opinions

3. chiefly Law: Harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgement

David f. declares that he has had a Jewish education and provides ample evidence on this thread of the depth of his knowledge of Christianity and religion in general.

However, knowing is not believing and the two should not be confused.

The fact that david f. is an apostate, explaining: “I am now an atheist who once believed in God and tried to be religious” precludes the possibility that his comments merely express “preconceived opinions not based on reason or actual experience”.

His apostasy and subsequent atheism are obviously not due to prejudice. They are most likely the result of a long and difficult process of personal interrogation and critical thought based on available evidence.

I personally appreciate the clarity and perspicacity of mind and expression that david f. brings to this forum. I value his contributions, the scope and depth of his knowledge as well as his personal experience on a vast range of subjects.

I can attest that he has always demonstrated strict respect of the facts and is not the sort of person who makes assertions lightly.

Regrettably, what I can only interpret as your recourse to "argumentum ad hominem", in the absence of something more convincing, is most unworthy of the cause you are attempting to defend.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 10 October 2015 11:35:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy