But that’s not what @faded_Glory actually said:
By only quoting the latter part of @faded_Glory’s sentence (and not marking the omission with eg and ellipsis) Eddie has given the impression that “I am entitled to say that Bible thumping seems to be a pastime of Christians.” is something @faded_Glory believes, and not something that follows from Eddie’s position. He’s erected yet another straw man.
The Church of England (the Anglicans) was established by Henry VIII in 1534. The Society of Friends (Quakers) were formed in the 17th century. William Wilberforce’s Slave Trade Act of 1807 abolished the slave trade in the British Empire. If you meant something different by “slavery ended”, then you need to explicate it.
The idea that Christianity is somehow “the basis for”, or otherwise “responsible” for human rights, is honestly laughably simplistic, black-and-white thinking. Obviously no single thing can be said to be the basis or cause of such a complex subject.
There are many human rights, and individual expressions of it has seen varying degrees of both Christian opposition and support. Many of the ideas obviously also have influences both inside, and outside of Christianity, be they secular, pagan, drawn from other religions, or just plain based in common human psychology like the universal desire not to experience suffering and agony.
It is becoming tiresome seeing this absurdly simplistic and dichotomous talking point doing the rounds in conservative Christian circles time and again.
Eddie has made such claims before, and failed to substantiate them. In particular, he was unable to find any feature of early European universities that differentiated them from the preceding Muslim school at al-Qarawiyyin. He is once again giving Christianity more credit than it is due, and making the same misleading claims about slavery, Voltaire and ‘liberal democracy’ that he made back then.
That thread finished with Eddie claiming that Greek democracy differed from Western liberal democracy in part because “… Athens violated its own lofty conception of freedom by its imperialism over other Greek cities”, while ignoring the much greater extent of British, French, Dutch, Spanish and German Imperialism. I (still) think that’s enough to reject Eddie’s comments on this subject as being hilariously inept.
Whichever it was, at least @Tim marked included an ellipsis to mark the quote as an extract. Eddie would not have.
So Eddie isn’t an expert, but he has seen some films? He’s clearly talking out of his daffodil-holder.
When I created this topic I just thought it was interesting - I had no idea what it would become! Can we try to summarrize opinions, and maybe wrap this up?
I don’t mean something different. I do, however, know the difference between ‘Britain’ and ‘The British Empire’, which difference seems to have escaped you.
Your are fear-mongering that the updated abortion law in France will lead to women killing their babies just prior to labor without valid reasons. Keep your religion out of other people’s lives. France’s abortion law update just keeps France’s laws the same as most countries in the EU. Stop with the “killing babies” routine.
The 1807 law appears to be the first law passed by the British Parliament concerning slavery. Prior to that there was a number of conflicting legal opinions.
Tim:
You make a number of good points in these posts, and I don’t dispute most of them. But please keep your eye on my thesis. I’ve said repeatedly that the track record of Christendom is mixed, not by any means perfect. Christians have engaged in all kinds of bad behavior, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they simply failed to live up to their own highest ideals, because of local selfish temptations, pressures to preserve a social status quo, and so on. Other times they have taken isolated little bits of the Old Testament out of context, and used those isolated bits as rules by which Christians are meant to live today. Sometimes they have used isolated bits of the New Testament out of context as well. As well, being human, Christians have been as capable as anyone else of paranoia, panic about perceived external or internal dangers, etc., and have overreacted in the ways that pagans or atheists might also overreact. When people of any religion, race, class, sex, culture, etc. are fearful, they are not at their most generous, most tolerant, or most rational. I fully grant almost everything you and others here say about the list of historical sins of Christian individuals, Christian institutions, and Christian nations. But I’m trying to balance the accounts a bit.
I’m by training a theologian, philosopher and history of ideas who has spend close to 50 years reading history and reading and teaching at the university level not only Christianity and other religious traditions but also the “great books” of the world – great religious texts from all cultures, great philosophical texts, great works of political theory, classics of social science theory, landmarks in the history of science, classic novels, poems and plays, classic works of social satire, etc. I’m trying to give people here, most of whom are trained in the sciences and have done very little formal study in the literature and cultures of the past, the benefit of these years of training, by pointing out to them positive roles of Christianity that they aren’t likely to hear about in popular sources, and certainly not on blog sites about origins–which tend to attract a large number of people who think Christianity is anti-science, anti-intellectual, and generally responsible for just about every social evil in the world. I realize that many of the people here have already made up their minds, like Tim Horton and Faizal Ali, and that no quantity of examples and exposition will change the opinions they arrived at years ago and have maintained steadily and aggressively since. But I’m not familiar with you or where you are coming from, so there is hope that you are a more open sort of person who will look into something new when you hear about it, rather than reflexively deny it.
OK, that’s my preamble. Now for some specific answers to your points:
First, rather than engage in any more “common sense reasoning” about how powerful Anglicanism or Christianity is in British schools or culture, let’s defer that question until we have some more information from some people who actually live in the UK. I’m hoping to have more such information within a day or two. I hope this is satisfactory to you.
I actually agree with this. I do think that some more liberal Christians are more perceptive about some parts of the Bible. For example, there is a social justice theme in both Testaments, and some liberal Christians correctly pick up that theme, while some conservative Christians seem oblivious to it. And in fact, I’ve actually drawn on this notion in some of my remarks to Art and several others here: there is a prophetic spirit of social justice that has found its way from the Bible into Western culture, and especially into more recent Western culture. There is overlap in spirit and in themes and often even in contents between secular social justice movements and the teaching of the prophets and the Gospels. And while Greek thought has some valuable insights about justice, the “social justice” theme in Greek writers is relatively muted in comparison with Biblical and Christian writers, which is why I have said that modern Western culture, even in its secular forms, is not merely the successor to Greek philosophy, but also very much the successor to the Bible. I don’t mean that modern secular humanism is identical with Biblical or Christian faith, but that the first owes something, historically, to the second. I hope you will agree with this. I don’t think it’s an extreme position to take, and plenty of scholars have drawn the connection.
I agree that people can and have read all kinds of things into the Bible. I don’t agree, however, that when read carefully and regularly (as opposed to “dipped into now and then for purposes of controversy”) that it’s an ink blot that could mean nearly anything. There are repeated themes and emphases. Yes, there are also some apparent tensions in the contents, as might be expected from a work that represent thousands of years of the development of a religious community, was written by scores of different authors at different times, etc. But to me, while the tensions and ambiguities cannot be denied, the continuities of theme are equally remarkable. When the continuities are taken into account, certain things are just ruled out.
For example, you can’t get Nazi doctrine out of the Bible, though the Nazis may have tried. The overall drift of the Bible is clearly against any such interpretation. The Nazi thinkers who claimed that their beliefs were true Christianity were just plain wrong. Only the most selective cherry-picking of out-of-context phrases, and the deliberate non-acknowledgment of the vast majority of the text, could produce Nazi doctrine out of the Bible.
Agreed. I have not said that all important parts of Christianity were active in Western culture at all times. In fact, I conceded the opposite, several times. Much of Renaissance was not Christian in spirit, but was aimed at aggrandizing man rather than teaching him proper Christlike humility. No argument there. Nonetheless, the Renaissance period was a time of much thinking about the Bible and Christianity, and it was a period when Christian scholars began to interact more frequently with Jews, learning Hebrew and so on. Though it revived Classical thought, it also showed a new interest in the Hebraic side of Christianity, and that interest has increased steadily since then.
I agree again. Christians in real life have acted in ways that have caused many to be repelled by it, or by organized religion in general. We have no disagreement. But Christians in real life have also acted in ways that many, even non-Christians, have admired. Over the years figures such as Mother Theresa and Jean Vanier have garnered accolades from all camps.
Yes, that is true, but as I think I mentioned to someone, maybe you (so many people talking here I can’t keep things straight!), the Declaration, not formally part of the Constitution but certainly very much part of its inspiration, says that all men are created equal – and the use of the word “created” there is no mere accident; the very literate Founders knew that readers of that phrase would hear echoes of Genesis in particular and Christianity generally, and at the very least, any doctrine of creation will be theistic in the broad sense. The point is that no matter whether one is Christian or Jew (or Muslim, though Muslim religion was not probably much in view to the writers of the Declaration), if one conceives of man as created by an omnipotent God, in the image of that omnipotent God, one will naturally conclude that all men are equal – not necessarily in wealth or talent, etc., but in some fundamental property that makes them human and children of God.
It was only by positing, as if it were beyond argument, the equality of men that Lincoln could justify a war that led to the slaughter of millions of Americans. Equality was so important that millions of white lives could be lost to make sure that equality was granted to blacks as well as whites. Only a deep “religious” conviction of equality could motivate such a national sacrifice. And where did that religious conviction come from? Not from Aristotle, who said there were natural slaves (though he said it without much emphasis and in passing). Not clearly from Plato, who seemed to have some idea of a universal human nature but who sometimes seems to validate human inequality, and thus sent out an ambiguous message. Perhaps, in theory, it could have come from Stoicism, which did preach a kind of equality, but Stoicism was hardly a powerful living religious force in colonial America, and only a few of the most learned Americans at the time would have read its texts or known anything about it. No, the main source of deep popular conviction in the fundamental equality of all men for 18th-century Americans was the Bible, with its teaching that all men come from God and are in the image of God (Genesis), and from the repeated themes of universalism seen in the prophets, many sayings of Jesus, and many sayings of Paul. Even theological mavericks of the time, Deists or Unitarians or Quakers etc., were familiar with these themes from living in a culture steeped in the Bible. The moral fabric of America, to the extent that it takes equality as a non-negotiable given, a metaphysical foundation, owes more to the Bible and Christianity than to any other source – historically speaking. Even if the original Christian ethos fades over time, the moral guts of the belief in equality remains.
You’re talking as if religions are rigid things based only on books, as if the books aren’t supplemented by centuries of interpretation, reflection, and supplementation. Christianity is of course about the Bible, but it’s also about a living interpretation of the Bible. In Catholic and Orthodox faith, apostolic tradition, conceived of as carrying on after the Biblical text was fixed, is a source of doctrine along with the Bible. And even the Reformers Luther and Calvin, while denying that anything but Scripture had final authority, in practice held on to much theological tradition, reading the Fathers and other theologians diligently. Christian thought isn’t just a straight exegesis of the Ten Commandments.
Still, I grant you that nowhere in the Bible are pluralism and democracy taught. But it was never my contention that modern thought came directly from the Bible. I said that Biblical themes helped to give it birth and shape it, not that the Biblical teaching was preserved untransformed in it.
Consider one such transitional moment. John Locke, a Christian (albeit perhaps in some respects a maverick one), wrote the Two Treatises of Government, the first of which argued against the divine right of kings and against slavery, using Biblical exegesis. He also wrote the First Letter on Toleration, which is the granddaddy of all political theory literature on toleration since. There was no Hindu John Locke, no Muslim John Locke, no Chinese John Locke, no Aztec John Locke, arguing for religious toleration and the separation of private religious belief from the laws of the state. Only in a Bible-saturated Christian society was the general theory of toleration worked out. This is not to say that there were not periods of relative religious toleration elsewhere, e.g., during the early Roman Empire or in Hellenistic times or at some times in India (where experiments in Muslim, Hindu etc. coexistence were tried), but the systematic argument for toleration from first principles was the product of the Christian West. The core features of that argument remain part of all arguments for toleration today.
There is plenty of bad American Biblical exegesis and bad American Christianity. The only thing that should matter is how good are the arguments from Scripture and Apostolic Tradition were. It doesn’t matter what many or even most Baptists thought, or what Bob Jones trustees thought, etc. If we are trying to determine what is Biblical or Christian, we go to the relevant texts and authorities and do the hard scholarly work of exegesis. And when we do that, we find that the arguments for slavery and racism are unsustainable. I’m quite willing to say that many American Christians have read the Bible quite wrongly, due to lack of knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, lack of knowledge of historical context of the writings, lack of any skill whatsoever in interpreting narrative and poetic texts. The vast majority of Christians who have ever lived have been, academically speaking, ignoramuses, and while that does not prevent them from having good Christian hearts on many issues, it means that their exegesis and theology has no intellectual standing. Thus, many Southern slave-owners may have treated their slaves with compassion, may have made sure they had spiritual instruction to save their souls, etc., but may have read the Bible abominably badly on the question of slavery. Thinking one understands the Bible does not make it so. One’s understanding must be proved – and proved before an audience of the learned, not before an audience of yahoos eager to preserve a particular social form and willing to read into the Bible whatever is needed to accomplish that end.
Some of the people who voted for Trump are doubtless good and even theologically orthodox Christians. Many others may be very poor Christians in practice, and with very little theological education. And of course, what people here seem to forget, it that it is not just Christians who voted for Trump. Trump stands for a right-wing, free enterprise view of things, and plenty of non-Christian secularists, including many bankers, corporate executives, movie stars, sports figures, musicians, etc. subscribe to that view. The kind of person who admires Ayn Rand probably would vote for Trump, and Rand’s philosophy is not exactly Christian.
Well, yes, European statesmen and political theorists in the Middle Ages did think that way. But in actual fact, as the Gospels show, Christianity, as opposed to the religion of Israel, is maddeningly silent and unclear about how human societies are to be governed. People are told to obey existing authorities, but there is nothing that specifies that those authorities must be monarchical, as opposed to democratically elected. Christianity’s relative indifference to forms of government made it possible, later on, for Christians to embrace democratic government once the theory was worked out and once it became practically feasible.
And note, by the way, that even in the Old Testament the “anointed kingship” model of government was not God’s first choice. It was a concession when the people of Israel demanded a king like the other nations; previously, while not exactly a democracy in the modern sense, it was a tribal confederacy in which each Israelite farmer or shepherd was in principle the equal of any other, ruled only by the Law, not by kings or emperors. The people of Israel rejected this freer, less hierarchical system in favor of the kingship model. The story is told in Samuel. And no emphasis was given to this part of the Biblical story by medieval political theorists – another example of selective Christian reading of the Bible which just happens to sustain a prevalent political or social situation. Later on, Hobbes will call attention to the Samuel story, thus planting seeds for later political developments.
Agreed. But for years now, people here have been saying that it was only enemy, and had no role as parent. I’m merely trying to balance things by pointing out the other side. Modernity is not Christianity, but it certainly owes something to Christianity. That’s all I’m claiming. And as I said, many scholars in all fields – history, philosophy, religion, sociology, political theory, history of science, etc. – agree with this, and have written massive tomes and countless articles in support of it.
I think we have covered the ground thoroughly, and I think we have both tried to be polite and fair in our conversation. I don’t have time to continue this further – I’ve already spent probably 20 hours writing all these posts, and I do have responsibilities outside of the internet. But I’ve given an articulate defense of my position, and if anyone still isn’t sold, they can check out some of the authors I’ve mentioned to verify that I’m not just making things up.
Not for people who are professionally trained in the history of ideas, as opposed to molecular biology.
There aren’t any serious medieval scholars known to me who would equate the two. I already gave arguments on this before; I cannot help it if people won’t listen to reason, evidence, the judgment of good scholars, etc., but prefer to pick articles from Wikipedia and argue from them, flying by the seat of their pants rather than engaging in detailed historical comparison of a responsible scholarly kind.
In any case, even if we count the Muslims as the founder of the medieval university, that still makes the institution the offspring of Western theism, not of atheism; and Muslim theism’s roots go back to the Biblical religions, so not much is gained for the thesis, “Universities didn’t need no stinkin’ Biblical ideas to get going.”
You’re right. I should have said the British empire, not Britain. In fact I knew that Britain itself had not had slaves for some centuries by then. I wrote too hurriedly. But my point remains: there was a strong Christian presence in the movement to abolish slavery in the Empire. So that is a very clear example of the Christian spirit giving shape to values held dear in modern secular society. Which was of course my thesis.
Good request. I have given my summary to Tim, just above. I will let it rest there. (Touch wood.)
Apologies @Tim, I mistook you for Eddie. Please ignore now-deleted request to revisit Carry on Cleo.
The Slave Trade act and the later abolition act were aimed at the colonies, not at Britain itself, where slavery had disappeared following the Norman conquest, and was confirmed in various case rulings to have never been legal under English law, unlike in some European countries where it was explicitly legalised. .
False. You dodged the question, then flounced from the forum.
When you are a public employee you pledge an oath to uphold the constitution. If you can’t do your job without violating the constitutional rights of others then you shouldn’t be in that job. Doctors aren’t public employees, so it’s a slightly different case. From what I know, no doctor is required to do abortions, but public employees are required to render services without discrimination, and that includes issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.
There was a strong Christian presence in the movement to preserve slavery.
Ah, the usual Eddie Argument. I’m right because I say I’m right. 
You still never told us who appointed you Supreme Spokesman for what all TRUE Christians must believe.
It’s just as much at stake as the Christian civil servant who refuses marriage licences to same sex couples for “religious conscience”. But we wouldn’t expect anything less than blatant hypocrisy from you.