Christian ethics vs. Roman values

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Jack said:
I believe Owl (like Cypress) was brainwashed as a child into believing religion is synonymous with 'Compassion' and 'Mercy'.
According to Cypress, Compassion and Mercy were invented 2,000 years ago. Before then, no one knew what it was.
Click to expand...
Post my exact words with the link, rather than mischaracterize what I said

Now, the mainstream, midde-of-the-road, milquetoast, highly reputable Encyclopedia Britannica reports almost exactly everything I ever told you about this topic:

-Judeo-Christian ethics were something new and influential in western history.

-For whatever it's faults were, Judeo-Christian ethics was a significant cultural shift in the west, including the diminishment of slavery and the end of the practice of infanticide.

-The Greeks and Romans emphasized a different set of values than Christian ethics emphasized.

-For the Greco-Romans ethics were something one chose to do as a matter of practical reasoning. The Greeks and Romans did not think of a distinctively moral realm of conduct.

-For christians, ethics were legalistic, they were morally and theologically binding and immutable. That was a new kind of metaphysical vision of ethics in the west.

^^ That is what I have consistently written and that is what Encyclopedia Britannica reports.

Encyclopedia Britannica - Christian Ethics Influence on Western Civilization

The (Judeo-Christian) conception of morality had important consequences for the future development of Western ethics. The Greeks and Romans—and indeed thinkers such as Confucius—did not conceive of a distinctively moral realm of conduct. For them, everything that one did was a matter of practical reasoning, in which one could do either well or poorly. In the more legalistic Judeo-Christian view, however, falling short of what the moral law requires was a much more serious matter than, say, failing to do the household budgets correctly. This (Judeo-Christian) distinction between the moral and the nonmoral realms now affects every question in Western ethics, including the way the questions themselves are framed.

The new Christian ethical standards did lead to some changes in Roman morality. Perhaps the most vital change was a new sense of the equal moral status of all human beings. This caused Christians to condemn a wide variety of practices that had been accepted by both Greek and Roman moralists, including many related to the taking of innocent human life: from the earliest days Christian leaders condemned abortion, infanticide, and suicide.

The Christian contribution to improving the position of slaves can also be linked with the distinctively Christian list of virtues. As noted above, some of the virtues described by Aristotle—for example, greatness of soul—are quite contrary in spirit to Christian virtues such as humility. In general it can be said that, whereas the Greeks and Romans prized independence, self-reliance, magnanimity, and worldly success, Christians emphasized meekness, obedience, patience, and resignation. As the Greeks and Romans conceived virtue, a virtuous slave was almost a contradiction in terms; for Christians, however, there was nothing in the state of slavery that was incompatible with the highest moral character.


https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics-philosophy/The-Stoics
Click to expand...
 
The only remaining question is who is more likely to be correct about the history of ethics in western civilization?


Obscure and anonymous message board poster "Jack"?

Or, the professional historians who contribute to Encyclopedia Britannica?
 
Cypress said:
The only remaining question is who is more likely to be correct about the history of ethics in western civilization?


Obscure and anonymous message board poster "Jack"?

Or, the professional historians who contribute to Encyclopedia Britannica?
Click to expand...

Looks like you are doing some voodoo magic here. I thought you were extolling the virtues of 'Christian Compassion'.
As stated before, I doubt Jews felt much of this 'compassion' for the last 2,000 years.
The Spanish Inquisition is a good example of 'Christian Compassion'. Synonymous with Torture and Murder.
Do you really believe South America willingly turned to Roman Catholicism?
Was Puritans hanging Quakers in Boston 'Christian Compassion'?
I asked you before, since you claim to live in California, why are they taking down the Statues of Father Junipero Serra.

The Renaissance marked the beginning of the end for 'Christian Compassion'.

"The Renaissance is a period in European history marking the transition from the Middle Ages to modernity and covering the 15th and 16th centuries, characterized by an effort to revive and surpass ideas and achievements of classical antiquity. Wikipedia"

I don't want to have to go over the same thing with you. I've already concluded you have been brainwashed as a child, and I have no interest in trying to deprogram you.
 
Cypress said:
The only remaining question is who is more likely to be correct about the history of ethics in western civilization?


Obscure and anonymous message board poster "Jack"?

Or, the professional historians who contribute to Encyclopedia Britannica?
Click to expand...

Jack just hates. He has no interest in learning. OTOH, it's an interesting distinction about the Christian vs Roman/"practical reasoning" morality.

First, I'll submit that there are some Christians who do live up to those Christian ethics, but none of them are on television.

Lastly, the "practical reasoning" thing caught my eye and I'd both like to explore it since I happen to be a very big fan of practical reasoning.

Taking out the things that can't be proved, which form of morality is superior and why? Off hand, I'd say practical reasoning. The article hinted at a "might makes right" morality, and no doubt that is true, but to a modern mind, that's not always the most practical way to do things.

Might makes right is Warlords and peasants. It was the rise of the middle class that created all the wealth in the world. The idea of "having a piece of the action"**, capitalism, requires rights of the individual. It doesn't work without it. Christianity contributed to popularizing that idea, but it's also a logical progression for a practical and reasoning society.


**one of my favorite episodes.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Jack just hates. He has no interest in learning. OTOH, it's an interesting distinction about the Christian vs Roman/"practical reasoning" morality.

First, I'll submit that there are some Christians who do live up to those Christian ethics, but none of them are on television.

Lastly, the "practical reasoning" thing caught my eye and I'd both like to explore it since I happen to be a very big fan of practical reasoning.

Taking out the things that can't be proved, which form of morality is superior and why? Off hand, I'd say practical reasoning. The article hinted at a "might makes right" morality, and no doubt that is true, but to a modern mind, that's not always the most practical way to do things.

Might makes right is Warlords and peasants. It was the rise of the middle class that created all the wealth in the world. The idea of "having a piece of the action"**, capitalism, requires rights of the individual. It doesn't work without it. Christianity contributed to popularizing that idea, but it's also a logical progression for a practical and reasoning society.


**one of my favorite episodes.
Click to expand...

Jack supports a Secular Humanist viewpoint. Jack DOESN'T support a fantasy world that Cypress has fallen into.

"Secular humanism
Political ideology
Secular humanism, often simply called humanism, is a philosophy or life stance that embraces human reason, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making. Wikipedia"
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Jack just hates. He has no interest in learning. OTOH, it's an interesting distinction about the Christian vs Roman/"practical reasoning" morality.

First, I'll submit that there are some Christians who do live up to those Christian ethics, but none of them are on television.

Lastly, the "practical reasoning" thing caught my eye and I'd both like to explore it since I happen to be a very big fan of practical reasoning.

Taking out the things that can't be proved, which form of morality is superior and why? Off hand, I'd say practical reasoning. The article hinted at a "might makes right" morality, and no doubt that is true, but to a modern mind, that's not always the most practical way to do things.

Might makes right is Warlords and peasants. It was the rise of the middle class that created all the wealth in the world. The idea of "having a piece of the action"**, capitalism, requires rights of the individual. It doesn't work without it. Christianity contributed to popularizing that idea, but it's also a logical progression for a practical and reasoning society.


**one of my favorite episodes.
Click to expand...
The morality based on God's way is superior, jackass. If you were a "Christian", you'd know that.
 
Matt Dillon said:
The morality based on God's way is superior, jackass. If you were a "Christian", you'd know that.
Click to expand...

If you believe God gave you a brain, then you'd understand the inherent conflict with Christian ethics, which you don't follow anyway, and practical reasoning - the use of God's gift.

From the OP: The Christian contribution to improving the position of slaves can also be linked with the distinctively Christian list of virtues. As noted above, some of the virtues described by Aristotle—for example, greatness of soul—are quite contrary in spirit to Christian virtues such as humility. In general it can be said that, whereas the Greeks and Romans prized independence, self-reliance, magnanimity, and worldly success, Christians emphasized meekness, obedience, patience, and resignation. As the Greeks and Romans conceived virtue, a virtuous slave was almost a contradiction in terms; for Christians, however, there was nothing in the state of slavery that was incompatible with the highest moral character.

Note that, by that definition, both you and I are Greek and Roman oriented, not Christian.
 
Jack said:
Jack supports a Secular Humanist viewpoint. Jack DOESN'T support a fantasy world that Cypress has fallen into.

"Secular humanism
Political ideology
Secular humanism, often simply called humanism, is a philosophy or life stance that embraces human reason, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making. Wikipedia"
Click to expand...

Why are you trying to impose your views on Cypress?
 
Jack said:
Looks like you are doing some voodoo magic here. I thought you were extolling the virtues of 'Christian Compassion'.
As stated before, I doubt Jews felt much of this 'compassion' for the last 2,000 years.
The Spanish Inquisition is a good example of 'Christian Compassion'. Synonymous with Torture and Murder.
Do you really believe South America willingly turned to Roman Catholicism?
Was Puritans hanging Quakers in Boston 'Christian Compassion'?
I asked you before, since you claim to live in California, why are they taking down the Statues of Father Junipero Serra.

The Renaissance marked the beginning of the end for 'Christian Compassion'.

"The Renaissance is a period in European history marking the transition from the Middle Ages to modernity and covering the 15th and 16th centuries, characterized by an effort to revive and surpass ideas and achievements of classical antiquity. Wikipedia"

I don't want to have to go over the same thing with you. I've already concluded you have been brainwashed as a child, and I have no interest in trying to deprogram you.
Click to expand...
So you claim you are correct about the history of western ethics, and that Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong.

That actually does not even come remotely close to passing the laugh test.


Pretty much everything I wrote about the history of western ethics to you is fully supported by the mainstream, credible, and highly reputable Encyclopedia Britannica.
 
Cypress said:
The only remaining question is who is more likely to be correct about the history of ethics in western civilization?


Obscure and anonymous message board poster "Jack"?

Or, the professional historians who contribute to Encyclopedia Britannica?
Click to expand...

I think I'll have to go with the people who have spent lifetimes studying historical records from antiquity to modern times.

Jack seeks to insult and attempt to humiliate others. Since he hates women, he uses graphic sexual imagery to try to demean us. Since he hates Christians, he considers calling someone that he KNOWS is not Christian that epithet to be the height of insult.

It's not. My mom was a sainted Christian, a Sunday School teacher. She would have counseled Jack to set aside his rage and hate and come to the Lord. She would have forgiven him for all the ugly things he has said over the years to women on various forums. She would have prayed earnestly for him.

I prefer laughing at him, myself. :laugh:
 
Cypress said:
So you claim you are correct about the history of western ethics, and that Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong.

That actually does not even come remotely close to passing the laugh test.


Pretty much everything I wrote about the history of western ethics to you is fully supported by the mainstream, credible, and highly reputable Encyclopedia Britannica.
Click to expand...

:) Pretty sure I didn't mention anything about western ethics and Encyclopedia Britannica.

I did ask you about your 'Christian Compassion' claim. Any reason you are avoiding that?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I think I'll have to go with the people who have spent lifetimes studying historical records from antiquity to modern times.

Jack seeks to insult and attempt to humiliate others. Since he hates women, he uses graphic sexual imagery to try to demean us. Since he hates Christians, he considers calling someone that he KNOWS is not Christian that epithet to be the height of insult.

It's not. My mom was a sainted Christian, a Sunday School teacher. She would have counseled Jack to set aside his rage and hate and come to the Lord. She would have forgiven him for all the ugly things he has said over the years to women on various forums. She would have prayed earnestly for him.

I prefer laughing at him, myself. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Oh good. Owl is here. Any possibility you could actually address the Topic?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I think I'll have to go with the people who have spent lifetimes studying historical records from antiquity to modern times.

Jack seeks to insult and attempt to humiliate others. Since he hates women, he uses graphic sexual imagery to try to demean us. Since he hates Christians, he considers calling someone that he KNOWS is not Christian that epithet to be the height of insult.

It's not. My mom was a sainted Christian, a Sunday School teacher. She would have counseled Jack to set aside his rage and hate and come to the Lord. She would have forgiven him for all the ugly things he has said over the years to women on various forums. She would have prayed earnestly for him.

I prefer laughing at him, myself. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Me too. I am interested in historical truth and historical integrity.

Religion has many flaws, but the influence of Judeo-Christianity on western civilization is just a historical fact, for better or for worse.

I always figured Jack was unwillingly drugged to a fundamentalist church by his parents, which resulted in trauma.

That seems to be the only explanation for why he thinks Christianity is unrelentingly evil, universally corrupt, and has never done a single solitary thing to improve the human condition.

I write numerous threads about Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and they curiously never make Jack angry or provoke the slightest hostile response from him
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I think I'll have to go with the people who have spent lifetimes studying historical records from antiquity to modern times.

Jack seeks to insult and attempt to humiliate others. Since he hates women, he uses graphic sexual imagery to try to demean us. Since he hates Christians, he considers calling someone that he KNOWS is not Christian that epithet to be the height of insult.

It's not. My mom was a sainted Christian, a Sunday School teacher. She would have counseled Jack to set aside his rage and hate and come to the Lord. She would have forgiven him for all the ugly things he has said over the years to women on various forums. She would have prayed earnestly for him.

I prefer laughing at him, myself. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Topics like this make me wish that I had run out for donuts before it started snowing.
At least we've got some Danish this time.
 
Cypress said:
Me too. I am interested in historical truth and historical integrity.

Religion has many flaws, but the influence of Judeo-Christianity on western civilization is just a historical fact, for better or for worse.

I always figured Jack was unwillingly drugged to a fundamentalist church by his parents, which resulted in trauma.

That seems to be the only explanation for why he thinks Christianity is unrelentingly evil, universally corrupt, and has never done a single solitary thing to improve the human condition.

I write numerous threads about Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and they curiously never make Jack angry or provoke the slightest hostile response from him
Click to expand...

You consistently avoid the Questions I've posed to you. You duck, and swirl, spin and hop. Reluctant to discuss the topic of 'Christian Compassion' that you have promulgated.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Topics like this make me wish that I had run out for donuts before it started snowing.
At least we've got some Danish this time.
Click to expand...

:) Yes, it is interesting. We live in a majority Christian Culture, so it's easy to find people extolling it's virtues. Like Cypress. When pressed, he seems to avoid the topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top