peter12's "Human rights is an exclusively Christian concept." thread

[Kjesse]

Peter12's comment was so over the top and hard to defend, and here we are another thread deep in debate.

What he said, exactly, was this, "Human rights is an exclusively Christian concept."

The peanut gallery became outraged, and rightly so, but still seems to be losing the debate. If a debate is to happen, lets define human rights, then argue from there.

I took his comments later on to suggest that Christianity only spread certain human rights concepts, but still, those aren't clearly defined and one can't understand what he means.

An example: Some would say, one person, one vote, is a concept of a basic human right. It would be hard to argue that this was ever an "exclusively Christian concept." In fact, Christianity was fully against it for a majority of the last 2000 years.

Regardless, credit to peter12 for making this a debate at all though I do sense a hint of trolling and do not actually think he believes the stark nature of the quote above.

[T@T]

LOL this thread.

Even if Christianity did invent human rights(which it didn't ) it would be a miserable failure.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Apologies in advance, long thread, I've just skimmed parts and had a thought to share.

I get what peter12 is saying (I think) and while not a Christian myself, I wouldn't find it problematic if someone said I held certain Christian values or if certain concepts I felt strongly about (human rights) were Christian concepts.

I think a lot of this argument is getting bogged down in non-Christians and specifically atheists issue with the concept of exclusivity and what that means on a wider level. How that challenges their own interpretation of concepts like human rights.

I would generally disagree that it's exclusively Christian even in origin, I don't believe even Christian concepts were simply formed in conjunction with the formation of Christianity, but I do believe many concepts (like human rights) owe their spread and popularity to religion.

It's already after 1:00, so I am not going to be able to give this discussion the attention or response it deserves. I believe that peter12's argument is pretty clearly and most comprehensively outlined in post #101, and I intend to return to it at some point tomorrow.

For now, I did want to say that a component of his argument that I think is being overlooked, and which is probably also the cause of what I think is an over-reach on his part is the important point that Christianity emerged from the Roman world, and was projected as a direct challenge specifically to Roman empiricism. I think this is probably the key to exploring what peter12 is getting at, and I intend to do so at some point when I am ... more awake...

Originally Posted by Calgary_81

So John Doe brings up a great point that contradicts your 'story' and you split eh?

And have you seen Bill Mahers 'Religulous' documentary ? Did you cry?

Oh, and congratulations to Calgary_81 for winning the Darwin award for most hilariously out-of-touch contribution to the discussion in this thread.

Religulous?? Really???

I show clips from that film in my Introduction to Religions classes as a clear illustration of how to absolutely fail in the enterprise of analysing the global phenomena of religion. It's sooooooo bad.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Religulous?? Really???

Actually it was a great movie, worthy of an academic award in fact.
Seriously, Textcritic, You wish you could turn your BS teachings of BS into $$$ like Mayer does of mostly truth.

Go ahead, try and prove him wrong! Your film Religions classes ??? ...well, please man who really give a flying f*** .. . really man I wouldn't bother picking on you if you left others alone but you don't.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Claiming that religion is responsible for the foundation of human rights is a troll job. Using the bible to prove that human rights are a result of the Judeo-Christian tradition is also a massive fail. The bible speaks of oppression, and the right to oppress all the time.

Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Titus 2:9-10
Bondservants are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

Leviticus 19:20
If a man lies sexually with a woman who is a slave, assigned to another man and not yet ransomed or given her freedom, a distinction shall be made. They shall not be put to death, because she was not free;

Ephesians 6:5
Bondservants, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ.

1 Timothy 2:10-14
But with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.

1 Peter 3:1
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Jude 1:7
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

2 John 1:9-11
Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

Using religion as the foundation of equality is just flat out nutty. Religion and a belief in a particular concept of God does not unite and promote equality, it divides and encourages distrust. For almost all organized religions God is not all inclusive or all loving. God is megalomaniac who demands your obedience and that you worship him, or He will smite or destroy you. "God's" word has been used to oppress people for thousands of years, regardless of the flavor of God being peddled at that moment. Every religion has the same narratives and maintains the same ideals. There is the creator and the destroyer. God will save those that believe in Him but come and destroy those that do not. Sounds really inclusive to me.

Christianity is the greatest sham of all the religious non-sense. Especially in the modern context. Christianity is all inclusive, until it comes to those who don't want to follow Christianity. Then, it is no better than any of the other religions that Christians claim to be better than.

What we believe to be the beginning of modern human rights was established during the enlightenment, a period of reason and tolerance meant to counter the abuses of the church. Bacon, Locke and Descartes thoughts were counter to the teachings of the church and very secular in nature. Their ideas flew in the face of religious dogma and tradition. Their concepts stoked the fires that produced Voltaire, Rousseau, and Kant, who pondered many of the concepts key to liberalism. The thoughts and ideals of enlightenment thinkers like Locke and Hume can be seen in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, as Jefferson and Madison were both greatly influenced by these enlightenment thinkers. The secular humanism that grew out of the enlightenment was responsible for the development of human rights, not Judeao-Christian ideals. The following and adherence to Judeao-Christian ideals is what maintained the Dark Ages and allowed for the oppression of people.

[GGG]

I think one problem with this is that Christians or at least western society doesn't care much for human rights as long as we can't see it.

We still have slavery, we use it to make our electronics and clothes. We just exported the unsavoury parts of it oversees where we don't need to see it.

I would argue that economic conditions allow us to care for others to some degree but our limit of caring for people outside of our group is very limited and only extends to the point of very minor loss of luxuries.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by T@T

Actually it was a great movie, worthy of an academic award in fact.
Seriously, Textcritic, You wish you could turn your BS teachings of BS into $$$ like Mayer does of mostly truth.

Go ahead, try and prove him wrong! Your film Religions classes ??? ...well, please man who really give a flying f*** .. . really man I wouldn't bother picking on you if you left others alone but you don't.

I think, in this kind of forum, the only way to "pick on" someone is to go out of your way to make them look dumb.

You aren't doing that.

You might be picking on yourself though.

[peter12]

Well, this has been a rollicking debate! I really do enjoy arguments, particularly ones where I take up a stance so contrary to the main. As Textcritic said, the clearest expression of my argument is post #101, and I am more than happy to develop or explain my position on concepts such as human rights.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

What we believe to be the beginning of modern human rights was established during the enlightenment, a period of reason and tolerance meant to counter the abuses of the church. Bacon, Locke and Descartes thoughts were counter to the teachings of the church and very secular in nature. Their ideas flew in the face of religious dogma and tradition. Their concepts stoked the fires that produced Voltaire, Rousseau, and Kant, who pondered many of the concepts key to liberalism. The thoughts and ideals of enlightenment thinkers like Locke and Hume can be seen in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, as Jefferson and Madison were both greatly influenced by these enlightenment thinkers. The secular humanism that grew out of the enlightenment was responsible for the development of human rights, not Judeao-Christian ideals. The following and adherence to Judeao-Christian ideals is what maintained the Dark Ages and allowed for the oppression of people.

All of that is true. But that enlightened humanism incorporated Christian ideals and modes of thinking in ways that aren't readily apparent today. As I noted up-thread, the notion that the weak and oppressed have the moral high ground - the imperative to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted - isn't a product of Rousseau or Kant or Hume.

Originally Posted by GGG

I think one problem with this is that Christians or at least western society doesn't care much for human rights as long as we can't see it.

We still have slavery, we use it to make our electronics and clothes. We just exported the unsavoury parts of it oversees where we don't need to see it.

I would argue that economic conditions allow us to care for others to some degree but our limit of caring for people outside of our group is very limited and only extends to the point of very minor loss of luxuries.

We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The fact that some people in the West today care somewhat about how the things they buy are made is a noteworthy step up from the indifference that the rest of humanity has always felt about such things.

[IliketoPuck]

Thanks for the fascinating read everyone. I genuinely enjoy being a fly on the wall of these threads. Makes me truly appreciate the diversity of viewpoints and educational backgrounds this forum has.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by peter12

I said very early on that this would be a problem, as I am sort of conducting multiple defences all at once. Jargon - well, I am educated in philosophy, and that is how I see things.

So to summarize:

• Everyone has inherited bias. A very common one now is that we would be a lot better off if Christianity was removed as a significant influence on our Western culture.
• I disagree. I believe that a lot of good (not all but most) things - such as universal human rights - are directly influenced by Christian ideas - found in the gospel, but developed by Christian thinkers from Augustine to Kierkegaard.

• I don't think this opinion is exclusive to Christianity, but is generally based that most religions should be removed from significant influence, particularly the Abrahamic ones. And that is not to say that it should be eradicated from culture, but from policy, law and decision-making that is meant to represent the will of the majority, and not be specific or catered to any religion or culture.
  
  And while you're right that there have been great things to come from these practices in the past, that is not a reason to continue using them as a basis in the future. We are (or should be) moving away from religion as an influence on public decision making, because we are not of one religion or spirituality.
  
  

  While the Gospel is not a political manifesto, and does not say anything about matters, such as slavery, or governance, the ideas contained within inevitably lead to a revolution in thought and action. Some of the fruits of this revolution have been abolition, and free government.

  New Era pointed to some specific passages of the Bible that allude to and condone slavery, the subjugation of women, condemnation of homosexuality, etc... And while you claim that it is not a political manifesto, you cannot deny that it has been employed that way, and is still today. It's original intentions are largely irrelevant when you consider how it has been used in practice by humanity.
  
  

  I also understand that the pagans were very profound, and that their ideas have gradually developed alongside, and sometimes within, Christianity.

  And before, which is a big key to the overall discussion. Many of the traditions of paganism were adopted into Christianity, pretty much just for a relatively seamless transition for followers. [/quote]
  
  

  We are still human, and thus, our view of the truth is limited by our own nature. I am willing to see the point that other traditions influenced the development of Christianity, but overall, Christianity was the watershed moment, so to speak, in human history.

A watershed moment, yes, but not THE watershed moment. And you have a tone about this that makes it seem like it only brought good upon us, where there are plenty of examples of the bad it brought as well. Crusades, Inquisition, imperialism and subsequent indoctrination of indigenous cultures, witch-hunting, slavery (again, you can't just separate what you take from the books and what is actually written, or what other people take from it, and just assume because you employ it for good, that it is overall good).

There have been such events throughout history that have changed people's views of ourselves entirely, some very recently. I would say that fall of communism and the rise of the internet are hugely influential events on the way society has evolved and the way humans view each other. The death of religion as an actual driver of public policy (whether you believe it should be or not is irrelevant. It is.) is probably the next step. Hopefully it happens in my lifetime (but not likely, maybe here in the West, but it has a pretty strong grip in the Middle East).

It really surprises me that someone with a philosophy background has a pretty narrow view of what has influenced our culture. No doubt you studied Confucius, Buddha, Hindi etc..., and while those things may not have had whole lot of influence in the "western" world, that doesn't discount the impact their philosophies have had on humanity overall. There are, after all, a lot more people in areas where those views were the norm for a long time. You could probably argue that the environmentalist movement is more born out of a Buddhist philosophy more than anything else. Particularly Christianity, which has tended towards the idea that the Earth was created FOR us and thus we can use it as we please.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Not to mention, the most recent human rights/civil rights movement, gay marriage, was and is, vehemently decried and worked against by most Christian religions.

And yet gay marriage, and tolerance of homosexuality in general, is still confined almost exclusively to countries with a Christian heritage. I suppose the question is whether that's in spite of the Christian heritage, or because of it.

Or to peel the onion back further, why did liberal humanism arise in the Christian West and not elsewhere in the world? This is a question that rarely gets asked by progressives.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And yet gay marriage, and tolerance of homosexuality in general, is still confined almost exclusively to countries with a Christian heritage. I suppose the question is whether that's in spite of the Christian heritage, or because of it.

Or to peel the onion back further, why did liberal humanism arise in the Christian West and not elsewhere in the world? This is a question that rarely gets asked by progressives.

This is the crux of the issue, and is the rich source for the West's greatest (only??) debate.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And yet gay marriage, and tolerance of homosexuality in general, is still confined almost exclusively to countries with a Christian heritage. I suppose the question is whether that's in spite of the Christian heritage, or because of it.

Or to peel the onion back further, why did liberal humanism arise in the Christian West and not elsewhere in the world? This is a question that rarely gets asked by progressives.

It didn't arise in the Christian west, it arose in the non Christian west, it wasn't until 'the west' rejected Christianity that that liberal humanism arose.

The Christian west had two thousand years absolutely no liberal humanism, it wasn't until Martin Luther inadvertently pointed out that most of the church is utter bolloxs, that it was fine to not believe in any of it that liberal humanism arose.

[CliffFletcher]

Yes, liberal humanism rose in tandem with the Protestant revolution. So Protestants aren't Christians? And looking at the era of rights revolution of the 1960s-70s, most countries in the West were still overwhelmingly Christian.

It's also worth noting that China isn't an especially religious culture, and yet gay marriage is nowhere close to being a reality there (homosexuality full-stop was only decriminalized in China in 1997).

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yes, liberal humanism rose in tandem with the Protestant revolution. So Protestants aren't Christians? And looking at the era of rights revolution of the 1960s-70s, most countries in the West were still overwhelmingly Christian.

Is Christianity the cause though? Or is it just because those nations that are "Christian" are younger nations discovered by imperialist Christians who created the nations based on Christianity. But as younger nations, with more variety of citizenry (ie, immigrants from many nations) the religious factors weren't as entrenched and thus, easier to circumvent.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yes, liberal humanism rose in tandem with the Protestant revolution. So Protestants aren't Christians? And looking at the era of rights revolution of the 1960s-70s, most countries in the West were still overwhelmingly Christian.

The less educated were Protestant but the effect of the reformation was to create or release an educated class who didn't believe at all, the French Revolution rejected religion, the founders fathers were not religious, Voltaire etc.

Liberal humanism clearly grew out of the least religious societies the world had ever seen and as the west became less religious the greater the growth of human rights.

That still holds true today, the more profoundly religious a state is the less rights its people have.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Yes, liberal humanism rose in tandem with the Protestant revolution. So Protestants aren't Christians? And looking at the era of rights revolution of the 1960s-70s, most countries in the West were still overwhelmingly Christian.

It's also worth noting that China isn't an especially religious culture, and yet gay marriage is nowhere close to being a reality there (homosexuality full-stop was only decriminalized in China in 1997).

I would disagree, China has adhered profoundly to the tenants of ancestor worship and Confuciusism, it just doesn't look like religion from here as it doesn't involve worshiping at a church.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I would disagree, China has adhered profoundly to the tenants of ancestor worship and Confuciusism, it just doesn't look like religion from here as it doesn't involve worshiping at a church.

China is a fascist disaster. It is probably the worst country on Earth in which to be a religious person.

[peter12]

I have a lot of things that I want to respond to here, but I am afflicted with a pretty bad cold, didn't sleep well, and can't do much justice to myself.