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

[Coach]

Textcritiqued.

[Textcritic]

Thanks for your response.

Originally Posted by sworkhard

...this argument doesn't show that human rights exclusively Christian. It just shows that Christianity enabled human rights to emerge in Europe. However, the claim is that human rights are exclusive to Christianity, and as such, it is impossible that anything other than Christianity could have enabled the emergence of human rights..

I think that claim is far from clear and far from reasonable. Consider, for example, some of the Native Americans seemed to believe in universal human dignity as a result of their form of nature worship. This could have led to an eventual emergence of human rights in North America (even though they might be a different set of human rights than we have today).

This is also where I think that peter12 has overstated his case. I don't know enough about pre-colonialised North America, nor about far Eastern cultures in China and India to comment intelligently about what occurred there historically, nor about the conditions in either culture that promoted or restricted the promulgation of human rights. So, I am perfectly comfortable agreeing with you about this.

Further, it seems to me that had Paul adopted another religion with the same attitudes to the oppressed, the results could have been very similar.

If you think otherwise, I'd be interested in hearing why.

I think otherwise primarily because there was not another religion in the empire anything quite like Christianity. Were there, than I would agree, but as far as we know, Christianity was distinct for precisely the reasons I outlined above, and it was this distinctiveness that resulted in its tremendous success.

...However, this revolution merely enabled western secular society to emerge. It did so not just by challenging the religious and political order, but by founding schools with the express purpose of teaching people to read so they could read the Bible for themselves. It did not create secular society or the enlightenment though.

I think this is to split hairs. Had the Protestant reformation not directly levelled a challenge to the Catholic Church on the balance of religious principles it could not have succeeded in promoting the education of the populace. The key point here is that Luther's challenge to the Church was successful primarily because it was religious at a time when everyone by and large was in one way or another religious.

There were plenty of other revolutions like it before it, and within 100 years they were defeated by the catholic church. As a result, something else beyond religious rediscovery and uprising was at play.

I think the difference is that by the end of the revolution literacy rates had risen to the level that most people could either read or knew someone who could and that since much of the revolution was political rather than religious a military alliance was not able to be built that could crush it.

True enough, although I am not convinced that a purely political revolution was really possible at the time. In any event, as much as I also disagree with peter12 about the exclusivity of Christianity's claim to human rights, I do agree with him about the importance of recognising and not belittling the tremendously important contribution of the Christian ethos to everything that we value in modern Western society.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

A whole bunch of interesting stuff!

A very interesting read and interpretation. I agree that context is everything, but that be the basis of many an argument of Christians, taking a passage and using it with limited context? Or does that only get to play one way?



I actually agree with your historical commentary of the appreciation of Christianity for slaves, women and homosexuals, but that does not mean that Christianity was what spurned human rights. This attraction was long prior to the 1st Nicaea and the codification of canon law. As the church gained more power these groups became more and more disenfranchised to the point they were marginalized or even persecuted for being what they were, for over 1200 years. If Christianity was the basis for human rights, and so inclusive, why the Dark Ages? Why did it take until the 18th century, when the grip of the church was weakening, Christianity fragmenting, and a new humanistic perspective developing, for a real interest in human rights to come to the fore?

I appreciate the argument that the enlightenment thinkers framed things in a Christian sense, but let's be real, Europe had been under the yoke of Christian oppression for centuries and that was the context they were raised in. What other options did these people have (context here)? It's not like they had an opportunity to go down to the library and pick up a book, or hop on the web, to gain exposure to other perspectives. Is it really fair to try and frame these thinkers as "Christian" when they railed against the foundations of the church itself? I mean, I was raised as Catholic as you can get, and it informs my personal perspective, but I would never identify myself as such nor say that Christianity is the primary inspiration for any position I take on anything. My education supersedes my religious upbringing, except those times when I had to speak to my parents (). Why would these educated, big thinkers, be any different (respecting context)?

Since you are study textual criticism, I'm curious of your opinion of Mesopotamia and the codification of human rights and protections within their society? I appreciate that textual criticism is usually focused on specific periods and languages, but have you had any exposure to cuneiform and the record from this culture, but have you had opportunity to review this historical record?

[peter12]

So I had a bit of a response planned throughout the day, and Textcritic mainly spelled it out, often in a far more masterful way than I am capable. I am very grateful for his participation in this thread.

So I should disclose that I used the term "human rights" very ironically. Christianity has no conception of human rights - at least not one that post-modern liberals like us would understand. The Christian conception of human dignity is directly represented through the Church - the body of believers married to Christ. That is equally redeemed through Christ's unique sacrifice, and the Grace it brings to every human being, anywhere.

As Textcritic eloquently pointed out, this is what made the thing so radical, and still makes it radical today.

As a few posters have said, we have a conception of rights derived from purely atheistic sources. Yes, this is true. The Enlightenment was a great counterstrike against Christianity. I have alluded to this as the foundation of a great debate, which is clearly still raging today. I am glad to see that my side is still keeping up the good fight!

Anyway, if you read Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Descartes etc... you see how subtly they borrow concepts from Christianity - such as meekness and grace - but then bind them in a new mythology that ultimately points to much harsher ends. Hobbes said that he wished he could replace Christ with the Leviathan - an authoritarian state - because then people would be so much easier to rule. Rousseau's conception of human nature was borrowed from the Genevan Calvinists but made far more extreme through a political radicalism that carved a bloody swathe through France, and continues to do so wherever political idealism rears its head.

It was not until Nietzsche that the West's great debt to Christianity was made explicit to a modern audience. Nietzsche felt that Christianity had fatally sapped humanity's ability to create. He hated Christianity, but he loathed what was to replace it - the Last Man. A creature so devoid of truth or understanding, but confidence in his possession of both. This is what we have left today - a utilitarian world where people pretend to make decisions on "limits of net benefit" or indifference curves or whatever.

Our humanism - whatever remains of it - owes its strength to the Christian virtues - grace, compassion, dignity - that still drive us to sacrifice for our fellow creature. Even the gay marriage debate has a uniquely Christian twist as its strongest arguments can be essentialized to not wanting to disallow gay men and women from experience the beauty of a marriage. Does anyone really believe the utilitarian-derived rights-based justifications are the strongest argument in favour of marriage equality?

As well, in regards to the so-called fragmented Church, for better or for worse, Protestantism revealed a new, profound piety where the individual must atone, more than ever, for his sins, and his conduct. As my favourite novelist, Walker Percy said, 'the errant Catholic can still lose himself in the pageantry of the Mass, but for the Protestant, it is just his empty desk, his pencil, and God's face (referring to Kierkegaard, of course).

Ultimately, Christianity holds the individual responsible for his own conduct. We live in the anxiety of sin caused by free will, and it is our duty to reflect the grace given to us by God.

Whether you believe in that or not, you must accept that this is a radical conception of human freedom, and at the same time, an argument for a powerfully just community. This is the essence of Christianity's exclusive contribution to the West, and one that has not - to this day - been duplicated elsewhere by any other means.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by peter12

Whether you believe in that or not, you must accept that this is a radical conception of human freedom, and at the same time, an argument for a powerfully just community. This is the essence of Christianity's exclusive contribution to the West, and one that has not - to this day - been duplicated elsewhere by any other means.

In the Christian mythos, the greatest act and claiming of freedom was Eve's decision to eat the fruit and bring understanding of Good and Evil to humanity.

The very thing for which Jesus was later so horribly sacrificed unto himself.

Eve had not the benefit of being part of the Trinity with all the attendant knowledge, power, and grace. She was nothing more than a woman and - if you value freedom and are a Christian who believes the mythos to be a factual account of events - she must be recognized as the greatest hero, nay, the greatest person, to have ever lived.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

That is called an epistemic fallacy. You have assumed that the objects have the same property, when in fact, they don't.

No, the common property is that both are human thought constructs indivisible from the times in which they were constructed. The concept of human rights did not develop because of some special property of Christianity, it developed because the technological, political, and cultural environment made an idea possible that would have been inconceivable earlier, including during the millennium and a half of Christianity directly preceding its birth.

Originally Posted by peter12

You could assume that all human phenomenon have their basis in the material world, but that is reductionist to the point of being indefensible.

You, on the other hand, assume that human phenomena have some basis in the spiritual world, which is not, to be fair, a fallacy, but a resort to dualism as a maxim from which you derive all else. However, as we have learned more and more about the actuality of how the universe works, we have moved from doubting this premise, to finding it almost certainly untrue.

Although, to be sure, you will now trot out either the "antiquity fallacy", where you explain how because it's an ancient idea, dualism *must* be a good idea, or your other favorite, the "read this interminably long book by someone who agrees with me" fallacy, or perhaps the "we're all going to hell because we don't base society on Jesus anymore" fallacy, or perhaps you have some new fallacies to propose! One can dream...

PS: I know most of those aren't fallacies. Except the "antiquity" one, which I suppose is some kind of variant of a false argument from authority.

[jammies]

As an aside, this argument reminds me of those books you see with titles like "How the Irish Saved Civilization" or "The Scottish Empire: How Britain Ruled the World due to Kilt Power" or other such overblown titles that probably make their authors cringe, but are mandated by editors intent on maximizing sales. There is a profound difference between contributing to, or even contributing a majority of, something, and being ENTIRELY responsible for it. Nobody and nothing is entirely responsible for anything, the world isn't a sterile laboratory, it's a giant clusterf***. Start on that basis and many things that seem puzzling or opaque make much more sense.

[edslunch]

A lot of great and interesting discussion and debate in this thread, much about the large extent to which Christianity has promoted human rights. Many posters have suggested that Peter12 has 'overstated his case'. I would take it a step further and suggest the he made a very black, white, and provocative statement and has failed to prove his case.

So Peter12, do you still believe that "Human rights is an EXCLUSIVELY Christian concept"?

[peter12]

You would, of course, have to read my last post, which contains my position on this provocative subject.

What I have tried to demonstrate is that Christianity contains the foundation for a far more powerful and radical concept of human rights than anything the moderns could have achieved. Furthermore, I have alluded that our current conception of human rights is derived from the shadows of Christianity's great legacy. So in that sense, yes, it is very much an exclusive province of Christianity.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by peter12

You would, of course, have to read my last post, which contains my position on this provocative subject.

You've waxed eloquently on Christianity's impact on the Western world, which can be questioned only as to the degree of influence. Where you have failed to make your case is in illustrating how other religions have no concept of human rights. We don't need convincing of the former, but your argument is the latter and you have offered nothing of substance to back that up.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by edslunch

A lot of great and interesting discussion and debate in this thread, much about the large extent to which Christianity has promoted human rights. Many posters have suggested that Peter12 has 'overstated his case'. I would take it a step further and suggest the he made a very black, white, and provocative statement and has failed to prove his case.

So Peter12, do you still believe that "Human rights is an EXCLUSIVELY Christian concept"?

peter12 answered this:

Originally Posted by peter12

...So I should disclose that I used the term "human rights" very ironically. Christianity has no conception of human rights - at least not one that post-modern liberals like us would understand. The Christian conception of human dignity is directly represented through the Church - the body of believers married to Christ. That is equally redeemed through Christ's unique sacrifice, and the Grace it brings to every human being, anywhere...

I don't have the time now to get into his post here, but I hope to in the course of the next few days. But I think what he is getting at here is that the modern concept of "human rights" is tied to—or even directly lifted from—the intended picture of the individual within the Christian community: individual Jews and non-Jews, slaves and freemen, women and men, who all enjoy equal dignity and value.

[calumniate]

Our humanism - whatever remains of it - owes its strength to the Christian virtues - grace, compassion, dignity - that still drive us to sacrifice for our fellow creature. Even the gay marriage debate has a uniquely Christian twist as its strongest arguments can be essentialized to not wanting to disallow gay men and women from experience the beauty of a marriage. Does anyone really believe the utilitarian-derived rights-based justifications are the strongest argument in favour of marriage equality?

Say what? Are you saying this 'ironically' as well? Quite the reach my friend. Seems we have a Ted Cruz pr master up in here.

Edit - also, the fact that you brought up utilitarianism in your argument as a counterpoint to gay marriage is disgusting. I'm sure you know what you did there.

Ultimately though, if you're trying to use little nuances of something like utilitarianism as your défense, you're headed toward a downward spiral. Fact is, ethics theory has done a lot more for human rights than Christianity ever has.

[peter12]

What? As a counterpoint?

[AltaGuy]

Admittedly having not read the entire thread, my initial thought is that this whole idea seems bass-ackwards.

The ancient Greeks had democracy (sorta, theoretically) and a pretty extensive idea of individual rights (see Sophists and others). The Renaissance and Enlightenment had a return to and re-examining of so much of ancient thought after 1500 years of Christian (not solely) barbarity in Europe. And now I am supposed to think that actually Christianity created human rights?

While there is no one right "idea" of who or what created human rights (as we understand them), applying the term "exclusively" as though it were Christianity alone is incredulous.

*** After a quick review, it seems that somehow Christianity is mostly the cause of the universal part of human rights in this argument. Weird how so many Christians never got that throughout history.

[troutman]

We did save civilization.

You are welcome.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

The ancient Greeks had democracy (sorta, theoretically)

Theoretically, meaning that as long as you weren't a slave (in some cities, half the population were slaves), you could afford to travel to vote, but you weren't too powerful (or you would be ostracized). Plus, you had to be able to speak the Athenian dialect and be ethnically Greek.

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by peter12

What? As a counterpoint?

It just seems to me that you shouldn't have touched the issue of gay marriage with a ten foot pole, but you did. And while a nice attempt, you tried to moderate the Christian view by comparing it to utilitarianism, which could have its own flaws in defending the idea. As if to say 'hey look, Christianity isn't so bad look at utilitarianism'.

Unfortunately though ethical theories vary greatly on the eyes of the beholder. You put it out there as a question but it would be hard for me to go into discourse with you. I don't see ethics through the lens of religion, so I won't even try to argue as our goalposts are different. What ticked me off though is I had to assume you were bringing up elements of consequential utilitarianism.. put simply, gay marriage doesn't result in babies or positive consequence, therefore this modern ethical theory supports my Christian view. The classic case of cherry picking things that support a view without considering the full scope of the idea.

Perhaps I have you wrong however.. that whole paragraph seemed like a bit of a weird mess.

[Hackey]

Civilizations existed 10,000+ years before Jesus was even born yet people never showed compassion to each other? Unlikely. There are untouched tribes in the amazon who have no concept of any main stream religion yet I'm sure they show compassion amongst each other. The idea is pretty ridiculous, kind of like Christianity itself.

[T@T]

Who's Eve?

edit: never mind I forgot all about that rib chick!

[Daradon]

What is 'grace' (in that context) anyway?

I never understood that as an actual thing or concept. Just a word to make people feel good about themselves.