Christianity Has Had No Effect Whatsoever On Human Morality

[Enoch07]

Yes, that's correct. Why do you think that refutes my argument?

Because of your accusation Christianity has no effect on morality when history has proven otherwise.

Regardless of why? The WHY is the point of my argument. Were the abolitionists moved to do so by their conscience (which everyone has) or by their religion?

I am not a Quaker who was alive during the 17th century. But if I had to venture a guess, I would say it's a combination of both.

They were not wrong according to their Bible. That's the point. How can anyone argue that Christianity had anything to do with abolishing slavery when slavery was condoned in the sacred texts?

Because history has recorded it as so.

Just like the other cultures that condoned slavery then condemned it later. Judeo-Christian beliefs evolved as well. So much so that the Quakers and Evangelicals stared the abolitionist movement in the U.S.

 

[Enoch07]

Bottom line: When there is a conflict, regardless of whether they are Christian or not, people follow the dictates of their conscience and not the moral guidance of their religious leaders.

Following the guidance of religious leaders is a totally different ball game.

Christians were not taught that slavery is wrong according to scripture.

Really? That's a bold claim I would like to see you back up.

 

[joe1776]

Except that they did see some things wrong with it and made laws about that, the prophets envisioned its end, and in Genesis also wrote stories about the problems it causes -- several stories. In fact it is an ignorant statement to claim, without so much as blinking, that Judaism saw nothing wrong with slavery. Its a real stinker. Oh, Judaism so had and has problems with slavery, so many objections. Just consult someone who is Jewish and is familiar with the texts. Also the opinion of the Pope has no bearing on Jewish writers in the Bible. They're a separate, completely separate group. Also, please do not speak for Quakers as their founders are such good Bible students, much much better than apparently they are getting credit for.

Here's a question from a Jew about slavery on a Jewish website. It conflicts with your claims.
My question is about slavery in the Torah. Why did the Torah allow it? It bothers me, though I know there must be some explanation. There follows a long explanation in which slaves are referred to as "servants" and how Jews were supposed to be nice to them.
Torah, Slavery and the Jews

Yep. Its got nothing to do with the B-I-B-L-E. The Bible does not mislead Catholic leaders into supporting slavery, but they on their own do this for themselves. Their choices are on them, not that either of us is very informed about the history. We know a few things and some dirt, but we're (especially you) not that informed.

That's baloney. The Bible had quite a bit to say on the topic. Nothing in denial. If you have a single quote to offer to support your position use it.

That is anti-logic. The Catholic leaders made a mistake, so all other Christians had to follow suit and the Quakers don't count, and the Jews don't count. It is fallacious to reason from the specific to the general.

That's another strawman. In your frustration, you're making up positions for me that are easier to attack.

Again this does not follow. People to this day abandon their children and sell them, and its what keeps the slave market going.

Please try to stay on topic. I did not claim that slavery has been wiped out completely. That subject is completely off -topic.

 

[joe1776]

Because of your accusation Christianity has no effect on morality when history has proven otherwise.

That answer explains nothing.

I am not a Quaker who was alive during the 17th century. But if I had to venture a guess, I would say it's a combination of both.

Then you can provide scripture from the Bible which might have influenced the Quakers?

Just like the other cultures that condoned slavery then condemned it later. Judeo-Christian beliefs evolved as well. So much so that the Quakers and Evangelicals stared the abolitionist movement in the U.S.

The word "evolve" implies change. The question I've raised here is: What caused the change? It certainly was not an interpretation of their Bible because the Bible condones slavery. My answer is conscience, which we all have regardless of our views on religion. Religion had nothing to do with the abolition of slavery.

 

[Enoch07]

That answer explains nothing

You are ignoring history then.

As proved by this quote.

Religion had nothing to do with the abolition of slavery.

You are flat out ignoring the abolitionist movement in the U.S. that was started by Christians.

Then you can provide scripture from the Bible which might have influenced the Quakers?

Nope, because I would just be guessing. I'd wager Jesus teachings helped change people's minds.

The word "evolve" implies change. The question I've raised here is: What caused the change? It certainly was not an interpretation of their Bible because the Bible condones slavery. My answer is conscience, which we all have regardless of our views on religion.

There is no denying conscience did play a role.

 

[joe1776]

Following the guidance of religious leaders is a totally different ball game.

I don't know what game you're playing but I'm the one who made the OP and it's on-topic for me.

Really? That's a bold claim I would like to see you back up.

Bold claim? You weren't aware that the Bible condones slavery?

 

[Augustus]

Your premise that morality if a product of thought is false. Morality is the province of the instincts we refer to as conscience.

Morality is a culturally dependent aspect of society.

If you were born in 500BC Sparta your conscience would tell you to kill your undersized baby boy as it was better than him growing up to be a weakling who would live in shame.

Normal everyday people can become Nazis or ISIS fighters and have their morality radically change in a few weeks. This is not independent of thought.

You can't support those claims with evidence. Christians have been following their conscience to make moral progress. That's why I'm not at risk of being burned at the stake as I might have been centuries ago.

What I said was your teleological view of history - 'progress' - is mostly a product of Christian eschatology - time progressing towards the end of days.

Most societies have seen history as comprising cycles, thus continual 'progress' lacks conceptual sense. What is gained will later be lost.

The influence of Christian society on the West is so ingrained that often we lack the ability to think outside of the paradigms it has infused in Western culture, even if we are hostile to its teachings.

I'm sure you can find exceptional Christians in any era but their opinions against slavery were not supported by scripture.

You seem to be confusing Christianity with rank scriptural literalism. Christian anti-slavery grew out of the theological implications of Genesis: God's creation of man.

 

[joe1776]

You are flat out ignoring the abolitionist movement in the U.S. that was started by Christians.

The USA is predominantly Christian, so you could claim that everything was started by Christians. Organized crime was started by Christians. The question on the table is: Did Christianity have anything to do with it? My position is that Christianity had no more to do with starting the abolition movement than it did in starting organized crime because the Bible supports slavery.

 

[Enoch07]

I don't know what game you're playing but I'm the one who made the OP and it's on-topic for me.

Ah but it is an entirely different topic. Because as you stated the Vatican condoned slavery up til the 60's (iirc).

Protestants who distanced themselves from the Catholic Church are the ones that started the abolitionist movement. So you can't lump the 2 together because Protestants do not recognize the Pope or the Vatican as an authority.

Bold claim? You weren't aware that the Bible condones slavery?

I want you to back up the claim that it condones slavery today. Not 2,000+ years ago when slavery was normalized for almost the entire planet.

The USA is predominantly Christian, so you could claim that everything was started by Christians. Organized crime was started by Christians. The question on the table is: Did Christianity have anything to do with it? My position is that Christianity had no more to do with starting the abolition movement than it did in starting organized crime.

You would be wrong. History clearly shows the Christians started the abolitionist movement. You are quick to put the blame on them for condoning it at one time but resistant to give credit for condemning it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Religious texts that believers consider sacred, like the Christian Bible, condone slavery. That's because the men who wrote the texts, about two thousand years ago, were citizens of morally immature cultures that condoned slavery. Moreover, they were not inspired by God as they claimed. They meant well, and gave the best moral guidance they could: They advised that slaves should be well-treated. But they could not foresee that slavery itself would someday be condemned by the moral instincts we refer to as 'conscience.'

Church leaders, following scripture, saw nothing immoral in slavery. The conscience-driven movement to abolish slavery had been gathering momentum in the nations of the world for nearly two centuries when, in 1866, Pope Pius IX, staying consistent with the teachings of his Church and his Bible, declared: "… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”. He was morally wrong, but can we blame him for his mistake? According to his Bible, he was correct.

A full century passed after Pope Pius IX approved of slavery before his position was reversed. It was not until the Second Vatican Council in 1965, after every well-established nation in the world had abolished it, that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church finally condemned slavery.

It's a safe bet that ordinary Catholics didn't wait until 1965 to change their minds on the issue. They followed their conscience like the rest of humanity. Morally, we can't serve two masters. When they are in conflict, we can follow our conscience or follow a moral leader; we can't do both. The leaders of the faith-based religions have never led moral advances like the abolition of slavery or equal rights for women. But they haven't been able to hold them back either.

That all depends on how you define slavery to be.
Are you defining slavery how man looks at Slavery or how Slavery is defined in the bible.
Can you show as to where slavery as being condone in the bible.
There's different types of Slavery being mentioned in the Bible.
So which Slavery are you in reference to ?

 

[joe1776]

Morality is a culturally dependent aspect of society.

How we behave is influenced by our culture. But conscience, our moral instincts, will change cultures over time. That's why our cultures abolished slavery.

If you were born in 500BC Sparta your conscience would tell you to kill your undersized baby boy as it was better than him growing up to be a weakling who would live in shame. Normal everyday people can become Nazis or ISIS fighters and have their morality radically change in a few weeks. This is not independent of thought.

We humans obviously have two sides to our nature, good and bad. The point of my argument in the OP is that religion is neither a good or a bad influence on human behavior. Hitler used religious intolerance, his master race theory, and national pride to incite the Germans. These appeal resonated with the arrogant side of human nature. Christianity appeals to the arrogant side of human nature as well. As a Christian you are God's elite. Heaven is reserved just for you.

What I said was your teleological view of history - 'progress' - is mostly a product of Christian eschatology - time progressing towards the end of days.

That's quite a stretch.

Most societies have seen history as comprising cycles, thus continual 'progress' lacks conceptual sense. What is gained will later be lost.

I don't have the time or space to supply the evidence proving you wrong. We humans are treating each other better right now than at any time in our history. Even you Christians are treating other religions better.

The influence of Christian society on the West is so ingrained that often we lack the ability to think outside of the paradigms it has infused in Western culture, even if we are hostile to its teachings.

You're taking credit for the effects of conscience. Christians would still be burning people at the stake if not for the protests of their conscience.

You seem to be confusing Christianity with rank scriptural literalism. Christian anti-slavery grew out of the theological implications of Genesis: God's creation of man.

You're spinning the truth like the politicians do. There's no doubt where the authors of the Bible stood on slavery.[/QUOTE]

 

[Faithofchristian]

The USA is predominantly Christian, so you could claim that everything was started by Christians. Organized crime was started by Christians. The question on the table is: Did Christianity have anything to do with it? My position is that Christianity had no more to do with starting the abolition movement than it did in starting organized crime because the Bible supports slavery.

But the question is, there are different types of Slavery being mentioned in the Bible. So which slavery are you talking about ?

 

[Augustus]

The Bible often acts like an echo chamber: put any opinion into it and it comes out endorsed by God. Good people will have good gods and find support for the theology they want in the Bible; evil people have evil gods and find support in the Bible, too.

Of course religions can be used to justify a wide range of views, often contradictory ones at that. I'd say it's a bit simplistic to think in terms of good people/good gods and evil people/evil gods though.

Religions (and other guiding ideologies) condition people to perceive the world in different ways. In the West the effects are often far removed from the Bible. Western egalitarianism and individualistic notions of rights are likely products of humans being 'created equal' by God, and consequences of post-reformation Protestantism.

Of course non-Christians were important in the development of these things, but they basically secularised and adapted concepts from the Christian worldview (and notably things which were far from universal in other cultures).

Try as we might, we can't extract ourselves from our cultural conditioning, and things which seem self-evident to us can be conceptually nonsensical in other cultures (and vice versa).

Overall, I think the impact of this effect is negative. It makes positions immune to reason that ought to be susceptible to it.

Countless things can make beliefs immune to reason ideologies/religions are simply one of them.

It's simply the nature of the human animal.

... but if you want another measure of the impact of religion on slavery, consider that at the height of the transatlantic slave trade, the second-largest slave owner in the Caribbean was the Church of England.

The CoE owning 300 or so slaves on a plantation bequeathed to the Church probably isn't a great measure of impact of religion on slavery to be honest.

Anyway, it wasn't the church that was leading the abolitionist movement, it was primarily groups of Quakers and evangelical Anglicans.

 

[joe1776]

That all depends on how you define slavery to be.
Are you defining slavery how man looks at Slavery or how Slavery is defined in the bible.
Can you show as to where slavery as being condone in the bible.
There's different types of Slavery being mentioned in the Bible.
So which Slavery are you in reference to ?

I'm talking about the kind where people are owned as property:www.openbible.info/topics/slavery

 

[joe1776]

I want you to back up the claim that it condones slavery today. Not 2,000+ years ago when slavery was normalized for almost the entire planet.

What? How am I supposed to do that? That's an absurd demand.

You would be wrong. History clearly shows the Christians started the abolitionist movement. You are quick to put the blame on them for condoning it at one time but resistant to give credit for condemning it.

History show that in America the Quakers were in the forefront of Abolition. What history doesn't tell us is whether they were moved by conscience or by their religion. Why must I repeat myself on this point?

 

[Augustus]

How we behave is influenced by our culture. But conscience, our moral instincts, will change cultures over time. That's why our cultures abolished slavery.

Slavery has existed for hundreds of thousands of years.

Most societies (including the authors of the Bible) saw it as an ingrained aspect of human society that had, and would always exist. There was no change in this perspective across pretty much all human society.

The idea that suddenly, after 300,000 years our conscience suddenly realised it was wrong is very strange.

While no doubt our instincts drive culture to some extent, I'd say it's pretty clear that culture drives conscience far more than the other way around.

We humans obviously have two sides to our nature, good and bad. The point of my argument in the OP is that religion is neither a good or a bad influence on human behavior. Hitler used religious intolerance, his master race theory, and national pride to incite the Germans. These appeal resonated with the arrogant side of human nature. Christianity appeals to the arrogant side of human nature as well. As a Christian you are God's elite. Heaven is reserved just for you.

Can have good effects, can have bad effects no doubt.

That is very different from 'no effect whatsoever' though.

That's quite a stretch.

Not really. It's a pretty widely accepted philosophical and historical position.

I don't have the time or space to supply the evidence proving you wrong. We humans are treating each other better right now than at any time in our history. Even you Christians are treating other religions better.

I'm an atheist not a Christian.

Also, seeing as I was talking about historical worldviews and how they differ from Christian teleology, not the present, it's largely irrelevant what is happening today.

Also technological and moral progress are 2 different things that often get conflated. Tech progress is a given, moral progress is a much more complex question.

You're taking credit for the effects of conscience. Christians would still be burning people at the stake if not for the protests of their conscience.

I'm not taking credit for anything. I just believe that morality is a product of culture/worldview, and culture/worldview is, in part, a product of religion - both 'good' and 'bad'.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Apparently you must like slavery. As a man of African descent I am both triggered and tickled. Please continue . . .

. . . I will just continue being thankful for Quakers.

 

[joe1776]

I'm not taking credit for anything. I just believe that morality is a product of culture/worldview, and culture/worldview is, in part, a product of religion - both 'good' and 'bad'.

We humans create our culture. We create our worldview. How would something we create move us one way or the other?

 

[joe1776]

Apparently you must like slavery. As a man of African descent I am both triggered and tickled. Please continue . . .

. . . I will just continue being thankful for Quakers.

Please quote me. What did I write that caused you to think I like slavery?

 

[Augustus]

We humans create our culture. We create our worldview. How would something we create move us one way or the other?

Because we are capable of holding a wide range of perspectives, and those we hold are to a large extent a matter of happenstance.

There is a large degree of randomness in human existence, and we react to environmental stimuli. The experiences of those who came before us and those we are surrounded by push and pull us in different directions.

It's not like we rationally detach ourselves from cultural environs and logically contemplate reality free of biases and prejudices.

We create culture collectively, in a way beyond the control or direction of any individual. The individual is moved one way or the other largely by circumstance.

That's why humans are biologically pretty much the same the world over, but their cultures are significantly different.

You don't believe you are a product of your cultural environment?