Layman

Well, I really don't want to defend TBN on this board, or anywhere for that matter. My focus was more on the charitable giving that was intended to meet social needs.

I really don't know enough about the Family Channel or the 700 Club to say one way or the other.

Sauron

Your paper (i.e., the post you made on charity) did not mention Greece.

Your claim was that christianity was unique in the pagan world. That claim is not supportable by using only the example of Rome.

If you seriously want to press your claim, you're going to have to measure the impact of other religious movements in the pagan world. In addition, you're going to have to show christianity having a consistent impact on generosity in other areas besides Rome.


You misunderstand whom I am referring to as "pagan." The pagans I am referring to are the ones who accepted Islam. I mean the peoples of Arabia, North Africa, etc. before they became Muslims.

If that is your argument, then I can just as easily say that Judaism changed the "generosity quotient" of Rome, since Christianity is by admission and historical fact an outgrowth of Judaism. But I doubt you'd accept that argument.

Moreover, Islam does not admit to be an outgrowth of christianity. It is a correction of christianity, not an outgrowth.

And finally, the rules on charity in Islam are different, with a much smaller emphasis on tithing (4% of income, vs. 10%) and a larger emphasis on social welfare.


Of course it would be silly. That's why it is not my position. It's your misunderstanding of my position. The pagans I referred to are the ones who converted to Islam - not the Muslims themselves.


I'm fully aware of the history of Islam. The point, however, is that you claimed christianity's impact on the pagan world (with respect to generosity) was UNIQUE. That means that no other religious movement had such an effect.

But clearly, at least one other religious movement (Islam) had such an effect. It remains to be seen whether or not Buddhism had a similar effect.

The claim of uniqueness cannot be proven without doing some of this research.


One of the five pillars of Islam (al-arkhaan al-khamsa) is zakaat, almsgiving. It forms the basis for an entire theological milieu in Islam, as well as a section of Islamic law. And it was institutionalized by the state as a form of theocratic social welfare. Britannica:

Arabic ZAKAT, an obligatory tax required of Muslims, one of the five Pillars of Islam. The zakat is levied on five categories of property--food grains; fruit; camels, cattle, sheep, and goats; gold and silver; and movable goods--and is payable each year after one year's possession. The tax levy required by religious law varies with the category. Recipients of the zakat include the poor and needy, the collectors themselves, and "those whose hearts it is necessary to conciliate"--e.g., discordant tribesmen, debtors, volunteers in jihad (holy war), and pilgrims.

Under the caliphates, the collection and expenditure of zakat was a function of the state. It became progressively more difficult, however, to regulate the zakat effectively or collect it in full as secular taxation increased. In the modern Muslim world it has been left up to the individual, except in such countries as Saudi Arabia, where the Shari'ah (Islamic law) is strictly maintained.

The Qur'an and Hadith (sayings of Muhammad) also stress sadaqah, or voluntary almsgiving, which, like zakat, is intended for the needy.


As for other references:
1. Islam, Alfred Guillaume - probably the best single volume for information about Islam, esp. for starters.

2. Islam: Empire of Faith
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/</a>

Ron Garrett

And I don't mean to affiliate either of those groups with real charities. But they really do suck all manner of dollars our of the economy that neither goes to local churches nor funds social programs, but focuses solely on marketing.

Layman

Sure it did. By the time Christianity arrived on the scene, Greece's culture had largely been assimilated into the Roman Empire. Greek was a common language. The Romans worshipped Greek Gods. Their philosophy was based largely on Greek philosophers.

But thank you for bringing something to my attention. I had posted an earlier draft on another board, but somehow this passage didn't make it into my updated version:

Indeed, Pliny the Younger even speculated if charities that gave to the poor should be allowed to exist. Plato stated that "a poor man who was no longer able to work because of sickness should be left to die." Republic 3.406d-410a. The Roman Philosopher Plautus stated, "you do a beggar bad service by giving him food and drink; you lose what you give and prolong his life for misery." Trinummus 2.338-2.339.

Christianity was unique in the pagan world. I was quite clear that I was focusing on Rome and Greece, and the Western World. My claim, at the moment, has nothing to do with whether a comparable charitable impulse arose in the East--for example--without Christianity. My argument is that the modern Charitable impulse we have in the West has its origins in Christianity's transformation of the ancient Pagan world. This I have demonstrated. No one has even offered a shred of evidence to the contrary.

Well, because most of Arabia was unChristianized, I fail to see your point about Christianity's unique emphasis on Charity. Obviously I'm discussing it within the context of the cultures it has encountered. Of course, all you are doing is reinforcing my point by pointing out that the pagan Arabians had little charitable impulse until the arrival of Islam--descendents of Judaism and Christianity.

You failed to understand my point. I give Judaism much credit for its charitable values. I give Islam the credit due it for the benefits it brought to Arabia. This includes promotion of charity. And, it includes--as I hope to note in a revised version of my post on infanticide--opposition to infanticide, which was common in unChristianized Arabia until the arrival of Islam. Likewise, Christianity should be credited with its opposition to infanticide and promotion of Charity. An influence that is the origins of those beliefs in the West today.

More irrelevant nibbling. However you characterize it, Islam admits to be in the tradition of Judaism and Christianity, valuing both religions and referring to them as "people of the Book."

Please clarify for me your argument. Are you saying that a comparable value existed in Arabia prior to Islam's influence? Or are you saying Islam's emphasis on charity is a result of its pagan forerunners? I'm aware that hospitality was a major focus of the pagans in Arabia even before Islam, but I'm skeptical that their version of hospitatility was comparable to Christianity's focus on charity.

And even if there was a comparable charitable impulse, surely you are not arguing that it was that influence that is the origins of the West' value on charity.

I've been quite clear that that I was talking about the forerunners of the West: pagan Rome and Greece. I never said no other religious movement had such an affect. In fact, I was quite clear that Judaism had had that affect on the Hebrews. I'm more than willing to admit that Islam had that affect in Arabia, although I haven't studied that aspect of Islam. And I've admitted that I haven't examined charity in China and India. My argument has to do with the the impact of Christianity in ancient Rome and how that affected the West. Perhaps you are quibbling with my use of the term "pagan," so I hope this clarifies for you my intent. The entire post was clearly focused on that development and never purported to be any broader than that. I suspect that you cannot rebut this clear historical fact, so you are nibbling around the edges. As usual.

Thanks for the references to Islam.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

dangin

Layman, I say over and over again that we can know about Rome, the political and powerful. I then say that this is less than a smidgen of roman culture.

And I did address that slaves contributed to the sources we have, which you agreed with me on. So there is no argument there. What is missing, if the sources are available, is your referencing them about charity. And slaves are but one example, you then need to reference populist history, feminist history, foot soldier history, the history of the conquered people assimilated into the empire, and on, and on.

This is not sec web whatever you call it. This is the work of responsible historians. You make a broad statement about a culture and reference only the views and histories of the political and powerful. (granted, as I have said, that is mostly what is available, as is the case with most history, particualarly ancient history, the very fact that someone is educated enough to record events speaks to their standing in the culture) So 2,000 years from now, according to your style of historical truth, we could know all there is to know about American society by writing a paper that references the papers and histories of George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, The supreme court decisions, and the histories about our culture written by other men of affluence and wealth. Are you saying that this would be a comprehensive representation of who we are as a people? Or would this be a microscopic view of a tiny portion of America. Where is the history of the massively expanding immigrant culture, how about the gay and lesbian culture, where is the feminist culture and movement, where is the history of health care, where is the history of the universities? Where are the histories of local events?

Don't bother replying, we can't agree.

Layman

Umm. When Durant says charity had no place in their society. Or Fox says their idea of charity was tit-for-tat largess. Or Stark notes that Christianity's uniquely advanced charity, which lead to Christianity's growth as a religion. Or Lecky says charity was very rare in ancient pagan societies, they are talking about Roman society in general. No, I didn't break down every conceivable subclass of Roman. I relied to a good deal on informed secondary sources.

See above.

But I am relying on the work of "responsible historians" and their conclusions support my argument.

We could plot the rise of certain cultural phenomenons and probably determine their origins. As historian after historian has done with Christianity and Charity in the ancient Roman Empire.

Sorry, I had already written too much to stop.

dangin

Well you suckered me in.

Go to your lovely secondary sources and check their primary sources. It is the scholastically honest thing to do, and in defense of your thesis it is necessary. Do they reference sources that give them a full view of Roman society? And then discover if your authors subscribe to a populist view of history or if they only think "Dead White Males" are important(as many historians still do) I think you will find they are guilty of the same gaps in research you your self are also guilty of.

But they remain very knowledgeable about the parts of Roman culture that are knowable. It is just that "Roman Culture" as a whole is not knowable, nor is one able to make such blanket generalizations about it.

But whatever.

E_muse

Please would you quote chapter and verse where Jesus forbade giving to the poor whilst he was about - or told people not to bother with the poor?

Sauron

In other words, your post did not include a mention of Greece after all - which is what I indicated.

And three quotes do not establish a lack of charity in Greece. In order to demonstrate a general attitude about charity in Greece, you'll need substantially more than that. Your case is unconvincing.

By what measurement? Generosity? If so, then you're just repeating your previous unsubstantiated claim. Over and over again, I might add.

If you think christianity was unique in the pagan world, then you'll need a larger sampling of cultures than just Rome. Or even Rome and Greece. The pagan world is much broader than those two civilizations.


Then you lose any claim to christianity being unique in respect to initiating a charitable attitude among previously non-charitable pagans.


OH, please. You have demonstrated no such thing.

You made passing mentions of Rome, and a single mention of Greece - belated, at that. You ended with Constantine, made a solitary comment about the middle ages. Then you extrapolated to the modern day American charity organizations. You want to show the charitable impulse started in Rome. But then you try and stretch the proof over a period of 16 or 17 centuries with no intervening substantiation.

You've demonstrated nothing near to what you claim. But you've assumed a whole host of things.


Unnecessary. The breadth of your claim is not supported by the impoverished evidence you have presented. Pointing out that your evidence is not sufficient; well, that doesn't obligate anyone to provide contrary evidence. There is a difference between saying someone is wrong, and saying that their case is missing a lot of supporting evidence.


The fact that christianity's emphasis was NOT unique. Islam had a similiar (even stronger) emphasis. Since unique means "one of a kind", and clearly christianity was NOT one of a kind in stressing charity, your claim for the uniqueness of christianity fails.

How much clearer do you need it to be?


But "the cultures it has encountered" is not the same as "unique".


&lt;heh&gt; Your point is not supported.

I never said that the pagan Arabians had little charitable impulse. On the contrary; there was a substantial indigenous emphasis in their culture towards charity. Harsh climate and an emphasis on extended family and tribal loyalties factored into this. But when the native Arabs codified that social value and took it outside the bounds of Arabia (via Islam), that is where the change occurred. When Islam came to Iran, India, Turkey, North Africa, it was there that the influence of Islam created a strong social change tilting toward generosity.

And again: Islam is not a descendant of christianity.



And you fail to understand my point.

You tried to claim that all the generosity that Islam engendered was actually a credit not to Islam, but to christianity instead. You made this mental leap, by claiming that Islam was a descendant of christianity. Therefore, as the original faith, christianity can take credit for whatever social improvements Islam made (re: generosity).

Besides the factual sloppiness of saying that Islam is a descendant of christianity, your principle of "credit by proxy" claim also undercuts the position of your original post. By your principle, all of Islam's social emphasis on generosity, as well as christianity's emphasis on generosity, are actually credits to Judaism. And not to Islam, or to christianity. Since Judaism was the original faith, it claims credit for both of them.

It's not my argument, you understand. But it's the natural extension of your "credit by proxy" idea.

No.
Islam admits to being in the tradition of Abraham, of which Judaism and Christianity are erroneous offshoots, created by the will of sinful man. Islam admits to being the one, true, and original monotheism. It does not admit to being a descendant, or a co-equal, with either Judaism or christianity. The fact that you missed that point is a telling admission of your lack of research.

RE: irrelevant nibbling - details are important, Layman. If you can't hack it, maybe you should refrain from taking positions that you can't support.

I believe I've done so, above, in the discussion of codification of a native Arabian emphasis on hospitality.

I am not making any statement about impact on the West.

I am merely offering evidence to refute your claim that christianity's impact on pagans, with regard to generosity, was unique. IT was not unique at all. Islam had a similar impact, when that faith was carried outside to other regions.

Yes, you did. Here are your own words:


But that is not what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that the Christian emphasis on Charity was unique to the pagan world.


But I now perceive that you are backpedaling on your claim of christianity's impact being "unique". I knew you would eventually have to do that. Good move on your part, BTW.


Actually, I think this debate has forced you to narrow the scope of your claim. Again, good move on your part.


OK, folks. Layman has:

1. modified his argument so that he is not saying christianity is unique;
2. focused on just the Rome/Greece connection and is not commenting on the rest of the pagan world;
3. decided to say "no comment" or take a passively benign position with respect to other religions and their effects


This is a substantial watering-down of your original claim, but fine. You now have a much more narrowly focused claim, which should be easier for you to defend.

If this is what you are trying to establish, then you still need to address the following issues:

1. You cannot demonstrate the social state of mind in Greece, with regards to charity, with only three quotes;

2. You cannot demonstrate a connection to modern day American philanthropy, when your last comment is from Constantine and you make only passing mention of the middle ages. No mention of the dark ages, the enlightenment, or any other period. There is a substantial gap of time there for which you have established ABSOLUTELY NO cause-and-effect relationship;

3. Claiming that American societies such as the Pew Charitable Trust, the United Way, are rooted in christianity is desperate and ingenuous. The modern charities of which you mentioned are not rooted in Rome, nor in the christianity of that time. They took root perhaps in christian soil, but have since changed so much that they are hardly recognizable as christian at all. AGain, the reason astronomy exists is because of astrology. The reason chemistry exists is because of alchemy. The reason medicine exists is because of witchcraft. Just because a particular activity begins somewhere, does not mean that it carries that attribute with it forever.

See the above. And remember: entire arguments are built of many little facts. The ones I've nibbled here are at the heart of your argument, and not at the edges. If you doubt that, check the "evolution" of your original position and compare it to your new position above.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>

Sauron

MAT 26:9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
MAT 26:10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
MAT 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
MAT 26:12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.
MAT 26:13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.