Layman

I don't expect anything any Christian writes to be convincing to you, because you have no interest in approaching the issue to see what really happened, only at desperately avoiding any concession that Christanity might have done some good.

But as I said, Rome had pretty much adopted Greek culture, religion, language, and philosophy. Greek culture was arguably the dominant cultural force during the rise of Christianity. And the relevant Greek quotes was from Plato. He was a Greek philosopher in case you haven't heard. Pliny (61-115 CE) was the Governor of Bithynia under Emperor Trajan.

Do you have some evidence that Greece had a comparable Charitable impulse to Christinianity? If so, I'd be interested in seeing the evidence. But I would be more interested in understanding why the Romen Empire avoided adopting that impulse, and seemed unfamiliar with it until the rise of Christianity.

My claim is that Christianity introduced and spread the Charitable impulse in the world to the pagan world to which it spread--ancient Rome. It was unique to that pagan world. And that transformation has carried forward into our modern world and values.

Are you arguing that my discussion of Christianity's impact on Rome is flawed? Do you have evidence that Christianity did not alter that culture's value of Charity?

Well, by many measurements I suppose, but this article has focused on the Charitable impulse. But this discussion has clearly--from the beginning--focused on the culture in which Christianity arose. I can understand that you can focus on singular statements isolated from the clear context of the post--and my repeated statements limiting the discussion to ancient Rome and Greece (and the ultimate influence in the West), but all you are doing is distorting my argument. This is your speciality. Isolate some statements, distort the main point, and force the person to defend something they were not asserting. Then accuse them of retreating. None of which bears any relationship to my point.

As I said in my first post: As I will discuss in more detail below, the pagan concept of "charity" at the time was really nothing more than politicking or an exchange of favors.

And this from my second post: My point was the historical impact of Christianity's value on charity on Western Civilization.

My claim is that Christianity introduced and spread the Charitable impulse in the world to the pagan world to which it spread--ancient Rome. It was unique to that pagan world. And that transformation has carried forward into our modern world and values.

I've provided many of my earlier statements above. Here's another, from my third post in this thread: Whatever may have predated mythology, the historical fact of the matter is that Christianity changed Roman attitudes towards Charity.

Are you arguing that my discussion of Christianity's impact on Rome is flawed? Do you have evidence that Christianity did not alter that culture's value of Charity?

Actually, I discussed much primary evidence and relied on the expertise of leading scholars. And, as I explained, Rome was politically dominant, but the culture was largely Greece. Unless you have evidence that Greece did have the Charitable impulse that Christinaity cultivated later in Rome.

Well, I may have underestimated my audience. I presumed that they would be aware of that the "middle ages" saw the diffusion of Roman culture and Christianity throughout Europe.

See more below.

Yes, I know, this is your simplistic mantra. The evidence presented was sufficient to demonstrate the point made: Christianity's uniquely affected the ancient pagan world (admittedly focusing on Rome/Greece) by introducing a Charitable impulse. That charitable impulse has carried forward to our modern day, and is the reason that we value Charity today.

Perhaps you think it is intelligent to assume that Christian charity stopped right after it converted the Roman Empire, but then suddenly reappeared in the United States--as demonstrated by the Salvation Army, Red Cross, etc., etc., but most people would think you are being silly. Which of course you are.

Nevertheless, my research is ongoing.

Discussing "Age of Faith," Will Durant noted the following:

But never had the world seen such a dispensation of alms as was now organized by the Church. . . . She helped widows, orphans, the sick or infirm, prisoners, victims of natural catasrophes; and she frequently intervened to protected the lower orders from unusual exploitation or excessive taxation. In many cases, priests, on attaining the episcopacy, gave all their property to the poor. Chrisitian women like Fabiola, Paula, and Melania devoted fortunes to charigable work. Will Durant, The Age of Faith, at 78.

Also,

The administration of charity reached new heights in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Individuals, guilds, governments, and the Church shared in relieving the unfortunate. Almsgiving was universal. Men hopeful of paradise left charitable bequests. Rich men dowered poor girls, fed scores of the poor daily, and hundreds of major festivals. At many baronial gates doles of food were distrubited thrise weekly to all who asked. Nearly eery great lady felt it a social, if not moral, necessity, to share in the administration of charity. Roger Bacon, in the thirteenth century, advocated a state fund for the relif of poverty, sickness, and old age, but most of this work was left to the Church. In one aspect the Church was a continent-wide organization for charitable aid. Durant, at 831.

Here are some other more specific examples of Christianity inspired charity from the middle ages:

Thomas of Villenueva: A Spaniard ordained in 1518, a primary focus of his ministry was to find homes for orphans and providing for their pressing material needs.

Andrew Gedes: A Scottish Protestant. Conducted a ministry to provide for abandoned and orphaned children throughout Scottland.

Camillus de Lellis: A former soldier who converted to Catholicism. He became the leader of the hospital of San Giacomo in Rome. He trained Christian workers to care for the sick and to deal with the problems of the poor, the homeless, and the abandoned.

Louise De Marillac. A Chrisitan French woman married to a high official. After her husband's death, she established a sheltering ministry for women in crisis. At the time of her death, the ministry had more than 40 houses throughout France and 26 more in Paris lone.

John Eudes: A Frenchman who dedicated himself to ministering to the persecuted. He organized teams of Christian women to care for women who had been living their lives in prostitution.

Francis Di Girolamo: Ministered in Naples, Italy. He rescued hundreds of children from deplorable conditions. He also opened a thrift shop to provide for the poor, several almshouses, and a foundling hospital.

You are being clear, just irrelevant. Islam is not responsible for the West's charitable impulse. It had nothing to do with the transformation of the Roman Empire. And Islam did not occur in a vacuum. It is indisputably derived in large part from Judaism and Christianity.

I've said its possible that the charitable impulse could have arisen in other societies without Christianity. My use of the term unique was clearly not global, but culture specific. Christianity was the transforming force in the Roman Empire, and our modern culture has reaped some measure of benefit in the area of Charity from that transformation. I've not claimed more. You've just pretended that I have.

Ah, so you are claiming that the Christian and Judaism heritage of Islam had nothing to do with it? Seems to me that you are just assuming that, rather than proving it.

Depends on what you mean by descendant, but no amount of definitional games on your part--another one of your specialities--will change the obvious fact that Islam owes much of its theology and creation to Judaism and Christianity.

No, you have failed to understand mine.

Actually I never claimed anything of the sort. I've, in fact, explicitly stated that Islam deserves credit for its promotion of charity and opposition to infanticide. I have also noted that Islam obtained much of its theology from Judaism and Christianity, and its likely that some measure of credit should be given to the forerunners. Just as I noticed the Jewish precedent for Christian giving, but credited Christianity with being the vehicle that effected the larger cultural change. It is the same with Islam.

You may quibble with the exact language, but the fact of the matter is clear. Islam is to a large extent based on Judaism and Christianity. Moreso Judaism, but Christianity is clearly in the mix.

I've never made any "credit by proxy" as you have framed it. That's just another distortion on your part.

That's not my principle. It's a just another distortion of what I said. In fact, it flatly contradicts what I said. I explicitly said Islam does deserve credit for spreading the concepts of Charity and opposition to infanticide. However, to the extent that Islam is based on aspects of Christianity and Judaism--which most would say is a large extent--it should be recognized that such is the case. As I recognized that there was Jewish precedent for Christian charity.

As I said: There was, of course, Old Testament precedent for charity. The Old Testament instructs land owners to allow the poor to glean their fields for food. And First Century Jews were known for the practice of "alms giving." But it was Christianity that carried the virtue of Charity to an uninviting pagan world and transformed that culture into one in which Charity was considered a virtue and a duty.

While the Jews had precedent for charity, and the Christians embraced and expanded the concept, the pagans did not.

Cute, but I didn't "miss" this in my research. I've not claimed that Islam viewed Judaism and Christianity as equals, just that they claim to be in the same stream of revelation. Of course it claims to be a correction of the original two, otherwise it would not exist.

I've supported my position. What I have not supported is positions you have erroneously claimed were mine. Quibbling with my use of the term "unique," by isolating it from the context, is irrelevant quibbling. Quibbling with my use of the term "offshoot," again by isolating it from the context and creating fanciful theories such as "credit by proxy," is irrelevant quibbling. Arguing about the comparative giving of Canadians versus the United States, is irrelevant quibbling. Posting articles by political opponents of Bush attackhing his faith based initiative, is irrelevant quibbling. Arging that I have not demonstrated that that religious organizations are more efficient than secular organizations, is irrelevant quibbling. Arguing that lots of people give to the Sierra Club too, is irrelevant quibbling. I know you probably spent a lot of time on the internet trying to prove me wrong, but if the best you could come up with is a couple of hack political columns and and website that says the Netherlands is really swell, then you really should have just kept them to yourself. Rather than engage in protracted and time consuming irrelevant quibbling.

Well good, then everything you are saying is irrelevant quibbling, because I've clearly focused on the impact on the West.

I'm glad you concede that Christianity had the effect of spreading the virtue of Charity throughout its sphere of influence. But I'm still confused as to why you have so much time to waste, that you would be arguing against a claim I never made.

Actually, here is the first sentence of my first post: Like laws against infanticide, the idea in the West that individuals, organizations, and the state should offer help to those who are truly in need--is largely due to Christianity's influence. Indeed, the teachings are directly traced to Jesus himself.

No, its forced me to clarify what was clear from the beginning.

Untrue. Christianity uniquely affected the pagan world of which I was discussing: ancient Rome. As you will so clearly see below, I have consistently focused on that issue, not the broader one you have manufactured.

Clearly.

I'm not sure what you mean. I was clearly focusing on the impact of Christianity.

Not watered down at all, but you've managed to wast a lot of time.

Actually, I thought the quote from Plato was more probative. But regardless, as I've said, Roman culture had largely subsumed Greek culture. Throughout the Roman Empire, it was Greek language, religion, and philosophy that predmoniated. We can call this Hellenism. So all of my discussion of the Roman Empire--including primary and secondary sources, already establishes this.

Of course, if you wish to dispute this, feel free to offer evidence of comparable Greek emphasis on the virtue of Charity.

As I explained above, most reasonable people recognize the widespread influence of Christianity from that time to the discussion of the charities I mentioned, such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army. I understand that you may not share this knowledge, or you may dispute it. If so, this article was not meant for you. Perhaps you believe it more likely that the Charitable impulse dissappeared right after Constantine died, and reappeared in the late 1800s in Great Britain and America--still strangely connected to the United States. I find that unreasonable. The most reasonable understanding is that the origins of that Christian emphasis on Charity was from Christainity's rise to dominance in the West.

No, it's a statement of fact. An unchallenged statement of fact.

They didn't just take place in "christian soil." That is a disengenous and intentionally misleading statement. They were inspired by Christianity itself, as I clearly showed. And that supports my argument connecting charity with Christianity's rise to dominance in the Roman Empire.

We are talking about Charity existing because Charity existed. Christians started giving to the poor and homeless and sick in ancient Rome, my post focused--and demonstrated--on this charity as a continuous practice.

Nah, you've been on the edges or off the map. As I showed above.

I've checked it. From my prior posts:

1. This is the first sentence of my first post: Like laws against infanticide, the idea in the West that individuals, organizations, and the state should offer help to those who are truly in need--is largely due to Christianity's influence.

2. Also from my first post: As I will discuss in more detail below, the pagan concept of "charity" at the time was really nothing more than politicking or an exchange of favors.

3. From my second post: My point was the historical impact of Christianity's value on charity on Western Civilization. I really don't see how you can dispute the historical sources above that reveal the stark difference between the existing cultures lack of charity and the early Christian emphasis on charity.

4. From my third post: Whatever may have predated mythology, the historical fact of the matter is that Christianity changed Roman attitudes towards Charity.

5. The rest of these come from other Layman posts from before you even showed up on this thread:

"My point was a historical one--Christianity substantially altered the West's view of charity.
Our modern charitable impulse is largely a result of Christianity."

"I'm saying that Christianity is the cultural factor that reshaped the existing pagan Roman/Greek culture into one that valued charity, much as we know it today: providing assistance to those in need, hungary, poor, etc., out of charity rather than the expectation of gaining a political or economic return."

"I'm not claiming that Christianity tranformed Asian culture into one that valued the virtue of Charity as we know it in the West. My point was pretty clear: Christianity transformed Roman and Greek culture from one that did not value charity to one that did. And that transformation remains with us today in the West."

"I'm analyzing Roman culture pre-and and post-Christian dominance. I'm comparing the same culture before and after Christian influence. The only reason I discussed modern culture was to show that the Christian ideal which changed Roman culture is still with us."

"Not in the least, for I have not claimed that Christianity is the only way a society could come to value Charity. I've argued that Christianity is the way that Rome, and the West, have come to value charity. Obviously the Jews did. Perhaps others. It's actually pretty irrelevant. You must prove that the ancient Roman world before Christianity valued Charity as much as the ancient Roman world did after Christianity's influence. That would disprove my argument."

The one isolated statement I made that you keep relying on as if it was my central and initial thesis actually came about this morning (the original post was made four days prior). It was a direct response to an argument someone was making about the Roman Empire:

"Originally posted by Asha'man:
....

One, the idea of cause and effect. While it may be provable that the Roman Empire became more charitable alongside the development of Christianity, it would be extremely hard to prove that Christianity caused this. It might be just as true to say that Christianity reflected a growing charitable value in society."

My full response to this comment was thus:

"But that is not what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that the Christian emphasis on Charity was unique to the pagan world. It spread along with Christians. Christianity did not spread through one homogenous social movement in Rome that happened to promote Charity, it spread among many different social and cultural classes, and took the concept of Charity to those classes that had not known of it--except perhaps for some God-fearers.

Do you have any evidence of an increasing emphasis on the virtue of Charity independent of Christianity? I actually don't claim Christianity invented the idea out of nothing--there certainly was some level of Jewish precedent--but they are the ones who spread it throughout Rome."

The record is clear that you have taken one statement completely out of context and represented it as my central thesis despite the fact that I have from the first sentence clairified that my focus was on Western civilization.

Finally, a word from one of my prior posts on the nature of the issue of Charity: The issue on charitable giving is complex.

Of course, it too way too much time to correct all the misreprsentations you made from just one single statement. There is no discussing with you. It's a constant monitoring and correcting process as you so willfully distort your opponenets statements and arguments time and again.

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

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

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

E_muse

Culumative chance mutation at the genetic level and natural selection.

However, religious instinct is a past procedure, which means that you cannot criticize people for not letting go of it if it cannot be lost once aquired.

I'm not arguing that behaviour isn't taught or role modelled. Layman is arguing that charitable acts have been role modelled but that they find their roots in theistic culture and in religious instinct.

But without it being 'in someone' to behave in a charitable way, such behaviour cannot be observed, learned or genetically passed on.

What is interesting is that your 'human in a vacuum' seems to prove that values are not instinctive. They are not passed on genetically. They must be taught and imposed on someone. They must come from outside of man as they're not passed on through our genes.

This actually seems to emphasize Layman's point but from a different rationalization of events.

I've said it's sad if it can only be considered valid to act charitably from a selfish rationale.

Acknowledge the truth about yourself again sounds rather like a religious statement.

It's true that I desire to be more than what you insist I must be. This is true of many other ambitious people.

I refuse to accept the 'truth' about myself because I'm actually only being asked to acknowledge that your rationalization of human behaviour is the most valid and meaningful on the basis of what we can currently understand. This is different from acknowleding the 'truth' about myself.

You emphasise that society must control others, irrespective of the philisophical system or set of values it is seeking to promote.

However, a society can only seek to control from the philisophical system it has chosen to embrace and believe in and the particular set of values it has chosen to promote.

Religion cannot then be criticised for doing this also.

Chemical processes say nothing about human motivation on the cognitive level and what actually might be going through a person's mind in order to promote that behaviour or the rationalization which lies behind it.

By the same token, all the arguements you present here are the result of chemical processes! All of free thought is the result of chemical processes! Do the observable chemical processes in your brain tell us anything of what you are thinking or the meaning it has to you personally? No! Does the fact that your thoughts are the result of chemical processes indicate that you cannot choose what to think? No, of course not, that would be ludicrous. Why else would you be advocating 'free thought'?

What is your point?

Love can be unselfish. I used it to demonstrate that observing what is happening on the genetic or chemical level will tell us nothing about what a person is thinking!

Just because genes might be selfish or thoughts the result of chemical processes doesn't mean that people are acting from a selfish rationale.

On the cosmological level we face something even more certain and definite. Eventually our sun will turn into a red giant and our solar system will be no more. Life will be extinguished.

It could be that instinct is better at promoting survival as there is no 'reason' to go on living. This will prove a problem if we make reason and logic the basis for society.

What matters at the end of the day is that what is going on inside our heads promotes survival, not whether or not it correlates to some external 'truth'.

It may be perfectly rational to conclude that a knowledge of 'truth' about one's place in the universe might never provide a firm basis for survival.

Only where there are similarities. Where we are unique from other animals it is totally unhelpful.

The presence of religion in our societies is one major area where we are completely different from other animals.

My point - saying, other animals are not religious is rather like saying 'cats don't have wings'. It indicates a significant difference between us and other species. It does not provide a basis for claiming that we don't need religion any more than the fact that cats don't have wings provides a basis for saying that birds shouldn't have wings either because of this.

Other non-human animals are non free thought advocates too. Does this mean that we should abandon that? Of course not!

Which of course is to do with the laws of physics relating to mass and the effects of combustive materials on flesh and has nothing at all to do with anthropolgy.

And this only emphasises that our understanding is only aided where similarities exist. The experiment is only helpful on the basis of similiarity.

I haven't said that. I'm simply saying that the absence of religion in other animals doesn't help us understand why humans are religious, feel the need to be religious and why evolution has produced religion. Observing apes can't tell us why humans are religious.

I think I've made this perfectly clear.

I'm emphasising that species possess peculiarities. These peculiarities are the result of the evolutionary process. Observing a cat won't help me understand how bats navigate using radar.

You made the statement that animals are non religious. That's true but says nothing about humans which are.

A reasonable model for behaviour can be built upon an understanding of selfish motivations. I agree. What I'm asking you to answer is why the fact that life promotes gene survival should be taken as proof that people must then be acting selfishly at the cognitive level?

However, we've seen that charitable traits might not be passed on genetically because they need to be taught. Does this mean that we all possess genetic potential and that human will plays a part in what we can become at the behavioural level? The fact that humans can be taught seems to suggest that genes are not completely deterministic at the cognitive level as this is one area where we can excercise control.

Anyway, all I'm saying, which Layman is too, is that charitable behaviour had its roots in a time when people were predominantly theistic.

The difference - Layman wants to attribute this to Christianity in particular. I cannot comment on this because I haven't yet balanced the evidence.

What I find interesting is why the atheists on this thread are so desparate to get away from the idea that Christianity could have inspired charity. Would attributing such behaviour to the Romans or the Greeks make things any more bearable? They had multitudes of Gods!

All you've demonstrated is that observation of charitable behaviour leads one to the conclusion that it is in one's best interests to be charitable. There is a return from being charitable. However, this says nothing about what motivated charitable living in the first place.

I haven't sought to separate us from animals. I do insist on separating us from other animals where we are clearly different! Do I really need to spell it out again?

Pointing out similarities between us and other species does not help us understand phenomenon which are peculiar to our own species.

Is it really that difficult to understand?

There simply are things which separate us from other animals. Fact.

So what?! Because these are the things which mark us out as being so different from other animals!

Your human raised in a vacuum proves that the vast majority of people are governed by something more than instinct. We are more than the product of instinct. There are aspects of what we are that are not simply passed on through our genes and are lost if they are not taught or enforced in a social context.

There's a sense in which we desire ourselves to be something which we are not.

This is simply a fact of life! How many times can we think of people saying, 'I wish I was a better person!' It's not difficult is it? In order to say that you must have concept of what 'better' is.

There is evidence for it in the Bible! In Romans 7 and 8 Paul goes to great lengths to describe how he desires to do the things he doesn't do but continues to do things which he desires to stop doing!

Man has long lived with the sense that his moral values come from outside of himself. They conflict with what he is 'by nature' and therefore couldn't have come from him.

Your example of the human in a vaccum simply emphasises that at some level this is true.

But we've also seen from the human in a vacuum that certain human qualities are not passed down by our genes. They must be outside of the genetic evolutionary process. They are taught and if they're not taught they're lost.

We've also seen that this is borne out at the cognitive level. People desire to be more than what their nature dictates. What the apostle Paul refers to as the 'sinful nature' or 'the flesh'.

Even in secular society we see this. We see the promotion of certain values. Your desire to see certain values 'taught' emphasises the fact that we wish to cling on to things which we are not there by nature but can only be maintained through education and legal enforcement. We put in place control factors which ensure that we will be something more than what we are by nature.

This is why we can't use cause and effect at the genetic level to dictate that people must be acting selfishly. We cannot use genes to make sweeping statements about human motivation at the cognitive level.

Animal insitinct rules the day for all other creatures. Why shouldn't it for us?

This is another human distinctive.

Animals simply live according to their instincts. We don't. Why not?

And scientists don't make guesses? Is that what you're saying? Be careful!

How does the scientific method help us understand the relationship between genetics and the mind.

If man is simply the product of his genes how is he able to desire to be more than he is? How does genetic determinism allow a person to act unselfishly at the cognitive level?

This is inaccurate. I didn't simply say that people were being controlled by the facts of science. They're not. I said that education is an inadequate means of control and that the fear of death through punishments such as the death penalty are still required to act as a deterrent and stabilize society. Rationalism is an inadequate means of social control. Again, that's simply a fact otherwise other methods wouldn't be necessary.

So this is another example of where humans differ from other animals. There are a lot of differences.

You've said above that animal killing only occurs outside a particular society, so does this example of a monkey killing within its own group actually happen?

Killing outside one's culture good? Weren't those who bombed the world trade centre killing outside of their own culture? Who, across many different cultures, considers that good? If people really thought that killing across cultures was good in any absolute sense why is the international community currently engaged in a war against it? And it isn't any one particular culuture which is involved in this battle.

I take it that you mean good from the perspective of those who are doing the killing? This can be rooted in the way people think and how they've been taught.

We can see that culture can be determined by taught ways of thinking. The values wouldn't exist if the person were raised in another culture, they would adopt the values of the culture.

So this is completely different from killing outside of another species, which has to do with genetics rather than learned behaviour.

So it would be counter productive to strive for world peace? Those who are negotiating, losing sleep and striving for peace at the moment are actually not helping society long term? Perhaps you ought to go and share this with the United Nations, perhaps they haven't realized this.

Your rationalizations seem to make no accurate predictions about the way people act or think! You were the one who mentioned the scientific method.

Is most of the civilized world currently at war against terrorism at the moment out of a desire to thin the herd? Of course it isn't. It is engaged in a war against terrorism because it sees cross cultural killing as wrong which is based on how people think!

Well, the world trade centre was an awful calamity and we all hate living with terrorism, the constant threat and the loss of life in combatting it. But at least we can take comfort from the fact that the herd has been thinned which is very necessary.

Have you every thought of becoming a bereavement counsellor?

It's funny, I don't actually hear many people saying that. Your rationalizations don't actually seem to describe much which exists in reality at the cognitive level and determines the behaviour of other intelligent people whose views are equally legitimate.

Why is money invested into a health service that keeps people alive for longer once they are beyond the age of producing more young? Why don't we just shoot old people rather than let them be a financial drain on society if killing the infirm is really O.K?

Your understanding about genetics certainly makes no accurate predictions about the way people think!

If the rules of social order are natural why doesn't obeying them come naturally? Why do threats have to exist to keep people in order?

Also, in this day and age, what is 'your society' or community? We live in a world that is getting smaller. Where different cultures are having to learn to work together for the common good.

We no longer think in small community groups, we think in terms of the good of mankind.

And or course, if 'don't kill within your society' were true in any absolute sense then the death penalty would be wrong for whatever reason wouldn't it?

I'm not attempting to prove you wrong in this regard. Most people are not simply raised in a vacuum and so the experiment would be cruel and pointless.

It proves that we are influenced by something other than raw instinct.

But you haven't explained how the most important social behaviours have existed in us if they need to be taught and enforced and are therefore not simply passed on genetically in us. If we didn't need religion, why did it emerege? It must have served some evolutionary purpose surely?

Learning to commit crime and avoid the legal consequences might also be in one's own self interest. Some enjoy avoiding the law and don't really mind when they get locked up. I've met some.

The fear of corporal or capital punishment is yet another means of control adopted by society as a means of control. Again you fail to mention this about secular society but emphasise it within the context of religion. The presence of the death penalty and other fear factors in society, emphasise the inadequacy of education to control.

The secular model leads to forced behaviour out of fear of finite punishment.

But you've failed to explain how it got there so that it could be observed, seen to be beneficial and so learned.

Your comments about genetics do not help here. Your example of the human in a vacuum only goes to prove that values such as charity are passed on by being taught, not genetically. If they are not taught they are likely to be lost. How did they get there?

At least Layman is attempting an explanation.

Also, if a way of thinking promotes survival, does it really matter whether that way of thinking correlates well to an external 'truth'? Surely a knowledge of 'truth' is not necessary to survival or to the success of the evolutionary process. Life hasn't needed it in the past. Animals don't need it, so why do we? You've made the same arguement about religion.

As for being off topic... I'm only responding to comments which you've made in the context of this thread.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

E_muse

Nowhere in this passage does Jesus forbid giving to the poor.

He does show disapproval of the attitude that the needs of the poor should prevent us from being generous to those who are not poor. Simply, we can't keep thinking in terms of giving to the poor all the time.

'The poor are always with you' could simply mean, 'Don't worry, you'll have plenty more opportunities to give. You won't have plenty more opportunities to spend time with me like this."

This actually seems closer to what Jesus is actually saying.

And of course, the original comment completely ignored the context of Jesus' ministry which involved helping unfortunates.

It also ignored the context of the above statement which was made after one particular act of generosity.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Layman, I think your argument bumped slightly with the Greeks, but I may be reading this wrong. The Greeks DID have a concept of Charity toward the poor, especially the working poor -- they did, after all, coin terms like "agape" and "philanthropy." The Romans had state charity, the Roman dole. Periodic reforms in Greece, such as those under Pisistratus, distributed land to the poor, or relieved them of debts.

However, as Layman correctly pointed out somewhere in this argument, the purpose of most of this charity was to avoid the class warfare that lead to periodic revolutions in the Greco-Roman world. "Disinterested" charity was a Jewish idea that Christianity spread across the Roman world, just as Buddhism spread Hindu charitable giving across the Asian world.

Some Roman philosophies, such as Stoicism, did emphasize the charitable impulse and mutual brotherhood as Christians knew it. However, it wasn't legions of Stoics who spread charity around the Roman world.

I can't see any valid reason not to accept Layman's argument. Can anyone demonstrate a line of origin independent of Christianity for charitable impulses in the Roman Empire/Dark Ages? It seems obvious that Christianity was the cause of this.

Michael

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

99Percent

I think philanthropy develops in direct proportion to technology. The more technology is implemented the more goods are available in excess to be optionally given away.

Christianity and all the other philosophies and religions (including and very notably Communism) really did was to take credit for what is ultimately the source of the new excess wealth: technology, in other words, the creative use of the human mind in application to creating wealth.

Nowadays, socialist and semi-socialist governments, including the U.S.A. are so, oh, ever eager to take credit of new "rights" and social advancements such as education, health care etc, when in reality these advancements come from the individual innovation of creative ideas that translate to the technologies that precisely allow for these advancements and new wealth!

It would be interesting to see historically what new advancements in technology and politics might have allowed for the creation of extra wealth during the Roman empire that could have encouraged charities and even possibly exorcised infanticide from common practice. I am not an expert into this type of history, maybe someone who is, can shed some light into this theory of my own?

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 99Percent:
I think philanthropy develops in direct proportion to technology. The more technology is implemented the more goods are available in excess to be optionally given away.

Unfortunately, the ages following Roman times, down to the tenth or eleventh century, were technologically less advanced than the Greco-Roman world. Yet charity increased during this period.

Michael

Jack the Bodiless

Layman:
What is the basis of this assertion?

The Red Cross was founded by a guy who witnessed the aftermath of a bloody battle, was horrified at the number of soldiers who died of their injuries due to lack of medical care, and decided to do something about it.

The logo comes from the Knights Hospitaller, who provided battlefield medical care during the Crusades. If their insignia had been a blue dragon instead, we'd now be talking about the Blue Dragon, not the Red Cross. Yes, the Crusaders were Christian (though many modern Christians seem embarrassed about this), but the Red Cross has never been a specifically "Christian" organization.

ju'iblex

But it wasnt terribly uncommon for the Romans to give handouts of grain and occasionally money. And perhaps to a lesser extent the sportula given to clients in exchange for favours. I would consider those both charitable actions, and not to mention they were indeed before the invasion of Xianity.

im not sure you know what you just said. a cross-cultural-war against cross-cultural-killing i believe is an oxymoron.

and here we see the oxymoron again.

But these were based on Western/Xian morals and values, not objective education.

Jack the Bodiless

Incidentally, the misconception that the Red Cross is somehow "Christian" is the reason local branches use the Red Crescent symbol in Muslim countries. They're all part of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

And the connection with the Hospitallers is more tenuous than I stated earlier: the logo is based on the Swiss flag (it was founded in Switzerland by a Swiss businessman, and the Swiss flag was already a symbol of neutrality), which is in turn linked to the Hospitallers.

The Red Cross is a secular organization. And it always has been.

Sauron

I don't expect anything that a skeptic writes to be convincing to you, because you have no interest in approaching the issue objectively to see what really happened, only at desperately trying to find some aspect of your faith that you think you can trumpet and use to prove that christianity is superior---no matter how much damage is done to the historical record in the process.

You're not only tiresome, but you're whiny as well. But now that we're through with the obligatory opening barbs, shall we continue?

I'm fully aware of who these individuals are. It changes nothing about the insufficiency of your argument. You simply cannot prove the mental state of mind of an entire culture (Greece) by three measly quotes, regardless of whom you are quoting.

If I were to try the same thing, I could prove that America was a socialist nation, merely by quoting three prominent modern-day philosphers or politicians. I could also prove that America was either a Christian, or an atheist country, by doing the same.

Here's a hint: if you wanted to speak authoritavely about what the Greeks thought on charity, you should be quoting from a volume such as this one:


Conventional Values of the Hellenistic World
Author: Per Bilde, Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Lise Hannestad, & Jan Zahle, eds.
Publisher: Aarhus
Rights: World

Or perhaps this:

Hands, Arthur. (1968) Charities and Social Aid in Greece and in Rome. London:Thames and Hudson.

And as for Rome: you might be interested to know that Pliny, whom you characterize as being against charity, evidently did not see things your way.

<a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/romancharity.html" target="_blank">http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/romancharity.html</a>
The younger Pliny spent on his native town of Como 11,000,000 sesterces, though by no means a very rich man. He founded a library, a school, and a charity institute for poor children; also a temple to Ceres, with spacious porticoes to shelter tradespeople who came to the fair held in honor of that goddess. His grandfather had already built for the town a costly portico, and provided the money for decorating the city gates.


Furthermore, it appears you are giving short shrift to Rome and Greece as a whole. Charity rudiments may be observed in Old Greece where special establishments existed: xenodochias — wanderers` refuges, nosokomias — refuges for the sick, orphanotrophias-refuges for orphans, wrephotrophias — houses for bringing-up children deserted by parents, chirotrophias — houses for widows, gerotocomias — houses for the aged. The Old Rome state helped children of poor parents and orphans (alimentitias), created houses to bring-up them.


More information about Rome and Greece:


You seem to want to offload your homework onto the backs of others, Layman. But this is your claim to prove; not mine.

And I'd be more interested in seeing you establish your initial claim: that christianity was the root cause of generosity in the Western world. Showing events in Roman times != the modern western world.

I am arguing that your claim of unique is wrong, with respect to the pagan world. Since you have (belatedly) amended that claim to restrict it to only Rome and Greece (and avoid any claims on the rest of the pagan world), then I think we have a better understanding of your position.

And for the sake of clarity, I am going to snip all the exchanges that belabor this point. Your re-architected argument is what we should be talking about now.

Unfortunately, the evidence you presented does NOT support this. You ended your discussion at Rome, and took three quotations about Greece. Then you made one mention of the middle ages. That's it.

But that does not constitute an argument to prove that [modern-day charities stem from the root of christianity.


No, I am not silly. I am simply examining your argument critically - which understandably frustrates you, because you expected it to be accepted at face value.

You seem to forget that coincidence is not causality. For your argument to hold water, you need to show a causal sequence of events, a chain of custody, so to speak. You need to show that our modern-day charitable giving isn't prompted by other social forces, such as the Enlightenment or the rise of the Age of Reason, that ALSO emphasize charity. Or by economic forces, such as increasing wealth, that make charity more plausible now than in Rome.

Instead of being hostile to my advice, you should consider it as though I were helping you to flesh out your argument.


You need to show the christian connection there, and establish that it wasn't quid-pro-quo. Your articles above suggest that charity was, in fact, done for reasons of social status, as well as the hope of eternal reward -- neither
motivation qualifies as disinterested charity. If someone donated to the church in the middle ages, in hopes of gaining absolution from sins or a higher status in the afterlife, then it's hardly charity - it's more like a mortgage downpayment on their "eternal mansion".

Again: you need to know the mindset as well as the audience: was charity a practice that was engaged in for public show? Or for eternal rewards? And who was doing it - only the wealthy, who could afford it and who used it as a way to increase their "snob" appeal? Or was it practiced by the common farmer / worker, in true humility?

Deleted for irrelevance.

Individuals acting with charitable motives do not establish that the entire Western world's charitable impulse, as expressed in 21st century charity organizations, is rooted in christianity. You have to show cause and effect on a grand scale, spanning centuries and involving major organizations. Scattered individuals here and there simply aren't the same thing.

Your attempt to buttress your argument using scattered, unconnected cases is reminiscent of what the old Soviet Union would do in re-writing the history of its own revolution. In order to creat a historical underpinning for Russian socialism and the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, they would comb through a thousand years of Russian history and find examples of small villages, or communes, that were socialist in organization (in a commune / kibbutz sense of the word). And then, in an attempt to invest their current Bolshevik government with the air of antiquity and precedent, they would declare that the modern USSR was an offshoot of home-grown, native Russian socialism. When in fact, the historical record shows something totally different.

re: Muslims
Yes.


You are the one who claimed that Islam inherited generosity from christianity and judaism. I think the proof is on your back; you made the first claim, and you are taking the affirmative stance.

Sociologically, this same emphasis on charity is found in many cultures that live in harsh, unforgiving climates. Perhaps the brevity and fragility of life tends to keep such people humble, and mindful of the fact that they might need generosity themselves in the near future.

With Islam in particular, there was an emphasis from the very start on generosity (in Mecca). This was part of Muhammad's appeal: his religion would be the faith of the masses, the downtrodden, and not the eliteand the rich - two groups that were resented in Mecca. He specifically used the tenet of generosity to rally the locals against the Jewish families there, and against the trading families who controlled things such as access to oases, spice caravans, etc. By feeding on the resentment of the common Meccan and showing how generosity of spirit was a more noble path, he set the stage for the events that would follow against the Jews in the Hijaz.


Except that the rise of Islam in Arabia had an independent source for its emphasis on generosity. Muhammad was able to turn the Meccans to his side by emphasizing this attribute of the religion. It's not really that surprising of a conclusion, when you look at the historical milieu. You might have deduced it yourself, from just the evidence that you're already aware of.

Please read Guillaume. You might also check out Hourani as well.

[quote]
You may quibble with the exact language, but the fact of the matter is clear. Islam is to a large extent based on Judaism and Christianity. Moreso Judaism, but Christianity is clearly in the mix.

The point of all this? To show how your argument is too simplistic. Evidence of borrowing is not the same thing as proof of borrowing for a particular point. Moreover, there is a stratification between what the elite thought and
practiced, and what the commoner was thinking and practicing.

It is both challenged as well as disingenuous, for the reasons stated. Why these charitable societies came into existence 80 or 100 years ago is irrelevant. What counts is what is the motivation for people who are giving right now - religion, or just generic compassion? And the focus of the organization now - what exactly are they doing, and what is the reason for it?

And as for origins: 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.

Here's another parallel for you: the individual who started the Boy Scouts, a British fellow named Baden-Powell, was widely reputed to have been a pedophile. However, the modern incarnation of the Boy Scouts is far removed from any such distasteful association. And even though I disagree strongly with their position on admitting gay scoutmasters, it is nevertheless true that the BSA have done great things for a lot of boys, giving them great advantages and adventures in life.

It would be an unfair characterization to say that pedophilia was the root of the Boy Scouts, since they have grown beyond that and done so many other good things. By the same token, the Red Cross, the Pew Charitable Trust, the United Way, etc. are so far removed from any christian roots that continuing to classify them as a christian organization is simply absurd, since they have grown and changed in so many ways since then. Attempts to count them as "christian" nowadays reeks of an attempt to "stack the deck" in favor of christianity.


No, it isn't. The statement accurately portrays the situation: an organization that started as the result of a christian, but has since changed so thoroughly as to be unrecognizable in that religious context.


That is what i said: took root in christian soil.


Uh, no. It does not.


No, we are talking about whether or not an organization that starts with Characteristic A, can truly be said to retain that characteristic, after decades (or centuries) of change and refocusing.

Just like astrology and astronomy: where a particular science or endeavor starts out, may be very different from where it finally winds up.

I don't know what is so objectionable about this idea - human institutions and customs change over time. Some of them bear little resemblance to their beginnings.

All you showed above is that you get upset when people don't take your word as fact.

Your argument is busted, there are gaps of missing evidence, and even your Greco-Roman assumptions are shaky.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Omnedon1 ]</p>