3 ms·

Sure I can concede your point here, but, my man, you are quoting an article on "Christian Humanism" - you are proving my point. The Enlightenment is also a dire

Sure I can concede your point here, but, my man, you are quoting an article on "Christian Humanism" - you are proving my point. The Enlightenment is also a direct outcome of the European Reformation - a Christian movement.

dalke 10y ago
Again, you are using poor logic. You cannot say that since Y is after X then Y is directly and solely caused by X. Certainly nearly all of Europe was Christian. Does that make everything in Europe a direct outcome of Christianity? No. Or, if "yes" then that would mean the establishment of the transatlantic slave trade was as Christian as the Reformation. The Enlightenment included Deists. Deist believe in an abstract, distant God, but not the Biblical God. Some were anti-Christian, and argued the Bible was pure superstition. Even Christian Deists rejected the miracles of the Bible, and only considered Jesus to be a moral teacher. They considered themselves 'true' Christians, and thought that the miracles, the prophecies, the concept of the Trinity, etc. were superstitious nonsense added after the fact to corrupt the real story. The Enlightenment also built upon the European scientific revolution, which itself was built upon the science in the medieval Islamic world, which in turn built upon other even older systems, including 'falsafa' - Ancient Greek philosophy. Thus, I can argue that the Enlightenment is a direct outcome of Greek philosophy, injected into a time weary of the religious conflict (like the Thirty Years war) that had dominated the previous century. The key question is, why did mainstream Christian thought change after 1500+ years? If a correct understand is possible through a close reading of the Bible, then why is there change, and why does the change seem to reflect the influence of non-Christian/external influences on the culture? It's almost as if people pick and choose which parts of the Bible to emphasize and which to ignore. P.S. You have used "brother" and "my man". Why do you think I am a male? Very few others on HN use direct gender references as you do, so it rather sticks out as an unusual practice.
- fraytormenta 10y ago
  I submit to you, that you are right, if your assertions are right. However, I find your summations in need of further research. I do not think they fit reality to satisfy your explanation. For example, even if you found secularist Deists mouthing sentiment against slavery, it is still not they who had much to do with ending it. There are two major steps, historically, that had to occur before slavery was put into a major decline: bending the British parliament's neck to issue ban on slave trade and mobilization of British navy to hunt slavers. Secularists simply endorsed, for few exceptions, the actions of Christians who ensured those two changes by arguing in public arena from the Bible. In that endorsement, the secularists simply closed ranks with Christian intelligentsia in their opposition - they did not do something "new" or on "their own," nor were they able to motivate enough people with their rhetoric apart from the biblical case, which is what really made the big difference. The question about the lack of opposition to slavery is fair. I think a good starting point for research is first the history of slavery. Corruption had its place, economics, caste-systems. If people benefit from an immoral system, they are unlikely to oppose it. There was always a Christian minority opposing it in every century, however. From the first century churches had organized campaigns to purchase people out of slavery (they prioritized other Christians). The Bible clear states "it is not good to became slaves of men" - the passage was preached and commented on by the Church Fathers and subsequent theologians. Further, most of the earth's Christians themselves were slaves. It took time for them to acquire enough education and social weight to demand rights - this did not go down without bloodshed. It is a moral failure of the Church to allow the system to exist so long with such meager opposition, but it is also the triumph of the Church to repent of its sin, and nobody can rob us of that. I hope we repent of many more sins in the future. Hey sorry if I confuse gender or use too much gender-specific language - I live very far from the West and in general just weird. :-) Is it better to call you sister?
  - dalke 10y ago
    Of course my summations need further research. There is a huge amount of existing literature on the topic, and I am no expert. By the same token, your summations need further research. And the books by experts need further research. Frankly, when I see people use that phrase, I interpret it as a deliberate undercutting of the opposing viewpoint. For example, those against vaccines rarely say "get rid of all vaccines." They say, "we need more research to access the safety before we can make a decision." Even though the research is already there. You say "I think a good starting point for research is ..." Assuredly so. That's why I gave links to Wikipedia pages about such topics. Earlier I pointed to a more academic approach, since that's what you asked for. You mention now only the British movement to abolition. What of the French? In Wikipedia link to Abolitionism I gave earlier, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism points out that: > During the Age of Enlightenment, many philosophers wrote pamphlets against slavery and its moral and economical justifications, including Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws (1748) or in the Encyclopédie. In 1788, Jacques Pierre Brissot founded the Society of the Friends of the Blacks (Société des Amis des Noirs) to work for abolition of slavery. Revolutionary France, based on Enlightenment principles, abolished slavery in all French territories. Napoleon restore it. Again, you refer to the Bible, as with "The Bible clearly states ..." and point out "There was always a Christian minority opposing it in every century". Which means the majority of devout Christians thought slavery was acceptable under the Bible, does it not? When you pick out only the small number of Christians who agree with you, it sounds very much like a post hoc argument. The question is, why was there slavery in Christian, European countries (eg, hereditary slavery in Scotland)? How could so many devout Christian theologians, like Aquinas, interpret the Bible as allowing slavery, when you think the Bible is so clearly against it? You say "it is also the triumph of the Church". That sounds like you think there's single Church. Are the Quakers part of "the Church"? What of the Jehovah's Witnesses? The Mormons? Unitarians? Is this the same Church which hides child molester priests from civil prosecution? If you mean the collective body of Christians, is this the same Church which kicked the Jews out of Spain and the Huguenots out of France? You call it a "triumph"? It's an embarrassment that it took so long. Most churches had to be dragged into their current views. Your argument is sort of like how a death-bed confessional is supposed to absolve someone of all their earthly sins, no matter how malign they were. I believe your view is that no matter what the Church does, so long as they eventually apologize for it and change their ways to conform with secular liberal beliefs, it will be a triumph? > "Is it better to call you sister?" The real question is not what I prefer to be called, but why you think someone's gender is so important in a conversation. Based on your reading of the Bible, should women be allowed to be the head of a church?

dalke 10y ago

Again, you are using poor logic. You cannot say that since Y is after X then Y is directly and solely caused by X. Certainly nearly all of Europe was Christian. Does that make everything in Europe a direct outcome of Christianity? No. Or, if "yes" then that would mean the establishment of the transatlantic slave trade was as Christian as the Reformation. The Enlightenment included Deists. Deist believe in an abstract, distant God, but not the Biblical God. Some were anti-Christian, and argued the Bible was pure superstition. Even Christian Deists rejected the miracles of the Bible, and only considered Jesus to be a moral teacher. They considered themselves 'true' Christians, and thought that the miracles, the prophecies, the concept of the Trinity, etc. were superstitious nonsense added after the fact to corrupt the real story. The Enlightenment also built upon the European scientific revolution, which itself was built upon the science in the medieval Islamic world, which in turn built upon other even older systems, including 'falsafa' - Ancient Greek philosophy. Thus, I can argue that the Enlightenment is a direct outcome of Greek philosophy, injected into a time weary of the religious conflict (like the Thirty Years war) that had dominated the previous century. The key question is, why did mainstream Christian thought change after 1500+ years? If a correct understand is possible through a close reading of the Bible, then why is there change, and why does the change seem to reflect the influence of non-Christian/external influences on the culture? It's almost as if people pick and choose which parts of the Bible to emphasize and which to ignore. P.S. You have used "brother" and "my man". Why do you think I am a male? Very few others on HN use direct gender references as you do, so it rather sticks out as an unusual practice.

fraytormenta 10y ago
I submit to you, that you are right, if your assertions are right. However, I find your summations in need of further research. I do not think they fit reality to satisfy your explanation. For example, even if you found secularist Deists mouthing sentiment against slavery, it is still not they who had much to do with ending it. There are two major steps, historically, that had to occur before slavery was put into a major decline: bending the British parliament's neck to issue ban on slave trade and mobilization of British navy to hunt slavers. Secularists simply endorsed, for few exceptions, the actions of Christians who ensured those two changes by arguing in public arena from the Bible. In that endorsement, the secularists simply closed ranks with Christian intelligentsia in their opposition - they did not do something "new" or on "their own," nor were they able to motivate enough people with their rhetoric apart from the biblical case, which is what really made the big difference. The question about the lack of opposition to slavery is fair. I think a good starting point for research is first the history of slavery. Corruption had its place, economics, caste-systems. If people benefit from an immoral system, they are unlikely to oppose it. There was always a Christian minority opposing it in every century, however. From the first century churches had organized campaigns to purchase people out of slavery (they prioritized other Christians). The Bible clear states "it is not good to became slaves of men" - the passage was preached and commented on by the Church Fathers and subsequent theologians. Further, most of the earth's Christians themselves were slaves. It took time for them to acquire enough education and social weight to demand rights - this did not go down without bloodshed. It is a moral failure of the Church to allow the system to exist so long with such meager opposition, but it is also the triumph of the Church to repent of its sin, and nobody can rob us of that. I hope we repent of many more sins in the future. Hey sorry if I confuse gender or use too much gender-specific language - I live very far from the West and in general just weird. :-) Is it better to call you sister?
- dalke 10y ago
  Of course my summations need further research. There is a huge amount of existing literature on the topic, and I am no expert. By the same token, your summations need further research. And the books by experts need further research. Frankly, when I see people use that phrase, I interpret it as a deliberate undercutting of the opposing viewpoint. For example, those against vaccines rarely say "get rid of all vaccines." They say, "we need more research to access the safety before we can make a decision." Even though the research is already there. You say "I think a good starting point for research is ..." Assuredly so. That's why I gave links to Wikipedia pages about such topics. Earlier I pointed to a more academic approach, since that's what you asked for. You mention now only the British movement to abolition. What of the French? In Wikipedia link to Abolitionism I gave earlier, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism points out that: > During the Age of Enlightenment, many philosophers wrote pamphlets against slavery and its moral and economical justifications, including Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws (1748) or in the Encyclopédie. In 1788, Jacques Pierre Brissot founded the Society of the Friends of the Blacks (Société des Amis des Noirs) to work for abolition of slavery. Revolutionary France, based on Enlightenment principles, abolished slavery in all French territories. Napoleon restore it. Again, you refer to the Bible, as with "The Bible clearly states ..." and point out "There was always a Christian minority opposing it in every century". Which means the majority of devout Christians thought slavery was acceptable under the Bible, does it not? When you pick out only the small number of Christians who agree with you, it sounds very much like a post hoc argument. The question is, why was there slavery in Christian, European countries (eg, hereditary slavery in Scotland)? How could so many devout Christian theologians, like Aquinas, interpret the Bible as allowing slavery, when you think the Bible is so clearly against it? You say "it is also the triumph of the Church". That sounds like you think there's single Church. Are the Quakers part of "the Church"? What of the Jehovah's Witnesses? The Mormons? Unitarians? Is this the same Church which hides child molester priests from civil prosecution? If you mean the collective body of Christians, is this the same Church which kicked the Jews out of Spain and the Huguenots out of France? You call it a "triumph"? It's an embarrassment that it took so long. Most churches had to be dragged into their current views. Your argument is sort of like how a death-bed confessional is supposed to absolve someone of all their earthly sins, no matter how malign they were. I believe your view is that no matter what the Church does, so long as they eventually apologize for it and change their ways to conform with secular liberal beliefs, it will be a triumph? > "Is it better to call you sister?" The real question is not what I prefer to be called, but why you think someone's gender is so important in a conversation. Based on your reading of the Bible, should women be allowed to be the head of a church?