Is Christianity the FIRST religion that recognized that all human beings are of equal worth and should therefore be treated equally?

[PRmerger]

In another thread, an atheist claimed that Buddhism recognized–500 years *before *Christ–that all humans were of the same worth and therefore should be treated equally.

Is this true?

I had read Christian thinker Dinesh D’Souza argue that it was *Christianity *that first promoted this revolutionary concept of the inherent dignity of the human creature.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I’m not sure that either is correct.

As far as I know, Christianity has never taught that “all are to be treated equally” and I’m certain that Buddhism never intended to teach that. You must not treat a dog as though it were a sheep or a wise man as though a fool.

Both philosophies/religions teach to treat all that is as what it is without prejudice or presumption.

Both teach to love and guard life where ever it is found (thus neither are favored in Secularism).

Jesus taught to treat others “as though they were yourself”. I don’t know that Buddhism ever had that exact concept but it certainly taught to love the living, whoever that might be.

Every person is in a different situation and thus has different needs and should be treated in accord with their needs so as to assist their effort to live. That means that you must NOT treat all people the same and is why laws can never really work. Both taught to attend more to the actual situation than to any laws.

So I can only take it that the real issue is whether Jesus was the first major teacher of neighborly love even unto enemies and I don’t think he was the first.

Buddhism more emphasizes the lack of “self” whereas Jesus emphasized the lack of “defense of self”. Jesus never implied that one should try to not exist as is often taught in Buddhism, but rather to not impose your “self” onto others and to actively assist by harmonizing your efforts with those of others.

Philosophically, there is a fine distinction between “clearing the field of disharmony” as in Buddhism and “filling the field with harmonious life” as in Jesusism.

Both require the careful and loving consideration of others.

 

[EnchantedEve]

The Buddha did not teach equality in the manner I believe your atheist commentator meant. The Buddha denied the caste system, and therefore inborn traits which segregated one spiritually from others. However, he also felt questions of philosophy, including rights, were largely mythical, and thereby, irrelevant. The Buddha would not have claimed one man is equal to another, only that he is not inherently unequal.

Such questions are not important in Buddhist thought. Whether one is or is not equal to another man is unimportant, since we are all bound to samsara, the cycle of life and rebirth, in one form or another, and the philosophical questions of this world will not free one from this cycle. To empty one of such questions and concerns would actually have been the more probable view of the Buddha, and if asked on it would probably have said as such.

That being said, Our Lord did not advocate true equality either. He, and others in the Holy Scriptures, did say that God loved some more than others, but that He does love all. There will be those who are greater in the kingdom of Heaven, however, than they are on earth, and vice-versa. That all man are equal in essence is more a result of the Philosphes, the “Enlightenment,” and the Declaration of Independence of the United States, than on the Holy Scriptures.

 

[rossum]

Jesus taught to treat others “as though they were yourself”. I don’t know that Buddhism ever had that exact concept but it certainly taught to love the living, whoever that might be.

“Love others as you love yourself.” - Bhadramayakara vyakarana sutra 91.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

I was not clear in my OP: I know that Christianity does not teaches to treat all (sheep vs people) equally. I proposed that it was Christianity that taught the novel concept of the inherent *dignity *of the human creature.

I don’t believe that any other religion taught that concept prior to Christ…but I am willing to be shown otherwise.

Certainly, the golden rule was a principle around many ancient cultures prior to Christ. I’m looking for something that, seemingly, was unique to Christianity–that we are made in God’s image and therefore worthy of love because of that.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Buddhism is a great mountain of real wisdom. I see that Jesus added a very little to that mountain and more importantly put it into practice and demonstrated what he preached.

The primary distinction that I see in the fundamental philosophy between them is the baptism (for those very few who actually understand what that really is) and the love of God.

By those additions, the coherence to God comes much faster. Gautama, after 40 years declared that only 1 out of 100 immediate disciples actually “got it”. Jesus saw the Simon got it in less than 2.

It is in the exact practice that the difference lies. The use of Love as a standard is probably the most obvious distinction. The Buddhists concentrate on the mind more and utilize isolation more. Jesus concentrated more on the heart, Love and Faith while still among your friends and enemies.

 

[PRmerger]

Buddhism is a great mountain of real wisdom. I see that Jesus added a very little to that mountain and more importantly put it into practice and demonstrated what he preached.

Indeed. Jesus did not come to be a preacher. Every morally sane person living in ancient Israel already knew the essential message of morality of which Jesus spoke.

Those who claim that Jesus’ message was already preached are correct. But they have a very primitive understanding of Jesus and Christianity, for His preaching was not His fundamental mission.

It is in the exact practice that the difference lies. The use of Love as a standard is probably the most obvious distinction. The Buddhists concentrate on the mind more and utilize isolation more. Jesus concentrated more on the heart, Love and Faith while still among your friends and enemies.

Yes.

Did Buddhism teach anything about the abhorrence of enslaving another human being, prior to Christianity’s foundation?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Did Buddhism teach anything about the abhorrence of enslaving another human being, prior to Christianity’s foundation?

That is probably a significant social question.

Buddhism teaches the fundamental idea that no one “owns” anything (living or not). Thus the idea of owning a person would not really come up. But they spoke considerably of how to “rightfully” treat a “servant”. Mostly that involved the basic humanities.

A slave is really just a person that has been entrapped into servitude. Judaism and Christianity speak a great deal of entrapping or more importantly, being entrapped. This was an issue due to the Pharaoh and extended practices of entrapping (still being used today).

In both Christianity and Buddhism (and Judaism) a person *cannot *be enslaved if they truly know God, whether anyone attempts it or not.

Today enslavement occurs through the practice of deception in causing a person to not realize that they are entrapped and are kept insulated from any information that would reveal the truth of it. Such a practice of maintaining deception for such a purpose would be strictly anti-Jesus and I’m sure anti-Buddhist because it would involve inhumane treatment even though the enslaver might not ever be seen or caught.

But neither object, to my knowledge, of agreements to serve unless those agreements might end up enslaving the person by default. That would violate the concern of loving.

I think both would tend to see the violation to be of equal blame between the enslaver and the enslaved as each have ignored Reality.

So even though Jesus would stand more strongly against the idea and insist on something being done, I don’t see a great distinction between their attitudes in general. The Buddhist isn’t allowed to hate anything or even strongly feel passion whereas Jesus and Judaism exercise passion, but in specifically pointed directions.

Jesus is more into “accept what is and cause the good” whereas Gautama was more into “accept what is and go your way”.

 

[PRmerger]

That is probably a significant social question.

Buddhism teaches the fundamental idea that no one “owns” anything (living or not). Thus the idea of owning a person would not really come up. But they spoke considerably of how to “rightfully” treat a “servant”. Mostly that involved the basic humanities.

Interesting. Was there ever a period in history in which Buddhists participated in cultural enslavement?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Interesting. Was there ever a period in history in which Buddhists participated in cultural enslavement?

That’s like asking, “has a Buddhist ever sinned”.

As far as I know there has never been a “culture” of any type wherein the people did not take advantage and violate both ethics and morals of the reigning beliefs. It would be hard to believe in such a pure culture knowing how little Man seems to understand himself.

There have certainly been dictators that proclaimed Buddhism, enslaving many, and killing those who opposed them. Claiming something and being something are much too easily conflated.

I have yet to see a culture in history where the founders of the beliefs are even understood by their offspring, much less truly followed. Corruption moves in fast and digs deep into the roots of misconception and presumption (thus we now have Atheists ).

 

[PRmerger]

That’s like asking, “has a Buddhist ever sinned”.

I am abysmally ignorant about Buddhism. But, wouldn’t that be a nonsensical question as Buddhists don’t acknowledge the existence of sin, correct?

As far as I know there has never been a “culture” of any type wherein the people did not take advantage and violate both ethics and morals of the reigning beliefs. It would be hard to believe in such a pure culture knowing how little Man seems to understand himself.

There have certainly been dictators that proclaimed Buddhism, enslaving many, and killing those who opposed them. Claiming something and being something are much too easily conflated.

I have yet to see a culture in history where the founders of the beliefs are even understood by their offspring, much less truly followed. Corruption moves in fast and digs deep into the roots of misconception and presumption (thus we now have Atheists ).

So I’m still confused.

Was Christianity the first religion to teach about the inherent dignity of the human creature?

 

[Just_Lurking]

The Catholic Church finally removed the restriction that slaves could not receive Holy Orders in the 1983 code.

I don’t know when the Catholic Church finally freed or sold the last slave that it owned.

 

[PRmerger]

The Catholic Church finally removed the restriction that slaves could not receive Holy Orders in the 1983 code.

Can you provide a documentation for that?

I don’t know when the Catholic Church finally freed or sold the last slave that it owned.

What?? Are you saying that the CC–the Vatican or Magisterium–actually OWNED slaves??

 

[AnAtheist]

When exactly did Christianity recognise that? 1965?

 

[rossum]

Did Buddhism teach anything about the abhorrence of enslaving another human being, prior to Christianity’s foundation?

Yes it did. One of the elements of the Eightfold Path is Right Livelihood: the avoidance of trading in arms, slaves, meat, intoxicants and poisons. That dates back to the Buddha.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

When exactly did Christianity recognise that? 1965?

I’m thinking a little before that:

God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27).

 

[PRmerger]

Yes it did. One of the elements of the Eightfold Path is Right Livelihood: the avoidance of trading in arms, slaves, meat, intoxicants and poisons. That dates back to the Buddha.

rossum

Can you provide some documentation for this, rossum? Thanks.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Was Christianity the first religion to teach about the inherent dignity of the human creature?

As a “yes or no”, I would have to go with “no”.

Realize that the term “slave” is a bit undefined. Everyone wants to claim that the other guy is an enslaver. It can be validly claimed that truly VERY American citizen is enslaved and with quite a bit of foundation to back it up.

The more profound definition requires that other entities recognize the ownership such that a run-away would be returned or regarded as a slave to be owned. If one is effectively imprisoned as very many are, they are actually slaves by default simply because they have no means to escape and might be prevented from acquiring them without forced labor.

It is a somewhat undefined area that I’m sure won’t be well defined any day soon.

 

[PRmerger]

As a “yes or no”, I would have to go with “no”.

Ok. So what religion taught it prior to Christianity, and can you provide some documentation for this? Thanks!

 

[rossum]

Can you provide some documentation for this, rossum? Thanks.

Certainly:"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

“These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in.”

Vanijja sutta, Anguttara Nikaya 5:177

rossum