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

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Leela said:
I just don’t see the Church as having any special access to moral truths. Clearly the Church did not know that slavery is wrong, and if they didn’t know that, why should we think that they have any special revealed truths to teach about, say, whether using condoms to help stop the spread of sexually transmitted disease or prevent pregnancy is sinful?
Click to expand...
Firstly, the CC does not teach that its teachings on condoms are a “revealed truth”. (An example of a “revealed truth” would be: the canon of Scripture)

Secondly, the CC’s teaching on artificial birth control can be understood with our reason and intellect and not simply because “Holy Mother Church has spoken on this issue”.

The fact that the CC did not fully articulate its condemnation of racial slavery for centuries in no way vitiates the teachings she proposes today.
 
PRmerger said:
Firstly, the CC does not teach that its teachings on condoms are a “revealed truth”. (An example of a “revealed truth” would be: the canon of Scripture)

Secondly, the CC’s teaching on artificial birth control can be understood with our reason and intellect and not simply because “Holy Mother Church has spoken on this issue”.

The fact that the CC did not fully articulate its condemnation of racial slavery for centuries in no way vitiates the teachings she proposes today.
Click to expand...
How could it; if you wanted to maintain a K-selected strategy* for rearing children (of high parental investment where is invests a lot more resources per children in a competitive environment) then using birth control would be a rational way of doing it. This strategy is probably necessary in order to have successful children that are able to compete in the global labor market. Increased competition from globalization requires parents to heavily invest in their child’s human capital (usually education) in order so they could differential themselves in the labor market from their lower-skilled native countrymen, immigrant labor ,laborers from all over the world. Having too many children prevents parents from apportioning the necessary resources to each child since their parental investment has to be shared among many children.
  • Referring the well-known Verhulst differential equation of population dynamics about the rate of population increase:
dP/dt= rP[1-(P/K)]

P is the population; r is the intrinsic rate of growth; K is the carrying capacity of the population; t is time.

The equation is the basic logistic curve when solved for the original function. As one could see as P is very low, then the rate of growth is close to rP since the term in the brackets is one. But if P approaches K, then then the rate of growth approaches zero since the (P/K) is close to one, which drives the term of the brackets to zero.
 
PRmerger said:
How could it what? What is the “it” that you’re referring to?
Click to expand...
Here is what you said originally:
Secondly, the CC’s teaching on artificial birth control can be understood with our reason and intellect and not simply because “Holy Mother Church has spoken on this issue”.
Click to expand...
It refers to the notion that Mother Church’s teaching on birth control can be understood with our reason and intellect. I proposed a counterrationalization justifying low birth rates assisted with contraceptive devices as a means for pursuing high investment parenting (the reason for high investment parenting is economic necessity from the competitive pressures of a globalized labor market which has little to do with ecclesiastical or spiritual concerns). I am not saying my rationalization is correct (from the Church’s point of view) but it could be understood with reason and intellect.
 
Black_Rose said:
It refers to the notion that Mother Church’s teaching on birth control can be understood with our reason and intellect. I proposed a counterrationalization justifying low birth rates assisted with contraceptive devices as a means for pursuing high investment parenting (the reason for high investment parenting is economic necessity from the competitive pressures of a globalized labor market which has little to do with ecclesiastical or spiritual concerns). I am not saying my rationalization is correct (from the Church’s point of view) but it could be understood with reason and intellect.
Click to expand...
Ah.

If you use “high investment parenting” as your foundation for marriage and family, then perhaps your argument is valid. However, using our intellect and reason tells us that “high investment parenting” is NOT the foundation for marriage and family. We must understand first–using our reason and intellect–the truth about marriage and the One Flesh Union, and then our reason and intellect will rationally conclude what the Church teaches regarding artificial birth control.
 
flyingfish said:
You’re assuming. Christianity still had women treated as lesser creatures until the last century (and Christianity wasn’t what changed the position of women in society either)
Click to expand...
In some cases it still does. Many Christian denominations do not ordain women as priests.

rossum
 
rossum said:
In some cases it still does. Many Christian denominations do not ordain women as priests.

rossum
Click to expand...
Then you have a beef with God, who created us as we are, not Christianity.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for women to be FATHERS.
 
PRmerger said:
Ah.

If you use “high investment parenting” as your foundation for marriage and family, then perhaps your argument is valid. However, using our intellect and reason tells us that “high investment parenting” is NOT the foundation for marriage and family. We must understand first–using our reason and intellect–the truth about marriage and the One Flesh Union, and then our reason and intellect will rationally conclude what the Church teaches regarding artificial birth control.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that begging the question since many (secular) people do not regard marriage as a “One Flesh Union”?

I was not using “high investment parenting” as a foundation for marriage – I said it was the preferred means for raising children who could compete in a global labor market for a finite amount of skilled (high paying) jobs to ensure one’s progeny’s success.
 
Black_Rose said:
Isn’t that begging the question since many (secular) people do not regard marriage as a “One Flesh Union”?
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s a denial of a fundamental truth. I mean, really, when you examine the act, how can you deny that it’s a One Flesh Union? 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
Then you have a beef with God, who created us as we are, not Christianity.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for women to be FATHERS.
Click to expand...
There are Christian denominations who do ordain women, so there are obviously different versions of what God says. The same in Judaism, some groups allow women Rabbis while other groups do not. Whatever God said, some people are not getting the right message.

rossum
 
PRmerger said:
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.
Click to expand...
Buddhism seems to have recognized a certain type of equality, in that all human life was equally worthless. Remember, the goal of Buddhism (perhaps the only unifying idea among its diverse forms) is to reach nirvana or annihilation. This goal has resulted in a wide variety of ideas and practices that seem to ultimately undermine the value of every human being.

For example, in the 9th century Buddhist, Linji, proposed the koan: “If you meet the Buddha, kill him.” While koans are intentionally irrational, this one suggests that Buddhists ultimately desire to be extinguished and thus see no value in any life and particularly in the life of those who desire to advance in their religion.

Also consider some of the tantric practices of Vamamarga, in which initiates are ensanguinated with the sexual emissions of the gurus and his consorts. This humiliating experience is meant to liberate the individual from attachment, but its effect seems to demean all those involved.

Buddhism may preach a certain type of equality, but it’s not the sort that any reasonable human desires.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com
 
PRmerger said:
Disagree. Christianity had* much* to do with the elevation of women in society to our rightful place.
Click to expand...
The Church was in power in Europe for so long, why weren’t women made equal to men until the feminist movement fought for it? The Church had plenty of opportunities to do this, why didn’t it? When men started to vote, but women did not, why didn’t the Church condemn it and take a strong position for it as an example? Why didn’t it push for women to attend universities alongside men once universities were made? Why didn’t it push for women to have the same positions in politics and other careers?

I’m not talking about what it may have done after the feminist movement, I’m talking about before. The Church had a lot of power in the Western world for a very long time.
 
flyingfish said:
The Church was in power in Europe for so long, why weren’t women made equal to men until the feminist movement fought for it? The Church had plenty of opportunities to do this, why didn’t it? When men started to vote, but women did not, why didn’t the Church condemn it and take a strong position for it as an example? Why didn’t it push for women to attend universities alongside men once universities were made? Why didn’t it push for women to have the same positions in politics and other careers?
Click to expand...
LOL!!

The Church has been stating *for 2000 years *that abortion and artificial birth control are wrong–see how much “power” the Church has to change things?
 
PRmerger said:
LOL!!

The Church has been stating *for 2000 years *that abortion and artificial birth control are wrong–see how much “power” the Church has to change things?
Click to expand...
Artificial birth control and abortion were illegal for a long time.

Did the Church try to get women into universities and careers hundreds of years ago? Did it call people who didn’t let women do these thing sinners? Excommunicate them?
 
flyingfish said:
Artificial birth control and abortion were illegal for a long time.
Click to expand...
And today?

See what “power” the Church has?
Did the Church try to get women into universities and careers hundreds of years ago? Did it call people who didn’t let women do these thing sinners? Excommunicate them?
Click to expand...
Did you see any other organization letting women be CEOs, and elevating to positions such as “doctor of the Church”?

It always makes my eyes roll when the CC is accused of oppressing women. As if.
 
PRmerger said:
And today?

See what “power” the Church has?
Click to expand...
Today the Church has very little power in the Western world, but in the past it was very powerful.
Did you see any other organization letting women be CEOs, and elevating to positions such as “doctor of the Church”?
Click to expand...
It always makes my eyes roll when the CC is accused of oppressing women. As if.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say the Church was oppressing women, I said the Church didn’t fight for women to be treated equally. The OP alleges Christianity is the first religion that recognized all human beings should be treated equally, and I only saw Christianity recognize that with respect to women after it lost power to secularists and liberals who fought for women’s rights. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top