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

[Just_Lurking]

Can you provide a documentation for that?

I will look up the earlier (1918) canon law citation later on this week.

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

From Wikipedia (see here):

Although Catholic clergy, religious orders and even some popes owned slaves, Catholic teaching began to turn towards the abolition of slavery beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537.

 

[PRmerger]

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

Very good. Thank you!

Do you know when this was first taught?

 

[PRmerger]

I will look up the earlier (1918) canon law citation later on this week.

From Wikipedia (see here):

Although Catholic clergy, religious orders and even some popes owned slaves, Catholic teaching began to turn towards the abolition of slavery beginning in 1435 and culminating in three major pronouncements against slavery by Pope Paul III in 1537.

Interesting. It appears that the CC’s pronouncements against slavery were much earlier than I’d imagined.

 

[James_S_Saint]

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

That is really a tough question and certainly out of the range of my confident knowledge.

No doubt one of the most profound would be Judaism as taught by Moses in that the Israelites were far more concerned about being freed from their slavery than worshiping God. But Moses had taught that no man who knows what he is doing could be enslaved. But documentation for that would be pretty tough to find without being a rabbi.

But as far as merely “human dignity” as a universal standard, I’m sure that predates historical record. Even the Pagans held a concern for human dignity. Slavery wasn’t even a part of human endeavor until socialism and socialized systems came about (the true curse of Mankind).

I’m relatively certain that Ahdam was a teacher of human dignity despite what else was going on.

I think human history is far too muddy to really answer that question, but I’m not quite expert enough to say that it couldn’t be answered. - Sorry.

 

[PRmerger]

But as far as merely “human dignity” as a universal standard, I’m sure that predates historical record. Even the Pagans held a concern for human dignity. Slavery wasn’t even a part of human endeavor until socialism and socialized systems came about (the true curse of Mankind).

I think I would have to disagree with that.

In ancient cultures individual human life had no particular worth. The Spartans left weak infants to die on the hillside. Infanticide was an ordinary occurrence. Newborn baby girls were routinely drowned in favor of sons. Crucifixions, bludgeonings, maulings were spectator sports. Many of the great classical philosphers saw nothing inherently wrong with these practices.

 

[rossum]

Do you know when this was first taught?

The Buddha is speaking so it was during his lifetime.

rossum

 

[Fran65]

Hi Rossum,

Buddhism also teaches that much of what we are and what we have is a result of kamma. In other words, those with disabilities, the poor, the needy, the abused often have those experiences as a result of previous wrong action, thought or view - often in a past life. This can result in a worldview that sees those who suffer as responsible for their suffering.

In addition, some buddhist sects teach that women cannot be ordained - the most direct route to liberation from samsara - and that women are born as a result of having been men engaged in wrong action, thought or view in a past life. The most that a woman can hope for is to behave well enough in her present life to be reborn as a man in her next life. In monastories in many cases women are told that they are subservient to even the most junior male monks and should always take second place. The buddhist women’s organisation - Sakyadhita can provide full documentation of these teachings and the fight that women face for equal treatment in buddhism.

Buddhism also teaches that theists are trapped in a wrong view and are deluded regarding the existence of God. Indeed, we Catholics, according to buddhism may well end up in a hell realm because of our attachment to God.

The buddha taught some valuable precepts such as compassion, but buddhism in practice is sadly lacking in some respects when it comes to putting the rubber to the road concerning respecting all people.

 

[donsnow]

Sir,

Imho, since I know nothing of Hindu teaching; and since a chronology I have shows the Buddha alive in 635BC; and since the Oral Laws predating the written Holy Bible were from circa 1650BC - 1550BC; and since in Genesis God created man and woman both in His image; and since in Exodus and the other books of the Pentateuch laws are given for the keeping and freeing of both Hebrew and Gentile slaves; then I would say that Judaism first taught the equal worth of human beings, their oral traditions predating the Buddha by almost 1,000 years.

God is love,
Don

 

[catholic1seeks]

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.

Great if Buddhism did. For this could be known by what Christianity calls the Natural Moral Law. Divine Revelation better inforced it, but a Bible isn’t needed to know that!

 

[rossum]

Buddhism also teaches that much of what we are and what we have is a result of kamma. In other words, those with disabilities, the poor, the needy, the abused often have those experiences as a result of previous wrong action, thought or view - often in a past life. This can result in a worldview that sees those who suffer as responsible for their suffering.

All who are alive are subject to death. The responsibility is theirs because they failed to attain enlightenment in a previous life.

In addition, some buddhist sects teach that women cannot be ordained

All Buddhist sects accept that the Buddha ordained women, including his own stepmother. The more conservative sects assert that the valid ordination of a nun requires the presence of a senior nun, and in those sects the last nuns died a long time ago. The argument is about whether or not a senior nun from a different sect, where the lineage of nuns survives, is validly ordained for the purpose of ordaining a new nun in the conservative sect. This is more of an argument between sects about the validity of each other’s ordinations than an argument about the ordination of women.

and that women are born as a result of having been men engaged in wrong action, thought or view in a past life.

In many societies being born a woman is to be born a second class citizen. This is not right, but it is a fact. In societies where women are equal, or closer to being equal, then being born a woman may well be the result of right thoughts and actions in a past life.

The most that a woman can hope for is to behave well enough in her present life to be reborn as a man in her next life.

That is the same for all laymen as well, and both can also hope to be reborn into one of the heavens or one of the Pure Lands. Any woman can be ordained as a nun, though she might need to change to a different sect to do so, much like a woman who wants to become a Christian priest - not all Christian sects ordain women as priests.

Buddhism also teaches that theists are trapped in a wrong view and are deluded regarding the existence of God.

They are not deluded as to His existence; He is deluded as to His powers and longevity. The Brahmajala sutta applies.

Indeed, we Catholics, according to buddhism may well end up in a hell realm because of our attachment to God.

If you are relying on God to save you, rather than your own efforts, then you may well end up in one of the hells for a lifetime or two. God cannot save you. In Buddhism there is no such thing as sin so there is no such thing as the forgiveness of sin either. If you do the crime then you do the time:Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

Dhammapada 1:1-2
Buddhism emphasises mindfulness of our actions for this reason. There is no equivalent of Confession so we have to be careful all the time.

The buddha taught some valuable precepts such as compassion, but buddhism in practice is sadly lacking in some respects when it comes to putting the rubber to the road concerning respecting all people.

Agreed; Buddhists are not perfect and sadly all too often fall short of the ideals of the Buddha. This is a problem with many religions - it is very difficult for most people to follow the path laid out by the founder of the religion.

rossum

 

[PRmerger]

bump

 

[rjparson]

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

Tibet was a theocratic feudal-slave state until the 1950s. Regardless of how they’ve been treated by the CCP since then, you can’t deny that the religious powers of Tibet essentially owned slaves (i.e., most of Tibet’s population).

Catholics may have practiced slavery in the New World, but I don’t know that the Church hierarchy ever owned slaves.

Either way, I don’t see how being the first to recognize some truth makes a religion overall more legitimate/worthy.

 

[PRmerger]

Either way, I don’t see how being the first to recognize some truth makes a religion overall more legitimate/worthy.

Christian apologist D’souza, when debating with atheists, maintains that atheists who claim to be “good just for goodness’ sake” are really using Christian principles; that is, Christianity first proposed (or elevated) the principle of the inherent dignity of the human person, and atheists “ride on the back of Christianity”, without giving it its proper due.

 

[Ahimsa]

Catholics may have practiced slavery in the New World, but I don’t know that the Church hierarchy ever owned slaves.

If by “hierarchy”, you include “priests”, then, yes, the hierarchy did own slaves:

Thomas Murphy, who is himself a Jesuit, begins his study by acknowledging the “prodigious need” among scholars of American Catholic history for “greater objectivity in evaluating the slave question” (xvi) Pointing to the works of James Hennesey and Jay Dolan as examples of the “impartial” approach to Catholic history advocated by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), Murphy nevertheless bemoans the apologetic manner in which most Catholic historians–the overwhelming majority of whom have been priests–have traditionally ignored the reality that for nearly two centuries, Jesuits in Maryland owned human beings. Murphy does credit the Church with having made great strides in acknowledging its past advocacy of slavery and antipathy toward abolitionism, but notes that “mainstream historians” such as Albert J. Raboteau and Eugene Genovese have remained almost entirely uninterested in the issue of Catholic slaveholding (xviii).

 

[Ahimsa]

Christian apologist D’souza, when debating with atheists, maintains that atheists who claim to be “good just for goodness’ sake” are really using Christian principles; that is, Christianity first proposed (or elevated) the principle of the inherent dignity of the human person, and atheists “ride on the back of Christianity”, without giving it its proper due.

It might be good if you define what specific actions constitute treating someone, or everyone, with “inherent dignity”? Does treating everyone with inherent dignity mean that (1) one does not kill anyone, for whatever reason, or (2) one tries to eliminate global hunger, or (3) one prohibits abortion, or what?

 

[Leela]

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

Wow. Just imagine how different history might be if the Bible had contained an injunction not to enslave.

 

[Leela]

Christian apologist D’souza, when debating with atheists, maintains that atheists who claim to be “good just for goodness’ sake” are really using Christian principles; that is, Christianity first proposed (or elevated) the principle of the inherent dignity of the human person, and atheists “ride on the back of Christianity”, without giving it its proper due.

Of course atheists “ride on the back of Christianity” (assuming they happen to live within a culture that was at one time Christian.) But what should we make of that fact? The fact that we were once a Christian society does not necessarily mean that we ought to be a Christian society in he future. It doesn’t make Christianity as a whole true. If people continue to believe some of the things that Christians once believed all we can conclude is that everything that Christians once believed was not false.

Whether it was Christianity or some other religion that can claim the person who first said that humans ought to be treated with dignity seems pretty irrelevent to me. Suppose we find out that the first person was a member of some defunct religion, would that religion then be true or would the idea that humans ought to be treated with dignity then be false? It seems to me that the notion that all humans ought to be treated with dignity is either true or false and the fact of the matter has nothing to do with who first said so.

When we really know something, such knowledge transcends such provincial ownership. There is no Muslim algebra or Buddhist physics or Jewish germ theory. Likewise there are no Christian truths about morality. Whatever is true is simply true. Truth is not the property of any particular nation or religion or ethnic group.

Best,
Leela

 

[PRmerger]

Of course atheists “ride on the back of Christianity” (assuming they happen to live within a culture that was at one time Christian.)

I guess he just means that it would be nice to be acknowledged by atheists on this point.

 

[Leela]

I guess he just means that it would be nice to be acknowledged by atheists on this point.

Well it was you who raised this issue here, not him. What was your point in doing so?

Instead of trying to figure out who was the first to teach that all humans ought to be treated with dignity, why don’t we all try to figure out how to become the first community in history to actually do it?

 

[PRmerger]

Well it was you who raised this issue here, not him. What was your point in doing so?

To find out if what Dinesh D’Souza said was correct.

I don’t really understand *your *point in questioning my thread. While you are very welcome to join in the discussion (I was quite happy to see the email notice that you had responded), it seems a bit peculiar to enter the dialogue and then question its purpose.

Instead of trying to figure out who was the first to teach that all humans ought to be treated with dignity, why don’t we all try to figure out how to become the first community in history to actually do it?

I’m quite able to do both–and so are you!