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

[PRmerger]

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

That is a valid point.

God did not reveal this “injunction not to enslave” in the Scriptures, but only later through the Church.

I suppose it would be like 1st grade teachers not making big red correction marks for spelling and grammar errors when the little ones are just learning to put thought to paper. Only later do the teachers tighten their reins, right?

 

[Leela]

Hi PR,

I thought this was a strange exchange:

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

After Just Lurking provided documentation that religious orders, priests, cardinals, and popes have even owned slaves as late as the 1400s you said:

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

How did you go so quickly from the eek smiley to “interesting”?

If the Catholic Church has or ever had any moral authority that supposedly transcends its cultural context, wouldn’t you think it would have gotten the slavery thing right from the start? To me this evidence is catastrophic for the notion that the Church is an ahistorical foundation for morality.

 

[rjparson]

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

I don’t know if you can equate the indiscretions of a few priests to an entire culture centered around a slave-owning living god.

I’m also pretty sure that most slave owning nations voluntarily abolished slavery, while Tibet kept on oppressing until it was, um, “liberated” by the PRC.

 

[PRmerger]

How did you go so quickly from the eek smiley to “interesting”?

The “eek” was in response to the thought of the Vatican or Magisterium owning slaves.

The “interesting” was in response to the wiki article which stated that “the Catholic Church accepted non-racial slavery as a social consequence of the current human condition,** teaching that slaves should be treated humanely and justly**.”

I was under the impression that perhaps the Pope was out there on the slave docks or something, so it was quite “interesting” to note that “the Middle Ages witnessed the emergence of orders of monks such as the Mercedarians who were founded for the purpose of freeing slaves.”.

If the Catholic Church has or ever had any moral authority that supposedly transcends its cultural context, wouldn’t you think it would have gotten the slavery thing right from the start? To me this evidence is catastrophic for the notion that the Church is an ahistorical foundation for morality.

Well, firstly, I don’t happen to believe that the Church is the foundation for morality.

As I’ve stated many times, I believe that one can be quite moral without being a Christian. Heck, even the Scriptures attest to that. (Rom 2:15)

Regarding why the CC did not immediately get “the slavery thing right from the start”, I think I addressed that with the 1st grade teacher thing

 

[Ahimsa]

I don’t know if you can equate the indiscretions of a few priests to an entire culture centered around a slave-owning living god.

I’m also pretty sure that most slave owning nations voluntarily abolished slavery, while Tibet kept on oppressing until it was, um, “liberated” by the PRC.

I’m not equating Tibet with Maryland. Such an equation is un-necessary. What is clear, though, is that there were Catholic resources (Augustine, Aquinas, Ignatius, e.g.) from which the Maryland Jesuits drew, in order to justify, in Catholic terms, their slave-holding.

It is no coincidence that the Society of Jesus turned to slave labor in the last third of the seventeenth century, at about the same time as the rest of the free, land-owning population in Maryland. To say that the Jesuits had “unique” motives is not to imply that they did not have the same motives for slaveholding as everyone else. In the Great Debate over whether Chesapeake-area planters abandoned white indentured servants, or white indentured servants abandoned them, Murphy sides with those who argue the latter. But unlike the Protestant majority in Maryland, the Jesuits had rich philosophical and theological traditions to draw from when justifying their decision to use slave labor on their plantations.

Augustine, Aquinas, and the Society’s founder, St. Ignatius of Loyola, all had different understandings of why slavery existed. Augustine saw it as a punishment for original sin; Aquinas saw it as an unavoidable consequence of the fact that some people were born to govern and others were not; and Ignatius saw it as a means of protecting and serving the poor. But regardless of which understanding an individual Jesuit chose to embrace (and the evidence suggests the members of the community were neither uniform nor consistent in the explanation of slavery’s origins that they offered to their parishioners), the fact remains that in all cases, Catholic theological thought viewed slavery as divinely ordained and insisted on the master’s obligation to provide for his slave’s spiritual guidance. This is an important reality for historians to understand, because for decades, Protestant church leaders in America were uncomfortable with the idea of bringing Christianity to the slave quarters [because a Christian slave might begin to think that he or she is an equal of the slave-master].

Much of pre-1950 Tibet was feudal, not unlike medieval Europe (and, some would say, antebellum U.S.). Feudal societies contain serfs, who are often treated as property. But feudal societies are based upon economic structures that go against the original teachings of both Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha; and Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

 

[Leela]

That is a valid point.

God did not reveal this “injunction not to enslave” in the Scriptures, but only later through the Church.

Do you know when this was revealled through the Church?

I suppose it would be like 1st grade teachers not making big red correction marks for spelling and grammar errors when the little ones are just learning to put thought to paper. Only later do the teachers tighten their reins, right?

Perhaps, but just think of all the things that were then thought by the Bible authors to be important to teach to the 1st graders about not boiling a goat in its mother’s milk and such. I would think things like that would be more fitting to the analogy of correcting for spelling and grammar while “do not enslave” would be pretty high on the list of things you’d want to teach people about morality.

What makes much more sense to me is to think that the Bible authors weren’t holding back their knowledge of the wrongness of slavery because we weren’t yet ready to hear it. I think that they just didn’t know it. Just as we know more than people did 2000 years ago about pretty much everything else, we also know more today about morality.

 

[Just_Lurking]

From the Catechism:

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

 

[PRmerger]

From the Catechism:

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

Indeed.

So, even though the CC did not provide any *new *Revelation regarding slavery–the Scriptures had already provided the concept of the inherent dignity of the human peron–our understanding of this had to develop over centuries.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you know when this was revealled through the Church?

Papal condemnations of slavery were repeated by Popes Gregory XIV (1591), Urban VIII (1639), Innocent XI (1686), Benedict XIV (1741), and Pius VII (1815). In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Leo XIII (1890) both wrote condemning slavery, as did the Second Vatican Council (1965).

Another source: here.

 

[Leela]

Papal condemnations of slavery were repeated by Popes Gregory XIV (1591), Urban VIII (1639), Innocent XI (1686), Benedict XIV (1741), and Pius VII (1815). In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Leo XIII (1890) both wrote condemning slavery, as did the Second Vatican Council (1965).

Another source: here.

I still can’t tell when precisely the Church officially changed its position on slavery from that of condonation to opposition. I suppose you are saying it happened gradually?

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps, but just think of all the things that were then thought by the Bible authors to be important to teach to the 1st graders about not boiling a goat in its mother’s milk and such. I would think things like that would be more fitting to the analogy of correcting for spelling and grammar while “do not enslave” would be pretty high on the list of things you’d want to** teach people about morality**.

What makes you think that the Bible is a book whose primary purpose is to “teach people about morality”?

I think you view Christianity as essentially an ideology–i.e. a system of morality that you happen to disagree with. It is not. Christianity is a relationship. It is about a Person. Not a moral code.

Now, don’t get me wrong, Leela. Christianity provides us with a great moral code and you would not believe the things you believe about goodness and morality and love, were it not for the foundation of Christianity in this culture. But that is not its essence.

What makes much more sense to me is to think that the Bible authors weren’t holding back their knowledge of the wrongness of slavery because we weren’t yet ready to hear it. I think that they just didn’t know it.

Perhaps.

Just as we know more than people did 2000 years ago about pretty much everything else, we also know more today about morality.

Yes, and you have Christianity to thank for it.

I’m just sayin’

 

[PRmerger]

I still can’t tell when precisely the Church officially changed its position on slavery from that of condonation to opposition. I suppose you are saying it happened gradually?

Ooooh! I never said that the Church condoned slavery! No, no, no, no! Nuh-uh.

It tolerated it.

From my 21st century point of view do I think it should have been more vocal in its opposition? Yes, yes, yes!

 

[flyingfish]

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.

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), Christianity permitted slavery as well (there are, as far as I recall, statements about how to treat slaves in the NT and no condemnation of slavery as a whole).

 

[Sideline]

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.

Jainism proposed the inherent dignity of humans (and every other form of life for that matter) several centuries before Christianity.

 

[Leela]

Ooooh! I never said that the Church condoned slavery! No, no, no, no! Nuh-uh.

It tolerated it.

From my 21st century point of view do I think it should have been more vocal in its opposition? Yes, yes, yes!

Opposition? Oh, you must mean eventual opposition after about 1400 hundred years or so. And if by “tolerated,” you mean that slaves were owned by some Catholic religious orders, popes, cardinals, etc., then I think you have a strange notion of the distinction between condonation and tolerance. For example, if, say, a pope receives a gift of 100 slaves and then gives these human beings as gifts to various cardinals, doesn’t that even actually go beyond condoning the practice and constitute participation in the practice and even granting the papal blessing to the practice? What exactly would it take to be not mere tolerance but condonation? Maybe something in the Bible about slaves being obligated to be obedient to their masters?

Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate the role the Catholic Church played in ending most of the practice of slavery. 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?

 

[TheAtheist]

Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate the role the Catholic Church played in ending most of the practice of slavery. 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?

It would be probably more fair to say that the Church has adapted to the prevailing norms of the society that it has found itself in - like every other organization that wishes to survive in a society.

I think some theologians rationalize this as a “continuing revelation,” although this is where the Catholics pick up flack from the Orthodox Churches.

 

[Leela]

It would be probably more fair to say that the Church has adapted to the prevailing norms of the society that it has found itself in - like every other organization that wishes to survive in a society.

I think that is actually much less fair, but I’m not sure it’s worth arguing with you about it since you don’t think that assertions of morals have truth-value and are anything more than just whatever the prevailing norms of society are. But then all the criticisms you want to make about the Church are just self-defeating when you don’t think there is any right and wrong anyway, don’t you think? I guess that’s why my mom always told me never to argue with nihilists. It’s probably better just to walk on the other side of the street.

 

[TheAtheist]

I think that is actually much less fair, but I’m not sure it’s worth arguing with you about it since you don’t think that assertions of morals have truth-value and are anything more than just whatever the prevailing norms of society are. But then all the criticisms you want to make about the Church are just self-defeating when you don’t think there is any right and wrong anyway, don’t you think? I guess that’s why my mom always told me never to argue with nihilists. It’s probably better just to walk on the other side of the street.

Allow me to submit an example that may fit with the original poster’s intentions.

What about the equal worth of human beings regardless of the belief system they uphold?

In particular different epochs of the Church’s history, this has a tendency to fluctuate.

I believe in the City of God, St. Augustine made a rather stern argument that anyone practicing a different religion outside of Christianity (and Judaism of course is given a pass) was actually worshiping some sort of demon.

That particular statement would definitely lead to all sorts of trouble regarding Christianity’s relationship with other religions, much less inter-denominational strife.

Flash forward to the present time - everyone’s singing a bit of a different tune wouldn’t you say? Last time i checked, while they may not agree with say Tibetan Buddhism, no one within the hierarchy nor any serious theologian is saying that the Dalai Lama when he praises Palden Lhamo is actually talking to a demon, or worshipping Satan (now, the Evangelical contingent of Christianity on the other hand…)

Where do you think that drive for, if not ecumenicalism, than religious tolerance comes from? From within, or from the changes that occurred to the environment around them?

 

[PRmerger]

For example, if, say, a pope receives a gift of 100 slaves and then gives these human beings as gifts to various cardinals, doesn’t that even actually go beyond condoning the practice and constitute participation in the practice and even granting the papal blessing to the practice?

WHAT??? Please tell me you’re giving a hypothetical! Otherwise, source?

 

[PRmerger]

You’re assuming. Christianity still had women treated as lesser creatures

Compared to the pagan religions? I think not. Compared to Islam? Nope. Compared to Buddhism? Don’t think so.

I’m pretty sure that if you look at the history of how women have been treated in all cultures and all religions no one ought to have bragging rights. Christianity, however, took the lead quite early. I don’t know of any other religions that elevated women to “doctors of the church” or allowed them to be CEOs in the middle ages, as leaders of religious communities, hospitals, orphanages…

until the last century (and Christianity wasn’t what changed the position of women in society either)

Disagree. Christianity had* much* to do with the elevation of women in society to our rightful place.

Christianity permitted slavery as well (there are, as far as I recall, statements about how to treat slaves in the NT and no condemnation of slavery as a whole).

We are agreed on this, provided you mean that the* NT* provided no condemnation of slavery as a whole.