We are desensitized to Christianity’s influence on Western thought
1–10 of 85 posts
Re: We are desensitized to Christianity’s influence on Western thought
#2[deleted]
Re: We are desensitized to Christianity’s influence on Western thought
#3> But at the same time, they believe in human rights, which can be justified only by the very God they don’t believe in.
Why?
Re: We are desensitized to Christianity’s influence on Western thought
#4> The same people who tout the virtues of being well-read skip right past the Bible, the most popular book in human history.
Who's doing that? You wouldn't be able to understand half of what you read. Did the author just make up someone to score points on?
Re: We are desensitized to Christianity’s influence on Western thought
#5Yeah, this is a load of nonsense. The worst part is this essays ahistorical line of thinking. Like highlighting the Romans bad behavior without examining things like the crusades and chattel slavery which used Christianity as a defense. And it’s Christian supremacist since he leaves out the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other religion that believes in human rights.
Re: We are desensitized to Christianity’s influence on Western thought
#6> But at the same time, they believe in human rights, which can be justified only by the very God they don’t believe in. Why?
I don't believe in God, but this is historically correct.
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights as conceived by the United Nations traces its roots to the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen that was a product of the French revolution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of...
The preamble of this document directly references God:
> In consequence, the National Assembly recognizes and declares, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and citizen
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/ilp-pji/rev5/ind...
Re: We are desensitized to Christianity’s influence on Western thought
#7> But at the same time, they believe in human rights, which can be justified only by the very God they don’t believe in. Why?
I don't believe in God, but this is historically correct. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights as conceived by the United Nations traces its roots to the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen that was a product of the French revolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of... The preamble of this document directly references God: > In consequence, the National Assembly…
That's a declaration. Which apart from mentioning a supreme being (not the Christian god) has its roots in other concepts.
However, the article is typical Christian propaganda insinuating that atheists are amoral and you need the benevolent guidance of a supernatural being (and its church) to behave like a decent human being.
Re: We are desensitized to Christianity’s influence on Western thought
#8> But at the same time, they believe in human rights, which can be justified only by the very God they don’t believe in. Why?
I don't believe in God, but this is historically correct. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights as conceived by the United Nations traces its roots to the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen that was a product of the French revolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of... The preamble of this document directly references God: > In consequence, the National Assembly…
The "Supreme Being" in the French Revolution was not necessarily the Abrahamic God. One major cause of the revolution was the Church's corruption and overreach during the ancien regime, and they got pretty radical with religious experimentation during that time.
They even tried to set up a state-sponsored "cult of reason" to replace religions like Christianity. That was followed by the "cult of the supreme being", because not many people felt comfortable worshipping an abstract reification of "rationality".
Re: We are desensitized to Christianity’s influence on Western thought
#9Yeah, this is a load of nonsense. The worst part is this essays ahistorical line of thinking. Like highlighting the Romans bad behavior without examining things like the crusades and chattel slavery which used Christianity as a defense. And it’s Christian supremacist since he leaves out the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and any other religion that believes in human rights.
I think you may be missing the point of the essay. I don’t think it meant to say that Christianity is perfect nor that Christianity is the supreme religion. Of course Christianity has been used to justify hateful conduct (just like most other religions at some point) but regardless it more than anything else is responsible for how “Western Civilization” developed, and by extension our understanding of human rights. Yes Christianity was used to defend slavery, but it was also used to condemn it. Regardless, the point was that Christianity is a driving force behind Western thought/morality and ignoring that is dangerous.
Are there other religions that teach the same values of human rights? Of course! But how many of them directly influenced Western life and the Western definition of those same rights, specifically in the founding of the US (which became the blueprint for so many other countries after it)?
Also, I feel like Judaism is implicitly included to some degree in this because Jesus was a Jew and the author specifically mentions he (the author) was Jewish.
Re: We are desensitized to Christianity’s influence on Western thought
#10> But at the same time, they believe in human rights, which can be justified only by the very God they don’t believe in. Why?
I don't believe in God, but this is historically correct. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights as conceived by the United Nations traces its roots to the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen that was a product of the French revolution. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of... The preamble of this document directly references God: > In consequence, the National Assembly…
Historically correct but do we need to tell that part of the story going forward?
Can we not set the idea of “human rights” on its own pedestal and decide what those are and carry them forward in tradition and song?
Why do we have a literal obligation to the asinine part of a dead philosophers opinions on their origin, along with an actual useful concept?
Let’s dispense with the all-father bits and see it as we claim to; within the legislative and judicial process we in practice are all afforded the same privileges and obligations.
Let’s discuss how in practice that’s not true and stop giving a shit what dead guy first conjured the idea. Caretaking the literal lineage is nothing more than banal taxonomy fetishism.