Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama

[StoneByStone]

the government system involving a two house legislature adopted in England as the House of Lords and House of Commons by William of Orange, then transferred to the US as the Senate and House of Representatives was first created by a guy name John Calvin in Switzerland during the Reformation in the 1400s........

[PostmodernProphet]

Obviously you misquoted him. Jesus clearly had the intent of expanding the religion that His Father started with the Jews.

yeah, I recall this thing about "go ye into all the world and tell them".......

[Iolo/Penderyn]

The Lords and the Commons go back way before William of Orange or Calvin. I think people should leave history alone if they know nothing much about it.

[PostmodernProphet]

The Lords and the Commons go back way before William of Orange .

as do the teachings of John Calvin.......William is the person who ended the persecution of protestants in England......the battles between Catholics and Protestants obviously had been going on for a hundred years......

[Cypress]

I pretty much agree with all of that, except the part about Christianity. I see the Enlightenment as being a step in the opposite direction from Christianity, for reasons I already outlined earlier.
But yeah, in typical human fashion, people used Christianity to justify unchristian ideas. There were Enlightenment philosophers who used Christianity's concept of equality in soul to justify Democracy, despite Democracy being opposed to Christianity.

That's fine if that is your opinion. Human institutions can be repressive and discriminatory. Christian institutions had a history of repression. Enlightenment thinkers also belonged to or enabled repressive institutions. Thomas Jefferson participated in the institution of slavery, and I really don't think Adam Smith thought women had a right to vote, or to equality in education, or work.

I am drawing a distinction between corruptible humans and corruptible human institutions, and the underlying epistemological philosophies of early Christianity and Greek intellectual achievement.

Wrapping up, I comedown on the side of the vast majority of historical scholars as to the foundations and influences of western civilization

[StoneByStone]

That's fine if that is your opinion. Human institutions can be repressive and discriminatory. Christian institutions had a history of repression. Enlightenment thinkers also belonged to or enabled repressive institutions. Thomas Jefferson participated in the institution of slavery, and I really don't think Adam Smith thought women had a right to vote, or to equality in education, or work.

I am drawing a distinction between corruptible humans and corruptible human institutions, and the underlying epistemological philosophies of early Christianity and Greek intellectual achievement.

Wrapping up, I comedown on the side of the vast majority of historical scholars as to the foundations and influences of western civilization

I'd say the difference is that Jefferson and Smith failed to live up to their own Enlightenment ideals, whereas the Popes who allowed slavery were simply following their own religion.

[bhaktajan]

Lesson #1 for neophytes living in the ashram is:
we are spirit soul not the material body

“O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body is eternal and can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any creature.” (Bhagavad-gītā 2.30)

The very first step in self-realization is realizing one’s identity as separate from the body.
“I am not this body but am spirit soul” is an essential realization for anyone who wants to
transcend death and enter into the spiritual world beyond. It is not simply a matter of saying
“I am not this body,” but of actually realizing it. This is not as simple as it may seem at first.

Although we are not these bodies but are pure consciousness, somehow or other we have
become encased within the bodily dress. If we actually want the happiness and independence
that transcend death, we have to establish ourselves and remain in our constitutional position as pure consciousness.

Living in the bodily conception, our idea of happiness is like that of a man in delirium.
Some philosophers claim that this delirious condition of bodily identification should be cured by
abstaining from all action. Because these material activities have been a source of distress for us,
they claim that we should actually stop these activities. Their culmination of perfection is in a kind
of Buddhistic nirvāṇa, in which no activities are performed. Buddha maintained that due to a
combination of material elements, this body has come into existence, and that somehow or other
if these material elements are separated or dismantled, the cause of suffering is removed.

Consciousness cannot be denied. A body without consciousness is a dead body.
As soon as consciousness is removed from the body, the mouth will not speak,
the eye will not see, nor the ears hear. A child can understand that. It is a fact
that consciousness is absolutely necessary for the animation of the body.
What is this consciousness? Just as heat or smoke are symptoms of fire,
so consciousness is the symptom of the soul. The energy of the soul, or self,
is produced in the shape of consciousness. Indeed, consciousness proves
that the soul is present. This is not only the philosophy of Bhagavad-gītā but the conclusion of all Vedic literature.

The impersonalist followers of Śaṅkarācārya, as well as the Vaiṣṇavas following
in the disciplic succession from Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, acknowledge the factual existence
of the soul, but the Buddhist philosophers do not. The Buddhists contend that at
a certain stage the combination of matter produces consciousness, but this
argument is refuted by the fact that although we may have all the constituents
of matter at our disposal, we cannot produce consciousness from them.
All the material elements may be present in a dead man, but we cannot revive
that man to consciousness. This body is not like a machine. When a part of
a machine breaks down, it can be replaced, and the machine will work again,
but when the body breaks down and consciousness leaves the body, there is
no possibility of our replacing the broken part and rejuvenating the consciousness.
The soul is different from the body, and as long as the soul is there, the body is
animate. But there is no possibility of making the body animate in the absence of the soul.

Because we cannot perceive the soul by our gross senses, we deny it.
Actually there are so many things that are there which we cannot see.
We cannot see air, radio waves, or sound, nor can we perceive minute
bacteria with our blunt senses, but this does not mean they are not there.
By the aid of the microscope and other instruments, many things can be
perceived which had previously been denied by the imperfect senses.
Just because the soul, which is atomic in size, has not been perceived
yet by senses or instruments, we should not conclude that it is not there.
It can, however, be perceived by its symptoms and effects.

Source contin.
https://prabhupadabooks.com/bbd/1?d=1

[Cypress]

I'd say the difference is that Jefferson and Smith failed to live up to their own Enlightenment ideals, whereas the Popes who allowed slavery were simply following their own religion.

Generally not good form to compare people of 1750 to people of the first century. Slavery was universal in the world of antiquity. By Jefferson's time both Christians and non-Christians around the world were reflecting on the immorality of slavery.

Augustine, the greatest Christian philosopher of late antiquity stated that slavery was not a natural state, it was not God's intention. Slavery was a result of sin.

The bible is probably the most revolutionary book of antiquity in that it maintained the soul of the master and the slave, the soul of man and woman were equal in the kingdom of heaven. That implication of equality was absolutely radical by standards of the ancient world.

Again, corruptible humans misusing institutions to justify their own means. There were many Christians who abused the name of Christ to justify slavery. That debate has been essentially over for centuries.

[Iolo/Penderyn]

That's fine if that is your opinion. Human institutions can be repressive and discriminatory. Christian institutions had a history of repression. Enlightenment thinkers also belonged to or enabled repressive institutions. Thomas Jefferson participated in the institution of slavery, and I really don't think Adam Smith thought women had a right to vote, or to equality in education, or work.

I am drawing a distinction between corruptible humans and corruptible human institutions, and the underlying epistemological philosophies of early Christianity and Greek intellectual achievement.

Wrapping up, I comedown on the side of the vast majority of historical scholars as to the foundations and influences of western civilization

It seems to me that all human institutions are essentially about power, whereas any serious belief system or 'religion' is about the nature of reality and decent behaviour within it and what the two things might be. Alas, the two will inevitably overlap. Sometimes, fortunately, that overlap can be creative.

[StoneByStone]

Generally not good form to compare people of 1750 to people of the first century. Slavery was universal in the world of antiquity. By Jefferson's time both Christians and non-Christians around the world were reflecting on the immorality of slavery.

Augustine, the greatest Christian philosopher of late antiquity stated that slavery was not a natural state, it was not God's intention. Slavery was a result of sin.

The bible is probably the most revolutionary book of antiquity in that it maintained the soul of the master and the slave, the soul of man and woman were equal in the kingdom of heaven. That implication of equality was absolutely radical by standards of the ancient world.

Again, corruptible humans misusing institutions to justify their own means. There were many Christians who abused the name of Christ to justify slavery. That debate has been essentially over for centuries.

But it's not misusing the Bible or Christian tradition when the Bible, the Catholic Church, and the Protestant Churches allowed slavery. I'm not trying to judge the Founders by today's morality, I'm just saying that their views on slavery were consistent with Christianity, and the reason "today's morality" exists is because of the Enlightenment.
Augustine is an example of a Christian going against Christianity when he said slavery was wrong.

To be perfectly clear, I'm not saying all Christians were or are in favor of slavery. I'm saying slavery ended because of Enlightenment philosophy that Christians embraced despite their own religion's teachings.

[Iolo/Penderyn]

But it's not misusing the Bible or Christian tradition when the Bible, the Catholic Church, and the Protestant Churches allowed slavery. I'm not trying to judge the Founders by today's morality, I'm just saying that their views on slavery were consistent with Christianity, and the reason "today's morality" exists is because of the Enlightenment.
Augustine is an example of a Christian going against Christianity when he said slavery was wrong.

To be perfectly clear, I'm not saying all Christians were or are in favor of slavery. I'm saying slavery ended because of Enlightenment philosophy that Christians embraced despite their own religion's teachings.

You might look into the role of the Quakers in destroying slavery in America and find out why the earliest people working against the slave trade and colonial slavery in the UK were various kinds of Christian. It's seems to me that Christianity points out that capitalism is wrong in just the same way, but as with Roman imperialism, Christians have to live in an evil world: that's understood.

[StoneByStone]

You might look into the role of the Quakers in destroying slavery in America and find out why the earliest people working against the slave trade and colonial slavery in the UK were various kinds of Christian. It's seems to me that Christianity points out that capitalism is wrong in just the same way, but as with Roman imperialism, Christians have to live in an evil world: that's understood.

Again, the Christians who wanted to end slavery were defying their own religion. The Bible allows for slavery.

[Iolo/Penderyn]

Again, the Christians who wanted to end slavery were defying their own religion. The Bible allows for slavery.

'The Bible' is an anthology. Do you reckon Jesus was heavily into slavery? Which particular Enlightenment figure ever did anything for any slaves, and when? A typical anti-slavery man was Patrick Brunty, or Bronte, a perpetual curate whose daughters were typical Irish?Cornish creative persons.

[PostmodernProphet]

Quote Originally Posted by StoneByStone View Post
Again, the Christians who wanted to end slavery were defying their own religion. The Bible allows for slavery.
....
To be perfectly clear, I'm not saying all Christians were or are in favor of slavery. I'm saying slavery ended because of Enlightenment philosophy that Christians embraced despite their own religion's teachings.

people who have never read the book of Philemon should not pretend that they know what the Christian religion says about slavery.......

[StoneByStone]

'The Bible' is an anthology. Do you reckon Jesus was heavily into slavery? Which particular Enlightenment figure ever did anything for any slaves, and when? A typical anti-slavery man was Patrick Brunty, or Bronte, a perpetual curate whose daughters were typical Irish?Cornish creative persons.

Jesus probably wasn't heavily into slavery, since he didn't talk about it, but he was probably ok with it. Slavery was the norm among the Jews at the time, so if Jesus had a problem with it, he would have said so.
The Enlightenment figures were philosophers, not politicians who could have ended slavery. But their ideas influence later Westerns to end slavery both in and out of the West.