Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama

[StoneByStone]

Since he did not comment on it, are we filling in the blanks ourselves?

Yes, which you can do in some cases.

If I am wrong here, pls one of the experts correct me~

From my understanding, He didn't come here to fix the world as it was, but rather to prepare ppl & point them in the way of the one to come, His Kingdom, which was not of this world.....

Supposedly he came to do both. He came to teach us how to live on Earth, so that we can get to the Kingdom. If slavery was a sin, and remember he was surrounded by slaves in Ancient Israel, he would have said now you stop that.

[StoneByStone]

Stone is cherry-picking the Bible like an Evangelical trying to repudiate homosexuality.

The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. But, sure, let's say that's cherry-picking.

The fact remains all of human history is filled with sex, violence and slavery. The world of King David in 1000BC was brutal, but so was every other known human civilization on Earth. Anyone who singles out Christianity as the cause of these brutality is either ignorant or deliberately pushing a false narrative.

This is essentially #whataboutism. Yes, every culture has been violent, nobody is denying that. What I'm saying is that Western Civilization is based on the Enlightenment, not Christianity, and that Christianity is not a good philosophy to base a society on. You can say what about Paganism, what about Islam, what about Communism, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about Christianity.

Christianity, like Buddhism, did push "living right", living in peace and treating one another as one would themselves. Of course an idea like that in a world of thugs, despots and murderers would see a lot of adherents end up as slaves or dead. The number of Christians executed by the Romans is epic, but not unusual in the history of mankind.

Christianity also gives instructions on how to own and treat your slaves, which made it harder to end slavery. The Christians weren't the good guys when it came to slavery, they were much like everyone else at the time.

[Doc Dutch]

The Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. But, sure, let's say that's cherry-picking.....

Yes, it is because you are bad-mouthing Christians then cherry-picking the OT for slaves and homophobia. Please cite some Jesus quotes about keeping slaves and being homophobic. No rush, I'll wait.

[StoneByStone]

Yes, it is because you are bad-mouthing Christians then cherry-picking the OT for slaves and homophobia.

I'm not bad-mouthing Christians. I said that Christians did help end slavery, I'm just acknowledging that they did this by fighting against their own religion, which made it harder to end slavery. Had the West not had a pro-slavery religion, it would have been much easier to end slavery quicker.

Please cite some Jesus quotes about keeping slaves and being homophobic. No rush, I'll wait.

This is a fallacy. You're saying the only evidence of Christianity being pro-slavery and homophobic would be if Jesus himself made pro-slavery and homophobic remarks.
I'm saying the evidence is that Jesus condemned all of the behavior around him that he saw as immoral, but never condemned slavery and homophobia. It's like how Trump is super quick to condemn kneeling during the national anthem, but pretended to not know anything about the KKK when he was asked to condemn them.

If that's not enough, Jesus also said that the old laws will not be changed. This means that the rules of the Old Testament, such as homosexuality being a sin, are still to be followed.

[Bill]

I'm not bad-mouthing Christians. I said that Christians did help end slavery, I'm just acknowledging that they did this by fighting against their own religion, which made it harder to end slavery. Had the West not had a pro-slavery religion, it would have been much easier to end slavery quicker.



This is a fallacy. You're saying the only evidence of Christianity being pro-slavery and homophobic would be if Jesus himself made pro-slavery and homophobic remarks.
I'm saying the evidence is that Jesus condemned all of the behavior around him that he saw as immoral, but never condemned slavery and homophobia. It's like how Trump is super quick to condemn kneeling during the national anthem, but pretended to not know anything about the KKK when he was asked to condemn them.

If that's not enough, Jesus also said that the old laws will not be changed. This means that the rules of the Old Testament, such as homosexuality being a sin, are still to be followed.

Why do you think he didn't condemn it?? Why didn't he condemn the Roman Centurion for being a warrior and not a pacifist??

[StoneByStone]

Why do you think he didn't condemn it?? Why didn't he condemn the Roman Centurion for being a warrior and not a pacifist??

He probably didn't have an issue with it.
He did condemn violence, even if he didn't actually condemn every single person to engage in violence. But as for slavery, I'm pretty sure he never even mentioned it.

[Doc Dutch]

I'm not bad-mouthing Christians. I said that Christians did help end slavery, I'm just acknowledging that they did this by fighting against their own religion, which made it harder to end slavery. Had the West not had a pro-slavery religion, it would have been much easier to end slavery quicker.

This is a fallacy. You're saying the only evidence of Christianity being pro-slavery and homophobic would be if Jesus himself made pro-slavery and homophobic remarks.
I'm saying the evidence is that Jesus condemned all of the behavior around him that he saw as immoral, but never condemned slavery and homophobia. It's like how Trump is super quick to condemn kneeling during the national anthem, but pretended to not know anything about the KKK when he was asked to condemn them.

If that's not enough, Jesus also said that the old laws will not be changed. This means that the rules of the Old Testament, such as homosexuality being a sin, are still to be followed.

Dude, the fallacy, if not disingenuousness, is your bouncing around condemning religion and Christianity based on the actions of human beings.

You entered the thread with this post and now seem to be denying it:

I really don't get this whole "I'm not Christian but I respect Christianity" thing. All religion is stupid, but religions like Christianity and Islam preach that if you don't worship a god that is literally a mass murderer, then you get punished for eternity. These are not religions that produce a healthy mindset.
I don't know if Jesus ever really existed, but if he did, he wasn't a great teacher or spiritual leader. He was probably mentally ill and preached tyranny.

[Bill]

He probably didn't have an issue with it.
He did condemn violence, even if he didn't actually condemn every single person to engage in violence. But as for slavery, I'm pretty sure he never even mentioned it.

I know of no conversation he ever had w/ a slave.. There were many different forms of it & Jews themselves were subject to it as well, ending up being sold in Rome...

There were various ways ppl ended up as a "maid", "servant" aka slave, some even selling themselves into it as preferable...

[StoneByStone]

Dude, the fallacy, if not disingenuousness, is your bouncing around condemning religion and Christianity based on the actions of human beings.

You entered the thread with this post and now seem to be denying it:

The text you highlighted is me criticizing religion, not followers of those religions. So I'm not sure where the contradiction or fallacy is supposed to be.

[Doc Dutch]

The text you highlighted is me criticizing religion, not followers of those religions. So I'm not sure where the contradiction or fallacy is supposed to be.

The point being that, as I previously mentioned, a religion is an inanimate object like complaining about guns but not the shooters.

[StoneByStone]

I know of no conversation he ever had w/ a slave.. There were many different forms of it & Jews themselves were subject to it as well, ending up being sold in Rome...

There were various ways ppl ended up as a "maid", "servant" aka slave, some even selling themselves into it as preferable...

Yeah, there was also indentured servitude which was voluntary and temporary. You can totally make an argument for that not being wrong.
But the Ancient Israelis also practiced involuntary slavery and even had different rules for how to treat slaves based on race. Jews were allowed to do pretty much anything they wanted to their slaves if the slave was not Jewish.
If Jesus spent his time talking about major things wrong with society, and slavery was common all around him, but he never once said a thing about slavery, it's only rational to assume he was cool with it. And in addition to that, Jesus said that the old laws were not to be changed. The old laws permitted slavery. So at the very best, Jesus had no strong feelings about slavery.

[Bill]

Yeah, there was also indentured servitude which was voluntary and temporary. You can totally make an argument for that not being wrong.
But the Ancient Israelis also practiced involuntary slavery and even had different rules for how to treat slaves based on race. Jews were allowed to do pretty much anything they wanted to their slaves if the slave was not Jewish.
If Jesus spent his time talking about major things wrong with society, and slavery was common all around him, but he never once said a thing about slavery, it's only rational to assume he was cool with it. And in addition to that, Jesus said that the old laws were not to be changed. The old laws permitted slavery. So at the very best, Jesus had no strong feelings about slavery.

We'll have to agree on what we agree..

I don't believe he was spending his time talking about the major things wrong w/ the society he lived in, that was the zealots perhaps

[StoneByStone]

The point being that, as I previously mentioned, a religion is an inanimate object like complaining about guns but not the shooters.

But the religions do influence people to think and do things, yes?

[Cypress]

I'm not bad-mouthing Christians. I said that Christians did help end slavery, I'm just acknowledging that they did this by fighting against their own religion, which made it harder to end slavery. Had the West not had a pro-slavery religion, it would have been much easier to end slavery quicker.



This is a fallacy. You're saying the only evidence of Christianity being pro-slavery and homophobic would be if Jesus himself made pro-slavery and homophobic remarks.
I'm saying the evidence is that Jesus condemned all of the behavior around him that he saw as immoral, but never condemned slavery and homophobia. It's like how Trump is super quick to condemn kneeling during the national anthem, but pretended to not know anything about the KKK when he was asked to condemn them.

If that's not enough, Jesus also said that the old laws will not be changed. This means that the rules of the Old Testament, such as homosexuality being a sin, are still to be followed.

The development of Christian theology did not stop and freeze in time in the first century AD

Just like Enlightenment thought did not stop developing when Voltaire died.

Christian theology developed two millennia after the Gospels. Christians to this day are reflecting on the meaning of the scriptures.

The Church fathers of the Patristic in late Antiquity wrote extensively on the meaning and nature of the scripture, and it is clear that they thought slavery was against God's intent, and by the standards of antiquity Christian theology was more sympathetic to slaves than any other tradition in the ancient world. By the 18th century" Christian theology had evolved to where progressive Christians worldwide were actively working to end slavery. I do not think there is any question that Christians, acting on their understanding of their theology, did more than any of the Enlightenment thinkers to actually work to end slavery.

[Doc Dutch]

But the religions do influence people to think and do things, yes?

Yes or not. They have the capacity to choose. Atheism influences how people think and do things, yes? Socialism? Capitalism? A philosophy book? Plato's "The Republic"?