What is that ethic and how was it revolutionary when compared against the OT ethic that predated it? — Hanover

Why would an OT ethic be the thing it replaced?

How has its ethic better stood the test of time in comparison to other ethical theories? — Hanover

By having more correlates in modern ethics than others.

If the New Testament was a first stab, why is it called "new" — Hanover

You know it's almost 2000 years old, right?

Jesus and the Buddha are examples for higher ideals — Jack Cummins

Yes, and even just average good humans still put the 'God' of the Bible to shame, which again suggests the making up of the Biblical 'God' as wishful thinking at best.

Aesthetics is another area of interest, both the aesthetics of the book, and that which it has inspired.

Why would an OT ethic be the thing it replaced? — Kenosha Kid

You identified the New Testament as providing a revolutionary new ethic. In order for it to have been revolutionary, it would have had to overthrow the prevailing ethic of the time, whatever that might be. The OT ethic was at least one of those ethics pre-existing the NT ethic, so I asked what distinguished the NT ethic from the OT one that it would have had to replace following this revolution in ethics.

By having more correlates in modern ethics than others. — Kenosha Kid

I'd need a definition of "modern ethics" then to understand this comment because many of the ethical systems practiced currently originated long ago, some prior to Christianity. My question then would be whether the ethical system of Orthodox Judaism (for example) is a modern ethic, considering it is currently still being practiced, or do you mean by "modern ethics" recent religious doctrines (like Mormonism) or secular doctrines like Utilitarianism or Kantianism.

It seemed from your initial post that you were giving the nod to Christianity as having uncovered some previously unrecognized ethical truths that have proved themselves correct through some type of external evaluation. I'm just asking what that is more because I'm curious than trying to be critical of what you're saying.

Or put another way, what is it about Christian ethics that makes a true follower of it more ethical than one who does not? I'm not suggesting that you've argued that no one is ethical other than Christians, but I'm trying to uncover what special element Christianity contains that makes it of special value.

You know it's almost 2000 years old, right? — Kenosha Kid

I don't follow how this is responsive to my comment. You indicated that the New Testament was a good first stab at an ethical theory, and I pointed out that it couldn't have been the first stab if it was newer than a prior ethical theory.

Here I guess you're pointing out that 2000 years isn't "new" because 2000 years is a pretty long time when it comes to the age of human literature, but that has nothing to do with my comment that the NT cannot have been the first stab if the OT predated it and took a stab at it before.

:up:

To an extent, the New Testament is a foundational moral theory, completely revolutionary, that has mostly stood the test of time. It's sort of the Newtonian mechanics of morality: yes, we've moved on (or at least the secular world has), but what a first stab! — Kenosha Kid

NT aka "Platonism for the masses" – really? :chin:

Not the Torah (re: Hillel the Elder's "golden rule")?
Not the Nicomachean Ethics?
Not Epicurus-Lucretius? Not Seneca & Epictetus?

You identified the New Testament as providing a revolutionary new ethic. In order for it to have been revolutionary, it would have had to overthrow the prevailing ethic of the time, whatever that might be. The OT ethic was at least one of those ethics pre-existing the NT ethic, so I asked what distinguished the NT ethic from the OT one that it would have had to replace following this revolution in ethics. — Hanover

It doesn't follow that the OT encoded the dominant ethic that Christianity overturned. This just makes absolutely no sense.

You indicated that the New Testament was a good first stab at an ethical theory, and I pointed out that it couldn't have been the first stab if it was newer than a prior ethical theory. — Hanover

an. Indefinite article. I think you're reading this as "any" or "all"? Otherwise again this makes no sense to me.

NT aka "Platonism for the masses" – really? :chin:

Not the Torah (re: Hillel the Elder's "golden rule")?

Not the Nicomachean Ethics?

Not Epicurus-Lucretius? Not Seneca & Epictetus? — 180 Proof

Happy to hear the counter-argument in which Nicomachean Ethics became the foundation of most of the world's morality. Philosophers are a very thin end of a very big slice.

Who said "most of the world's morality"? I'm referring to

the development of philosophy in Western society — Jack Cummins

which includes ethics.

Who said "most of the world's morality"? In the spirit of the OP, I'm referring to
the development of philosophy in Western society
— Jack Cummins
which includes ethics. — 180 Proof

Or the West's.

I had a busy day so haven't really been involved in the discussion on the thread today, but I do believe that interpretations of ideas in the Bible have been central to ethical traditions in Western society. But I think that the important links of this were the theologians and the Church, because these were leading authorities. Also, I am sure that there were so many varying political factors throughout the world, and we are also speaking about a period of 2000 years. It is the entire history of Christendom.

Thinking about the 'Old' and the 'New' Testaments is also probably extremely complex, because it involved the migration of ideas at various places in the world. I am sure that Greek ideas, were important on many ways, but a part which may be overlooked is paganism and various systems of ideas, especially metaphysics, including Hermeticism. I do believe that Gnostic traditions and other esoteric traditions play an important role behind the scenes of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, in shaping the development of the ideas.

I do believe that interpretations of ideas in the Bible have been central to ethical traditions in Western society. — Jack Cummins

I disagree, but appreciate why this view is (still) dominant. Ethics in the West, I think, developed in contrast to, or despite, Biblical theology (theo-idiocy).

I think that criticism and looking behind the surface in the ideas and writings in The Bible is very important. I remember going to commentaries in libraries when I was a teenager and so worried about the passage about the unforgivable sin. I found that looking at commentaries was like peeling back layers of meaning. It may be that the history of religious ideas, even before Christ, was full of dialogue and heated exchanges of ideas on many levels.

I know that some people do think that some of the ideas in The Bible were made up. It is so hard to know on what level many of the ideas were believed literally, because in some ways they may have been written as works of literature. The Gnostic writings may have been suppressed for this reason, for making the ideas appear to be mainly symbolic. But, I do believe that it is hard to know the facts behind the texts, but I am wishing to read and discover more fully.

But I think that the important links of this were the theologians and the Church, because these were leading authorities. — Jack Cummins

It was the Church who collated and edited it, and who spread... whatever bits of it they wanted known, however modified. Very successfully. The dominant modern Western ethic is very much founded indebted to the New Testament, in part because it was a revolution within an expansive power, in part because it's been forcefully spread, however un-Christian that was, to most of the planet. That's not to say there's anything original about it, which I think was 180's point maybe.

As such, its ethical character is unavoidable in assessing the Bible, specifically the New Testament, from a philosophical perspective. I think perhaps the most potent feature is the ethics-focussed change in the relationship between people and God: a creator that loves its creation, wants its creation to succeed, forgives it its failures if forgiveness is sought. Theoretically this is a shove from a new metaphysics in the direction of a new ethics, but really it's bending metaphysics to ethical ends: the creator is a father figure, a judgemental but forgiving loved one you'd not want to disappoint, and would want to be forgiven by if you did. But also it moves the role of the judge from God to people: the onus on forgiveness is a call to validate yourself before the final judgement, and most of judgements prioritise social behaviour over divine box-ticking.

I agree that forgiveness was important but I don't think that it was always that simple. For example, I believe learning in history that in the Catholic church there were 'indulgences' in which people were expected to pay for their sins to be forgiven, even though tasks such as building bridges. I also believe that it is likely that the rich and powerful still oppressed the poor. I imagine that behind the scenes of the church and the rhetoric of Christian ethics there was so much oppression. In particular, the Church held onto the wealth and power.

I agree that forgiveness was important but I don't think that it was always that simple. For example, I believe learning in history that in the Catholic church there were 'indulgences' in which people were expected to pay for their sins to be forgiven, even though tasks such as building bridges. I also believe that it is likely that the rich and powerful still oppressed the poor. I imagine that behind the scenes of the church and the rhetoric of Christian ethics there was so much oppression. In particular, the Church held onto the wealth and power. — Jack Cummins

Oh definitely, see: "however un-Christian". I don't like the Church of today either, however "liberal" its worst members think it's becoming. The fairly recent protectionism and enabling of paedophile priests lays to rest any viable claim to moral authority, or even any moral praiseworthiness. Nonetheless, however it did it, for whatever selfish reasons, it did spread a relatively positive moral philosophy: a virtue ethics promoting self-judgement and social values. I'm not sure that forgives the Church anything; I was focusing more on the importance of it rather than whether it should have happened.

The "Christ Cult", canonized and creedally begat down massacred & martyred millennia, is a burned witches' brew of dogmatic

• inherited guilt
• vicarious redemption via (symbolically reenacted) human sacrifice
• self-abnegating masochistic "worship" of misery-torture-execution porn
• "blood libel" anti-semitism
• ritual (symbolic) cannibalism & vampirism
• child abuse by "Vicars of Christ" with threats of "hellfire" for little ones, their pets & parents if they resist ecclesiastical "grooming" for molestation, rape or other forms of sacramental sadism
• missionary demonization of non-christian "heathen savages" ... — 180 Proof

If anything, by this list of particulars, the Christian Bible maldeveloped ethics in Western societies for at least the first millennium of Christendom.

It does seem that there have been dark ages in the past, and it almost makes me feel optimistic about our current times, despite conflicts in the world and the worry about climate change etc.

I think that there is always such a mismatch between ethical ideas and practice. The ethical ideal in Christianity was of 'perfection',especially in the writings of Paul, but living up to the ideals seemed only possible for the saints.

Probably easier for an ordinary person than anyone vested with divine authority, judging by the behaviour of priests. But anyway the question is about philosophical perspectives of the Bible, no? The importance of the Church was merely in spreading a meme. It's not like J-dog promised us a great church on Earth, nor can he be held responsible for the progression of bastards that exploited the religion in his name.

But there is fundamental bad in Christianity as well. Hell being the obvious one.

If anything, by this list of particulars, the Christian Bible maldeveloped ethics in Western societies for at least the first millennium of Christendom. — 180 Proof

Well a lot of that was later. Anti-Semitism was really middle ages to... 20th century by my reckoning.

Yes, we should definitely not overlook the way in Anti-Semitism only last century and we don't know what is in our midst. The central problem is human nature. I think that the problem is not The Bible, or other sacred texts, but how these can be abused, as a way to back up and enforce negative ideologies.

Perhaps it would be good to consider that ethics or morality aren't the most important content of the Bible. For example, Jesus and his contemporary people were well aware that his ethical message was practically already all present in the Old Testament, like the commandment of loving your neighbour. When Jesus tries to explain the originality of his message, he needs to use some absurd, exaggerated images, like, for example, the idea of cutting your hands or taking off your eyes if they make you sin. He was not stupid for sure, so, there must be a reason why he adopted this method. S. Paul as well says that giving all goods to poors is not granted to be love. Something similar can be found in the Old Testament. So, if we concentrate our attention only on external aspects of the religion considered in the Bible, we might risk missing what maybe is the real essential of the Bible and, maybe, even of philosophy.

Since 5th/6th century CE ... "for at least the first millennium of Christendom", and then the rapid emergence of counter / secular discourses on ethics.

In particular, the Church held onto the wealth and power. — Jack Cummins

The Church was what held the faith and society together.

Organized religion may have disadvantages. But what is the alternative? Cultural fragmentation and disintegration followed by takeover by another faith (religious or political).

The more the human population grows, the more there seems to be a need for a belief system to hold society together.

Christianity emerged at a time when there were huge population movements across continents, primarily into Europe, such as Germanic, Slavic, and many other tribes, and the formation of large urban populations.

It is hard to know what would have happened if the Church had not existed. As far as I can see the Church, despite its negative effects, did form the underlying structure for Western civilisation, for better or worse.

John Lennon sang, 'Imagine no religion..' and it is debatable whether the loss of religion leads to cultural fragmentation. As much as thinking about The Bible in the historical context, it is interesting to think what role it will play in the future, and this may depend on what level it is understood and interpreted. I think that one important aspect is the need for demystifying many of the ideas. Perhaps the philosophers can help people understand it better, and try to enable it to be understood in such a way that it is less likely to be used in an oppressive way.

I wish I could find the video but one of the videos I watched it finished putting the last nail in the coffin for my religious beliefs was a video by Manny P hall explaining the history of how the Bible was made and it's interesting to hear an opinion from somebody that died 30 years ago and was born in the 1800 because the gossip of the 50s is a little bit different than the gossip with nowadays and there's definitely information lost any information age when we all went to digital because he touches on some key points that are very hard to confirm yet sound valid

It is hard to know what would have happened if the Church had not existed. As far as I can see the Church, despite its negative effects, did form the underlying structure for Western civilisation, for better or worse. — Jack Cummins

That's a fairly pollyannish view of history, Jack. Without "The Church" Western societies almost certainly would have been more ... civilized. And without Church-sanctioned library burnings, inquisitional censorship & clerical terrorism plunging the Meditteranean Basin countries into "dark ages" lasting several centuries, Western social systems, sciences & technologies would be, more likely than not (ceteris paribus), 500-1,000 years further developed than they actually are now. For all the so-called "good" done in the name of "Christ", I think, none of that compensates for the deluge of atrocities, crimes & ignorance also unleashed in "His" name as a matter of course by Holy Mother Church (& her belated Reformers).

Without "The Church" Western societies almost certainly would have been more ... civilized — 180 Proof

There are no counterfactuals, so this can't be proven, nor can the opposite. But it is a fact that historically, the societies that developed the fastest from a scientific standpoint were either Muslim or Christian.

he touches on some key points that are very hard to confirm yet sound valid — MAYAEL

You have examples?

Yes, but in no way does your truism contest my interpretation of the historically detrimental role "The Church" directly played in hastening, deepening & prolonging the "dark ages".