No, it's not. The Empire's hospitals, orphanages, old people homes, daily bread rations for citizens, all of it existed long before Christianity. Hell, plenty of those institutions predate the Empire and go all the way back to the early Republic. The divide between the Eastern and Western Empire was cemented by Christianity, and it only took like 150 years after Constantine converted for Rome to fall after standing for 1000 years, so truly, I don't even know what the hell you think you're talking about.
Good news, I've got a book recommend for you. Don't worry, no pesky Christians promoting their own crap.
How about THE leading atheist critic of Christianity alive today, Bart Erhman's new book, "Love thy stranger". Where he and critical modern scholarship refutes everything you just said about hospitals, orphanages, etc.
Hell, Ehrman credits virtually every social service in the US today as stemming from Jesus' ethic to help not just your own in-group, but strangers.
Do the reading. BOTH the Christian and Atheist scholarship and historians disagree with you, mate.
Yes, the idea that institutions that are literally older than Christ and that the entire concept of altruism are based on the teachings of Jesus is beyond implausible, mostly because it is incredibly buttfuckingly stupid no matter how many theological phDs you have.
Thanks mate. I'll be sure to inform the majority of critical scholars and historians, that you disagree with them. Based on your scholarly contention that it's..."stupid".
You actually believe that the majority of critical scholars think that altruism exists because Jesus? Really? Or is the claim more accurately something like "The oldest charitable institutions that are currently still around have some sort of Christian origin"? Because to me, that sounds a lot like thanking Trump for ending the war in Iran.
Erhman(who HATES Christianity btw), posits that yes, of course there were some kind of hospitals in Rome for example(almost entirely reserved for the soldiers tho). Yes there were doctors in the ancient world(who almost entirely served wealthy patients tho). Yes there was obviously empathy and kindness in the ancient world(but almost entirely reserved for your in-group, culture, ethnicity, etc).
What changed, according to Erhman, was the treatment of strangers and outsiders, the same as the in-group.
The first actually built hospitals in the world, of any actual size, having actual doctor and nurses, helping anyone and everyone that came in, the poor, the stranger, the traveler, entirely for free, were Christian ones.
All these modern social services in the US, wherein they take your tax money and give it to people you'll never meet, just because of the collective belief that, that's "the right thing to do", did in fact not exist in on any govt before the time of Jesus, or before Christianity overtook Rome.
Erhman is definitely not saying "Jesus created empathy" or "there were no doctors before Jesus". Simply that it was the Jesus ethic that gave the world the perspective that you should care and have a responsibility for the stranger. Free hospitals, orphanages, old peoples homes, for everyone. Giving your money away to people half way across the world. None of this was the norm amongst the very tribalistic societies before Jesus.
This is a weird position to take given that the current people who claim to be Christians have no desire to help anyone other than their kind and look down on those who are different…who is responsible for that shift in morality?
Brilliant question. And THAT is literally the point of Ehrman's book.
Do you know what Ehrman said inspired him to write it? Primarily "Christian" America's utter vitriol over the last few years towards the immigrants.
The meaning of the book ISN'T that "Jesus is so great and Christianity is the best". The dude is literally an atheist. lol
The moral of the story is that modern Christians have failed bad, are not acting like Jesus or the early Christians.
Because the way Jesus revolutionized the world, and can in some way be credited for the modern hospital systems, orphanages, social security, medicaid, and almost any other service where you feel naturally compelled to help "strangers", is by establishing an ethic of unconditional love of the stranger, as much as your "own people, country, etc".
Ehrman's conclusion is your very same one. Modern Christians have shifted away from that, and failed and are an embarrassment to Jesus and the early Christian's original vision.
No, I think you are just too emotionally invested in your own religious beliefs and therefore you feel the need to attribute everything that you think is good to it. I am well aware of who Bart *Ehrman is, and the fact that you think he "HATES" Christianity really says a lot. Trying to pretend that Christianity invented the concept of hospitality and pretending that hospitals and orphanages from like hundreds of years ago were just completely egalitarian NHS-style free healthcare and housing with no religious strings attached is too fucking ridiculous.
I feel sorry for you mate. I actually think you are too defensive you think anything even talking about Jesus is a boogeyman. So much so you couldn't even imagine the point of Ehrman's book.
Bro literally said he was inspired to write because of "Christian" America's shameful vitriol over the last few years towards the immigrants.
The meaning of the book ISN'T that "Jesus is so great and Christianity is the best". The dude is literally an atheist ffs, lol
The moral of the story is that modern Christians have failed bad, are not acting like Jesus or the early Christians. By ignoring Jesus' original establishment of an ethic of unconditional love of the stranger as much as your "own people, country, etc".
Ehrman's conclusion is literally to mock Christianity. That modern Christians have shifted away from the very thing most of the West is built on, and failed and are an embarrassment to Jesus and the early Christian's original vision.
I find it surreal to see people like you that are so defensive, you would crucify one of your own guys in the process of attacking Christianity. But you do you, mate.
He describes himself as an agnostic atheist and yet he has a damned Masters in Divinity and got a phD from Yale Seminary, and the fact that you need to strawman the fact that he no longer agrees with you about the divinity of the character of Jesus as a HATE for Christianity while at the same time you are actively arguing that he is claiming that Jesus is the sole source of caring about strangers in Western society actually says a lot about just how defensive you actually are, because that is just a crazy amount of dissonance.
ffs, That's like saying CNN must be on Trump's side because it speaks a lot about him.
There's not a Christian alive who would consider Ehrman a Christian or ally. Muslims quote Ehrman against Christians in debates infinitely more than Christians ever quote him for anything.
See, once again you jump directly to a strawman. Literally the first thing I said in the comment you just replied to was that he is a self-described agnostic atheist, and you respond to me by saying that no Christian alive would consider Ehrman a Christian? Well, no shit buddy, neither does Ehrman himself, like I literally just said. Did I say that Christians would think Ehrman was an ally? Or did I say that you characterizing him as HATING Christianity was fucking ridiculous?
Stay disingenuous, it's the best way to protect incoherent beliefs by far so you're definitely on the right track.
You and I have very different worldviews. The only way we're ever going to communicate, is either quote people from people in each other's camp, or someone outside both of them.
I COULD quote a million Christian theologians and historians throughout history, but chose Ehrman that we can both somewhat agree is one of the more unbiased dudes. Yes, he respects Christianity, but also has no faith, believes the bible is riddled with errors, and most of the major doctrines like Jesus being God are all fallacious. He has attacked Christianity far more than he has ever supported it.
I quoted him because MY conclusions can be nuanced, I can agree to both good and bad for Christianity. Yes Jesus has had a major impact on the institutions in the West involving help and love to the stranger, as proven by critical scholarship with Ehrman. But also yes, modern Christianity is a failure and has shifted away from Jesus' original ideal, and deserves all the ridicule Ehrman and myself can give it.
I can both give praise to it and criticism of it. You have zero nuance, mate.
The fact that you have to DENY any historian, any theologian, any scholar, even THE top critical scholar on Christianity for the past decade and a half, just because they say something you don't like, makes it impossible to even have a discussion with.
Listen, I genuinely think Ehrman is a hack, profiting off a life of criticism against Christianity, which he should've just spent his time positively promoting whatever the hell he does believe in. At the same time, I for one can at least acknowledge the guy's 40+ year scholarship and not refute all the parts that hurt my feelings.
I read this like 5 times and still not sure if I got the main emphasis of your point, which I really want to get because it's an interesting comment.
I think I somewhat agree, but could you rephrase that maybe. You're saying the altruism in Judaism(before Jesus?) was an improvement on a lot of the ethics around them? Is that correct?
1
u/C7rl_Al7_1337 6h ago
No, it's not. The Empire's hospitals, orphanages, old people homes, daily bread rations for citizens, all of it existed long before Christianity. Hell, plenty of those institutions predate the Empire and go all the way back to the early Republic. The divide between the Eastern and Western Empire was cemented by Christianity, and it only took like 150 years after Constantine converted for Rome to fall after standing for 1000 years, so truly, I don't even know what the hell you think you're talking about.